My Name Is Ben Swann and I left Fox 19 to Bring Truth To Media, Ask Me Anything

reply to post by TiM3LoRd


the goal of what we are doing right now is to be a bridge between mainstream media and alternative media. the strategy is to awaken people to some of these ideas but not to be a final source of information... in many cases we will be the beginning.

reply to post by BenSwann


That was beautifully stated. Thank you for being here.

reply to post by whatsecret


As a journalist I try not to "feel" strongly about these issues other than to be critical of whatever I have been told. I believe that as a journalist I have an obligation to question any official narrative, especially when there are holes

reply to post by dovdov


Mac asked about 7 questions in the same post on various subjects(Nibiru? Redflag,cmon!) and some of which had already been answered.

I read your question, I'm really not sure how anyone could answer that without owning a crystal ball.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


not intentionally skipped. I actually have been looking into CAFR for some time. It is a fascinating story and a complicated one. I hope to cover it soon. Part of the challenge of this is to explain it in a way that the public can understand. but yes, working on it

reply to post by masqua


Keystone is an issue that is highly politicized. The biggest problem with this pipeline is that it will do virtually nothing for gas prices. We heard a lot about it during the Presidential election because of the claim that it would lower the cost of gasoline but that is not true. As long as that gasoline is sold to china and india, he prices here would not be affected.

reply to post by UnmitigatedDisaster


great question. I think part of the problem is the rush to "be the first" to report something. You are correct about the lack of due diligence. On the other hand... in many cases I believe that "bits" of information released at different times can be helpful. for instance, in May al Nusra Front is caught with 2kgs of sarin gas from Turkish officials... that bit of information can be made public without full understanding of the implications of al Nusra having sarin. Later, that piece of information can help to create a larger picture of what is happening in Syria. the key is to being right about the bit of information released.

reply to post by Glassbender777


I would say... keep doing what you are doing. Look at Syria. Alternative media changed the game, social networking has changed them game. Let the MSM keep doing what they are doing and before long they will be history

reply to post by BenSwann


Thank you for the reply, and I am glad to hear you are working on it. I hope it comes out soon as your other work has been excellent and I do believe that under your brand and popularity it would shake the foundations of America and I am not being melodramatic.

Who knows, maybe it will be an honest journalist who will be remembered as the next Paul Revere. I wish you well.

BenSwann
reply to post by UnmitigatedDisaster

 

..the key is to being right about the bit of information released.

Thank you for your reply, I think that really solidifies it for me now. Being right about what you do release, large or small, is what's critical.

Thanks again for joining us and taking the time to answer my question!

Ben - we'd love to interview you on the ATS Live! Radio show if you're up for it?

Drop me a message if you are interested

reply to post by BenSwann


I totally agree but the immense power wielded by high power lobbyist and special interest groups has left the American public in the dust. Even candidates for office who are determined to change things for the better are but when they get elected it's like they get sucked into a vortex of greed and money and then nothing changes.

reply to post by Freenrgy2


Certainly we have an electoral process that is unfair and difficult to overcome thanks to collusion between media and political parties. the American public as a whole have no idea how little say they actually have in the process and how few ideas are actually presented in the public square.

reply to post by whatsecret


he does believe it was some kind of blast. he doesn't have evidence of how it happened but he does believe that blast took place. Oral histories from firefighters do indicate that as well.

reply to post by jedi_hamster


that is a very tough question. I would say that one of the most interesting stories I covered (somewhat tongue and cheek) was a UFO story while still in El Paso. In fact, I tracked it down JUST for ATS!

Enjoy

reply to post by BenSwann


I'll post my question one more time. Here is the link to my question, and I hope you'll have time to answer it. I don't need a long drawn out answer, just a confirmation or denial or something saying that you know or don't know. If you have the time, I'd very much appreciate it.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


It sounds like you might be referring to Council on Foreign Relations? There are certainly CFR members who have been in high ranking and influential places in media for many decades. I do believe that at the top, there is an attitude of control over what kinds of stories are "legitimate" and what stories are not.

Hi Ben!

Thank you for a great look into the media and how it works and what you have been working on and doing, I found this thread to be very interesting!

I have one question, and it might be an odd one, but coming from me, that is the norm.

Have you ever had a paranormal experience?

reply to post by BenSwann


Thanks for being a real journalist. There's not near enough people doing what you do IMO. It's been great reading your replies here, so thanks again for taking the time to do this.

Cool UFO video. Hadn't seen that one. Good video on rethinking 9/11 also. If only other journalists would think for themselves and do what they are supposed to be doing, we might actually have a debate on 9/11 but sadly I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

BenSwann
reply to post by Freenrgy2

 

Certainly we have an electoral process that is unfair and difficult to overcome thanks to collusion between media and political parties. the American public as a whole have no idea how little say they actually have in the process and how few ideas are actually presented in the public square.

Absolutely agree with this sentiment as what seems to be presented in most news venues are the subjective, belief based topics as opposed to the more complex issues and legislation actually moving through Congress. At least that's what I see tending to get funneled and regurgitated out a whole lot. Do you think that settling on reporting what would equate to being gaffes by the opposing political parties and a reliance on those belief based subjects (abortion, now defunct gay marriage, and etc) is intentional as a means of distraction or are these subjects focused on because they are what viewers are more likely to be drawn to (increased viewership)?

Thanks.