The intelligent people will actually go to those sites and try to learn something. The rest will say "Ah whatever, that's a bunch of kooky conspiracy bullshit" and go turn on CNN.

lol. I even read that in his voice.

huh? As far as I know, Geraldo was a vietnam war protester.

Why do you have Noam Chomsky in your avatar? Because you like him or because you dislike him? If you like him you should listen to what he has to say.



It's a fact: they hate us because we have been occupying their countries for years, not because "we're free." lol

Didn't Bin Laden himself say that thru either a press release or video statement a few days before the 2004 elections? Something like "If I hated freedom I would have attacked Sweden."

He has said a lot of things, like this:

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons."

In a 1997 CNN interview, bin Laden called the U.S. military presence an "occupation of the land of the holy places."

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-16/u...-omar?_s=PM:US

"I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the [U.S. Government] system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom. This system is totally in control of the American-Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is clear that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the U.S. is not uttering a single word."

The 5 Dancing Israeli's on 9/11:

Your own Vice President admits that he is a Zionist, and believe me, he ain't the only one!! lol

This just goes to show that any thread on GFY, no matter how well intentioned, will always veer off into outright insanity by the second page. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Auntie Beeb used to be good but it got a noticable left-wing bias now. Their London news is dreadful now. A shame as it used to have a world wide reputation.

Yea you put smiley faces and talk shit but offer nothing of substance. Which part is insane, exactly?

Did you even watch the video about the 5 dancing Israeli's on 9/11?

Did you even know 5 Israeli's were arrested on 9/11 for having vans filled with explosives?

No, you probably didn't, because our media is controlled... which is what this thread is about.

Oh man

Absolutely no bias at any of these. :1orglaugh

The press turned away from so much stuff. Think Kennedy vs Clinton, Marilyn vs Monica. Hell, Kennedy had secret tunnels. Obama would have no such luck.

The press was a lot more muzzled/considerate than today.

What about when Obama and Hillary went to Bilderberg in 2008 in Chantilly, Virginia?

Total media blackout on that.

Wasn't my intention. I thought we could agree on something w/out the reply being nutbaggery.

:1orglaugh

Why are you laughing? Because you think it's crazy and not true? Or because Robert Gibbs is a douchebag? lol

None of them are even close. You need to include all of them, and you're wrong if you think you can "spot the bias". Bias can be easily pushed by simply ignoring stories that don't fit the agenda of whatever outlet you are monitoring. That's why you should watch EVERY type of source. INCLUDING Fox news, and MSNBC, or al jazreera and the Jerusalem post, etc,etc,etc... Whether you like, or agree with, the bias of a source, you are foolish to underestimate the bias of the sources that you DO like.

BTW, this has never been any different. Long before Hearst and yellow journalism, news is reported by people, and people always have a bias. We are just lucky now to have access to so many diverse agendas, if we choose to truly take advantage of them.




.

These "people" you speak of are usually nothing more than puppets who say what they're told.

While this is sort of a trivial example, it's still an example:

(skip to 1:20)

Reuters is pretty neutral
http://www.reuters.com/

intelligence services run media campains and control/create social media phenomena. they do do have informants everywhere. some critical websites/blogs are surely created by intelligence sources to spread disinformation and to create confusion.

None of the above. What's so weird/nefarious/horrible about people in positions of power looking for ways to improve the world? There's probably as much political and economic clout at any dinner Bill Gates holds at his house. What, powerful people might be hypocrites in private to others? What a shocker. What makes you think the meeting is so sinister? There are a bunch of these going on every year with people of similar stature and a lot are way more scary than the mixed bag of people who attend the Bilderberg meetings once a year who all come from different places with different motivations.

OMG Conan is a reptilian from Middle Earth. It all makes sense now.

It's a violation of the Logan Act for our government officials to meet secretly behind closed doors with government officials from other countries. That's what's so weird/nefarious/horrible about it.

Not to mention they are planning eugenics and a dictatorial world government at Bilderberg.

What are you talking about?

Did you even watch the video? Why are you talking about reptilians?

