Your News source: Spins, Slants or STRAIGHT OUT LIES!!!

Originally posted by METACOMET
No state-run media outlet is going to report the facts about the government that funds them. Ever listen to NPR? It's all bias and fluff. As for FOX, CNN, ABC etc... They also have their agenda. They just take stories from the AP and Reuters and spin it. The era of the reporter is over. All media is now is a positive feedback loop and people pick their outlet based on what they want to hear.

Spot on.

This is exactly the point I've been trying to make but many refuse to listen.

I've spent the last couple of days watching RT and CCTV (stands for "ChiCom TV", as nearly as I can tell) and fielding a pretty heavy dose of propaganda.

It's amusing, if you know what to watch for - and it's pretty damned obvious in both of those!

Pop some popcorn and flip 'em on - you'll be glad you did. Hour after hour of entertainment gold. CCTV in particular has been going off spinning against the US and the Phillipines, and in FAVOR of China and North Korea. The slant is so obvious that I don't know how my house is still upright.

These sources are the ones that some cite as "unbiased"? I've not seen an "unbiased" news source since some time in the seventies, and there was even bias there... just not as much..

I honestly believe that the old Soviet TACC "news" agency wasn't as biased as RT is today.

reply to post by nenothtu


I liked PRAVDA [The official communist party mouthpiece] the best. As slanted as PRAVDA was At least back then you knew exactly what their BS agenda was and that was to simply get their communist view across.


ETA: I hear PRAVDA is now a tabloid.

Seems fitting

reply to post by SLAYER69


B-B-B-But that doesn't mean Megyn Kelly, does it?
*sobs*

Seriously though, news has been slated since a rainstorm was reported by Noah. Anyone who doesn't think tht it's biased, just look at ATS.

Most reports slamming conservatives come from liberal sources.

Most reports slamming liberals come from conservative sources.

QED
And S&F

I agree with you and I would add that most story slant is more about marketing to their viewers or readers. I would add that like you said that all news slants is not intentional yet sometimes it is depending not he source and their intent. Today I wonder how many reporters really investigate the stories they really write or do they just go with the one or two partisan sources they have. I suspect it is the latter since time is money and money is time in any news business especially since the Internet can broadcast stories in minutes not days or hours that the dinosaur media dealt with.

When working for our small town newspaper I had to laugh at one reporter who blindly wrote the unemployment story month after month never questioning the numbers but I would ask Ken if he believed the data and his response was no. Yet he kept writing the propaganda as it was truth.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Pravda ("The Truth" ) used to put out an English language edition that I read from time to time, and yes, it was comedy GOLD too!

"... and in other news tonight, the imperialist captalistic running dogs of the US have ..." gee, who couldn't see the slant THERE?

It may sound odd, but I STILL see phrases used at ATS in some conversations that hark back to those halcyon days of the Cold War, when propaganda was so obvious and regular that you could set your watch by it. I love those posts, because they are so easy to deconstruct by applying just the slightest bit of logic an stopping the spinning....

The centripedal force of the spin is the only thing that keeps them upright, much like a gyroscope! Also in common with gyroscopes, all too many people use them as guidance systems...

The purpose of these articles and threads is to demonize mainstream journalistic work to ultimately replace it with kook-world infotainment on "conspiracies" and flying saucers.

reply to post by PowerfulPropaganda


This is a conspiracy-theory/alternative subject website and discussion forum.

Why on earth would you think the serious posters here would have any reason to trust mainstream media sources?

Journalism is dead... it has been replaced by idealism and activism in the guise of 'seeking the truth.' Sadly for them, not everyone believes everything at face value.

reply to post by PowerfulPropaganda


I don't consider discussing the topic in a fair, open and balanced manner

Demonizing

But, you can go on your happy way thinking so..........

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns


I know a couple of reporters

One is retired and will tell you he got out when it all started going south and the other just shrugs his shoulders and states simply it's a job....

