It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Perfectenemy
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Sublimecraft
It is easy to see this stuff when you know the tactics. I barely watch Fox News and I've seen it and even suspected it before I read this article. It's very in your face on Fox.
So when you watched CNN it wasn't in your face? Clarke vs Lemon comes to mind. This makes no sense.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t
So, basically, everything that anyone paying attention already knows?
The same thing goes for all of the 24-hour news channels, just the roles are reversed to varying degrees. This is the sh*t show that is 24-hour news. Anyone still kidding themselves that these are all journalists doing journalist things are willfully ignorant, IMO.
I have not had a 24-hour news channel cross any of my screens willingly in probably 4 years at this point, and I'm a better man for it.
originally posted by: Perfectenemy
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I provided the Project Veritas video and you dismissed it because for some odd reason you don't want to accept it as proof. It's your problem not mine. A taped conversation counts as on the record btw or do you seriously want to discuss semantics next?
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: redhorse
Yeah. It's scary in its application.
originally posted by: Perfectenemy
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Here you go again.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: Perfectenemy
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I provided the Project Veritas video and you dismissed it because for some odd reason you don't want to accept it as proof. It's your problem not mine. A taped conversation counts as on the record btw or do you seriously want to discuss semantics next?
That taped conversation isn't admitting to fake news though. It's a guy saying that there is a lot of bs out there and they don't know what is really true or not. Sure you can TAKE it to mean what you think it means, but that requires a few assumptions and leaps in logic. It certainly isn't admitting to doing the same tactics that Fox News is accused of doing in the OP article though.
originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Krazysh0t
To me it's obvious so I don't really go looking for proof ya know?
originally posted by: Perfectenemy
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Strange i'm convinced you don't know what that means either.
If you say something on the record, you state it publicly:
None of the company directors were prepared to comment on the record yesterday.
originally posted by: Perfectenemy
a reply to: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t
In a post in another thread, someone basically said that (in reference to Rachel Maddow) one should look past the snarkiness and sarcasm and only look at the facts that she proposes. Should we not do the same thing in all situations? Either that, or just ignore the news outlets like FoxNews or MSNBC altogether, as they really don't matter when it come to relaying factual information in an easy-to-digest pill.
I guess that Trump's affection toward FoxNews is expected--he's a (sort of) Republican, and FoxNews is the only known major news outlet to cater to the right's point of view on topics. But I disregard this and try to just look for the facts.
But I understand your concern and application of the guilt-by-association approach. I hated how much of a media darling Obama allowed himself to be, to the point of obvious collusion on many topics and events that went down during his presidency. I don't like it when ANY politician is in bed with the media--IMO, the media should generally have a distrust in politicians, including the president. But that healthy--key word being "healthy"--skepticism is long gone. I loathe that reality, but I have decided that it is the reality and that there's nothing I can do to change it, so I must ignore the stupidity that surrounds it instead.