The point of the video is that news agencies are all fed the same script to read.

You are correct about bias existing in the selection of...or the ignoring of stories. One can also spot bias by the adjectives used when presenting a story. I spend a lot of my time tuned into C-Span...because when it comes to a lot of the mainstream political stories one can see and hear the "words come from the horses mouth"...without later reading or listening to the biased slant put out by the mainstream media.

Sometimes when the mainstream puts their spin on events or what was actually said by someone...has little resemblance to the actual truth of the event or to what was actually said by someone.

C-Span...in the mornings also has a period when they read the headlines from a variety of papers across the nation (and this is a mix and not always the same papers) which one can get a feel for the different presentations/slant on a story...as well as a call in period...where one can get a feel for the thinking of ordinary people. They also have a period for guests...politicians...experts etc. that discuss different events in the U.S and the world.

The C-Span moderators...seldom interrupt or inject their own opinions. It is about unbiased as one is going to get.

Easy. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

lol it is very anti American.. While they often give a interesting view it's very obvious they are more sided to the Russia when it comes to views on US related news. They are obviously pushing their pro Russia gvt anti American govt tone..

I mean a simple look at their front page news generally depicts mostly anti America reporting.

Everything on their front page in regards in the US section today, is anti-establishment toward the US govt..I'll give you a quick sample of the current headlines they have listed..

1) Google preaches Congress on Wikileaks-style embargo for the Web

2) Yuan to replace dollar in 10 years
3) CIA keeps manuscript away from its own author
4) Naomi Wolf fights fellow feminists over Assange

If you notice there is a trend going with their reporting on the US.. They selectively pick doom & gloom type reporting when it revolves around the US. ie.. showing big bad over powering CIA or Google talking about freedom of speech with Congress as well as pro wki-leaks stuff which is all for the most part very anti establishment..

Now there is nothing wrong with any of those articles on their own, but it's an obvious editors choice to push the anti US tone with the whole of their reporting.

Meanwhile when you look at the News they report for Russian Politics it's totally different tone. Lets see if you can figure it out.. :winkwink:


1) One small step for Russia, one giant leap for Eurasian Union
2) Early voting begins in remote Russian regions
3) Anti-drug Tsar demands digital warfare

I mean really You don't see any bias in their general reporting styles? It's all happy gogo in regards with their reporting on Russian politics and doom & gloom when it revolves around the US.

So while it's a interesting site to get a different view it's very far from being unbiased. I read it from time to time and I see the same kind of reporting trends on a very regular basis.

It's just like the differences of say Fox News & say CNN.. Each tends to favor news from their own so called side.

Another quick tidbit about the obvious differences in US vs Russian reporting on their site.

Check out the headlines for the military reporting and the differences between what they say..

http://rt.com/news/pentagon-new-bomb-681/

Look at this articles and then the ones one the right side..

If it's about the US.. it's about killing and attacks.. If it's about Russia it's defense and testing.

US

1)Hypersonic weapon: New US bomb kills long before you hear it
2)'Shocking' US military spending since 9/11
3)Pentagon could bomb enemy hackers

Meanwhile with Russians

1)Fly-by-photo’ Iskander missile test-fired
2)Russia’s Su-30MK maker boasts order portfolio for 300 fighters
3)In nod to European missile defense, Russia rolls out Iskander missiles

I mean really no bias there?

Those examples you gave aren't exactly a great illustration of RT being "anti-american." They are simply reporting on important issues. You call it "doom & gloom" while others simply call it "the truth."

Yet Fox News can report the truth yet still be overwhellinly in support of the right wing in their overal reporting trends.. CNN can do the same while being more to the left.

As which RT does it and is obviously pro Russian anti American establishment. Look at what I added to the bottom with my edit and the examples of their differences in military reporting.


If it's to do with the US it's about attacking, killing or build up of power. If it's about Russia's military it's about defense, business (ie growing economy) and testing new technology.

I mean a clear example in the difference is the article about the Russian missile that is guided by photo.. (something Us has had for years btw)

In regards to that missile their article title is about "testing" technology and defending against military build up in Europe.