Passion for the truth?
I'm sure many do still feel that way but what happens when their stories are rejected or altered by the Media bosses? [For whatever reason most likely a conflict of interest]

Originally posted by PowerfulPropaganda
The purpose of these articles and threads is to demonize mainstream journalistic work to ultimately replace it with kook-world infotainment on "conspiracies" and flying saucers.

So you don't think News outlets like RT plays to the conspiracies on flying saucers eh?


Here is some Great reporting...

Originally posted by Dreine

This is a conspiracy-theory/alternative subject website and discussion forum.

Its no surprise then that an "alternative" source would make a "mainstream" source look bad, is it?

Fact is, 99.9% of what is posted here is plain wrong compared to mainstream journalism.

Here's why:

Journalists cant hide behind anonymous monikers

Journalists works are checked and double checked by peers

Journalists works follow guidelines of integrity

Why on earth would you think the serious posters here would have any reason to trust mainstream media sources?

They should instead trust kookville?

Journalism is dead...

Speak for yourself.

reply to post by PowerfulPropaganda


Journalistic integrity? Did you read the OP showcasing a number of blatantly false or altered case of 'journalism'?

And you are correct that a lot of what is said and posted here is incorrect, but I challenge you to back up your claim of 99.9% with some of that journalistic integrity.

It is easy to call someone crazy, but it is far more difficult to try to see things from their perspective. I suggest trying it sometime.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns

 

I know a couple of reporters

One is retired and will tell you he got out when it all started going south and the other just shrugs his shoulders and states simply it's a job....

Passion for the truth?
I'm sure many do still feel that way but what happens when their stories are rejected or altered by the Media bosses? [For whatever reason most likely a conflict of interest]

edit on 6-6-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

We go Internet and when someone picks it up the local press will look... "uh stupid"

I am working on a story right now. I am in the process of doing an FOIA for the base data used to do our local real estate tax re-assessment. I have found they are using commercial properties as a basis to re-assess the value of residential properties but neither of the local papers (Franklin News Post and Roanoke Times) want to deal with that hot potato!

Originally posted by PowerfulPropaganda

Fact is, 99.9% of what is posted here is plain wrong compared to mainstream journalism.

The vast majority of threads I'm talking about have posted and argued over news, articles and commentaries from mainstream media.

News sources are only good for one thing. That is to see what they are going to push on you. If they talk about it its going to happen. They use it as a marketing tool to get you to buy into their idea.

Example tactics :
1. They start talking about possible bailouts. (Prior to this point they already decided to do the bailouts)
2. They show opposing views from both parties on different news sources.
3. They start to rationalize it from both sides.
4. They start to tell you that its likely that a bailout is required in order to avoid doom and gloom.
5. Bailout occurs.

Simple manipulation tactics.

Originally posted by Dreine
Journalistic integrity? Did you read the OP showcasing a number of blatantly false or altered case of 'journalism'?

Since when does citing a few gaffes mean that journalism is dead and kookville is now its replacement? I`ll put my money on proper journalism any day before putting it on a thread about gaddafi still being alive and well although the illuminati-reptilians wanted to kill him.

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns


If you're a journalist/reporter with a passion for the truth then by all means you have my support. What I was focusing on is whether or not all News Sources have none of the originally mentioned afflictions.

They all do to certain extents in my not so humble opinion

reply to post by PowerfulPropaganda


I'll give you that one about Ghadafi... pretty far out there.

This entire site is not kookville. Granted, it does have some pretty 'out-there' topics, as I'm sure you've probably seen by now. But it also contains many well thought out and argued topics generated by mainstream media releases.

And I do believe that journalism... the true idea of what it is... is practically dead. You do have the rare reporter these days that will attempt to honor the craft as best they can and convey the true facts, but they are extremely rare these days.

If you are one of those journalists, I commend you.

Originally posted by PowerfulPropaganda


Fact is, 99.9% of what is posted here is plain wrong compared to mainstream journalism.

Fact, 83% of all statistical data found on the internet is made up.