Foreign influences on the American election...onATS

Hey guys,

First, I'm sorry if I sounded too harsh before. I did not mean to sound like I didn't care about the opinions of people throughout the world. I do care about them... and, as we all know, many of the issues that are presented on ATS have meaning for people across the globe.

I also did not intend to come across as someone who assumes that everyone who writes or communicates on the internet should, automatically, accept the 'american' viewpoint or be an american.

What i did mean to say was the following... and, please, pardon the flaws of my initial post...

In the United States we are dealing with the effect that shadowy groups called "527" groups under current US tax codes have on the american political process. These are private factions that often choose to attack political candidates... though... because they are not officially attached to any one politica party... they cannot be held accountable for their statements and attacks during a race. They are essentially nameless attackers who bury policy questions beneath loads of negative assertions that have only minimal support. Think of them as unsigned, threatening letters if you will.


Ok... so... now that international folks know what 527s are... When I log onto ATS I see thread after thread that essentially acts the same way... all being posted at the same time that ATS is trying to gain credibility with its "ATSNN" division. To be frank... the 'attack' aspect of online posting is self-evident... but I just felt obliged to point out that many 'attackers' on ATS were speaking with little or no real experience of the US. I was seeing posts that talked about how "bad" things were... from people I know have almost no current knowledge of the US political situation.

Now... all of this would still be fine if people actually used their own names on ATS. However... such comments have been made anonymously on the election2004 and ATSNN parts of this site. Now, I ask you, are anonymous, partisan statements to be confused with journalism? What if newspapers just printed articles from anonymous readers that attacked individuals?

And, as I was trying to get to before... what if those articles were written overseas? Yes, everyone has a right to an opinion... but how ould american readers feel if the New York Times printed a story by an anonymous, foreign, writer that decried an internal, domestic activity either before or as it was happening?

I ask this because I have simply seen too many headlines that run with titles like "Bush speeech seen as failure" that are written by foreign writers BEFORE the speech -- or action -- in question even occurs. I mean, at the risk of sounding like McCarthy, it is pretty clear that many of the stories ATS runs as legitimate News stories are both biased and from sources that have an agenda. These stories -- or the way they are written, at least -- can affect the American electorate. It is therefore the duty of ATS to state that such stories are 'op/ed' pieces... and that they are written by foreign sources.

I mean, really... if ATSNN or ATS Election 2004 want to be considered legitimate news sources... they must state who the authors of their articles are. That is a basic rule of journalism. Otherwise.... there is no way for the reader to know if they are just reading propaganda or attacks scripted by factions that have a specific agenda within the american political system. Under the current system... a North Korean agent could write a lot of junk on ATS that is designed to undermine the US... and we will have had no way to look into their motives.

I hope that I have made myself clear this time. I'm sorry if I sounded nationalistic before. My point is that people who want to write news stories about the US elections should not be phantom posters without any background that can be checked. That opens the gates for raw and unhindered deception.

Yes... everyone has the right to say what they want... but, as a matter of integrity, they should state who they 'are' when writing in one of the news threads (for instance, I would be happy to see an Election 2004 Thread that included a statement like "I am a North Korean who has never been to America... but..."

[edit on 2-9-2004 by onlyinmydreams]

[edit on 2-9-2004 by onlyinmydreams]

Seeing you have "The Belgian Triangle" as your avatar, I had a good idea you aren't against the rest of the world :p

I think the international policy of Bush and his party give people from other countries every right to form a solid opinion on him, and on why he should not be re-chosen.

If this election was just about the future of America, I would understand your point, but (unfortunately) it's about the future of the entire world, and so the entire world has the right to participate in the dicussion.

This is of course besides the fact that ATS is a worldwide community, and not just about America and Americans.

Originally posted by cargo
You would have no interest in my countries politics or elections. We are insignificant. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that there are more non-Americans with knowledge about the US than there are American's who have knowledge about the rest of the world.

Statements like this, and you see them routinely, are absurd. What does the average person of Australia or Britan, or anywhere else for that matter know of the internal politics of Gabon, or Djibouti, or Kazahkstan? Probably very little to nothing. That doesn't make that person stupid or arrogant for not knowing, it just isn't real important. I'm sure to most people these countries are "insignificant". We know about the countries that we deal with closely. Russia, The UK, Israel, China, North Korea. A lot of us have at least a passive knowledge of their leaders and policies. But you know what we don't do? Go to websites during British elections and bash Tony Blair. And he deserves it almost as much as Bush.

America is but one nation, the world is composed of a couple hundred. Is it kind of easy to say to say that Americans don't know much about the world, as compared to a person's singular knowledge of America? We're high profile, people take notice.

I find it arrogant for people to say that American's don't know much about the world, and they do. What's this based on? Opinion? Is there some test that can tell this? Propaganda works both ways people, your media outlets aren't the unbiased outlets of goodness that it seems like they're percieved to be.

And Cargo, this isn't as much a response to you as it is a blanket observation.

Edit: Grammar

[edit on (9/2/0404 by PistolPete]

[edit on (9/2/0404 by PistolPete]