Meanwhile when it comes to a new US missile the article headline is about "killing before you hear it". Another was titled the Pentagon can blow up hackers houses.. While the articles also cover the technology they also push the idea of US build up to attack.

I mean these are just single articles, but it's easy to see a general overall tone of the message when you look at the site as a whole.. Fox does, it, CNN does it Aljazeera does it.. every news source does it, so I'm not just singling out RT I'm just saying they are very far from being unbiased.

It just annoys me when people claim sites like Rt or aljazeera aren't bias because the message isn't the same as say CNN or Fox news. All of them are pushing their own agenda.

The agenda normally revolves around what their viewers "want" to hear. People aren't going to watch or read a news source that tells them what they don't want to hear so news is always bias for the audience they are catering to.

I'd love to see a credible source on what they are talking about behind the closed doors and specifically about eugenics and a 'dictatorial world'.

:thumbsup

I'd include Colbert, but facts have a well known liberal bias.

You are joking on the left wing bias? They didnt even report the NHS privatisation they just kept running stories about how awfull the NHS is and how much better it would be if private companies ran it.

Of course anything that supports your preferred narrative is "truth" and anything that does not is "propaganda".

BBC have been a government mouthpiece lately.... I still watch it though... but also watch RT. It's interesting seeing some of the stories that make it on RT that they don't even get a mention on UK TV even when it's big news.

yeah except for the fact that every one of those websites uses as source material news stories taken from mainstream media outlets. weird huh?

I agree. Unfortunately most people don't seek out alternative news sources, so they limit themselves to a very narrow band of highly controlled information/propaganda.


Some of my favorite alternative news sources..

http://www.activistpost.com
http://www.presscore.ca
http://www.globalresearch.ca
http://www.veteranstoday.com
http://www.infowars.com
http://www.canadianawareness.org
http://www.naturalnews.com
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
http://www.wnd.com
http://www.rt.com
http://www.tarpley.net
http://www.lewrockwell.com
http://www.theintelhub.com
http://www.maxkeiser.com
http://www.zerohedge.com

As do people just shooting the shit around the water cooler. There is no such thing as unbiased human communication.

I want unbiased, I'll talk to one of my dogs.

use "news sources" lightly as none of these do the original journalistic fact finding just take mainstream media stories and put a crackpot spin on them.

Npr
pbs

Could it be that they've brainwashed the masses so fully that if "they" (the mainstream media) didn't say it, or if the news comes from somewhere else, that it's just not "real" or credible?

Could it be that if the alternative news sources are pointing to the fact that the mainstream media is also saying the exact same thing, that it might just snap people out of their corporate media induced trance? I dunno..

now that is an acrobat explanation that would make gideon gallery proud.

No, not at all. No fact finding at those news sources. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

You kill me. ..Take www.tarpley.net for instance. Do you know where Dr. Tarpley is right now? Oh right, at this very moment he's right in the middle of the Syrian districts where the fighting is going on right now. So much for journalistic fact finding.

i listen to his radio show most weeks. but he has been perpetually wrong in his predictions over the last decade.

that's one example, but the majority of the rest of the sites do zero original reporting. they take news from the media that is controlled by the illumnati nwo.

Funny, I found the opposite to be true. I've read almost all of his books, and they are highly accurate in my opinion. I mean he wrote the book on Obama (Obama - The Postmodern Coup) before Obama was even in the picture, and that book was predictive, ..almost prophetic. Insanely accurate!

Yes, but as I tried to convey in my last post, it's a very sad state of affairs for most of these alternative news sources to have to spend so much time referencing main stream news reports to stitch together the narrative of what the Illuminati have said they want to do, and how they are doing it. Nothing else, no amount of reason or logic will snap people out of the trance they've been put in. You almost have to spoon feed their own information/propaganda back to them, like Baby Pablum, to make it digestible.

Again biased about Qatar but who gives a fuck about Qatar.

Riiiight. That's what the BNP says.