Loose change vs ABC 'reporting'

[Niocan]

First off, here's both sides of the interview; If you're interested on how indifferent the 'reported media' is to what's actually taking place, give both sides a listen and tell me what you think



ABC's Aired Story: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Russia Today's Aired Story:


Edit: I found the full interview with Coleen Rowley [The FBI whistle blower].


My summery: Real journalism would seek out the most professional people within that convention to give an accurate overlay of the information being presented; Instead, we see clear examples of fishing for sound bytes from the most deamonized public figure within the area. The best part in this 'report' is how the most suggested person to interview [FBI Whistle blower] by the group whom the public knows best [Loose change] is set up with the same two loaded questions and that's the only presented air time of her. ;( This is saturated with spin, psychological setups, propaganda, whatever you wish to call it; This is just anther example of what the media does to manipulate opinions.

So, if only on this topic alone, do you still trust the other reports on 911's 'alternative' views as strongly as you did before viewing these comparisons?

 

[Finger]

Of course they asked loaded questions. It's a filler segment for some late-night tabloid news show. You don't need to be part of a unilateral, world-wide, conspiracy to fish for sound-bites. They do the same thing to celebrities and white supremacists. Don't read too much into it (though convention tells me you will.)

 

[Grimstad]

Well I did learn something new. The LC guys are responsible for starting the Tea Party Movement.

 

[Demojen]

It's almost insane to say that the media on the internet is more credible than those paid to broadcast their stories on television.

At least in an ideal world it would be!

I like to bunch alot of different stories together to look for some semblence of truth. There's always your version, their version, and the one that makes the most sense. I just wish children were taught this at a younger age so as to resolve conflict resolution more effectively.

 

[Andiferous]

This is a pet peeve of mine. I'm not sure if journalism has always been this biased, or if its integrity has been compromised by marketing and the new "Reality TV" standard. But I think the Journalism ethic standard is becoming a thing of the past.

As with other ethical codes, there is a perennial concern that the standards of journalism are being ignored. One of the most controversial issues in modern reporting is media bias, especially on political issues, but also with regard to cultural and other issues. Sensationalism is also a common complaint. Minor factual errors are also extremely common, as almost anyone who is familiar with the subject of a particular report will quickly realize.

There are also some wider concerns, as the media continue to change, for example that the brevity of news reports and use of soundbites has reduced fidelity to the truth, and may contribute to a lack of needed context for public understanding. From outside the profession, the rise of news management contributes to the real possibility that news media may be deliberately manipulated. Selective reporting (spiking, double standards) are very commonly alleged against newspapers, and by their nature are forms of bias not easy to establish, or guard against.

Thank you Rupert Murdoch.

 

[Niocan]

Finger: I made it very clear that I'm talking about the media's current integrity and your trust on them for at least this topic; There's no need to bring some world-wide conspiracy into this, and besides, Operation MOCKINGBIRD has been declassified for some time now So really, it's just you whom sets this up to be a whacko-conspiracy-theory. In reality, interviews like this are simply by-products of earlier implementations of code changes, or in this case, ethics / standards.

Andiferous: Thank you, for responding to the point I'm trying to make. It's that very issue of Journalism ethics which calls into question why anyone anywhere would listen to any 'Mainstream' news; Does anyone know how often things are distorted? I don't, and there's little incentive for the average person to go look into these issues themselves so they can critically think about both sides.

Journalism isn't dead, it's just been forced into the hands of the people now and the internet is the best way of communicating messages quickly.

 

[Finger]

Do not try to kid anyone, Niocan. You obviously wanted to turn this into another conspiracy theory thread. If all you wanted to do was show bias questioning, you could have easily chosen some other interview about some other subject. But you chose an interview with the creators of Loose Change in a story about 9/11. So don't accuse me of bringing your conspiracy into this.

It's no mystery that areas of televised journalism have fallen victim to sensationalism in their plea for ratings. But that's all it needs to be, a plea for ratings. No government propaganda campaign required.

 

[Niocan]

Do not try to kid anyone, Niocan. You obviously wanted to turn this into another conspiracy theory thread. If all you wanted to do was show bias questioning, you could have easily chosen some other interview about some other subject. But you chose an interview with the creators of Loose Change in a story about 9/11. So don't accuse me of bringing your conspiracy into this.

It's no mystery that areas of televised journalism have fallen victim to sensationalism in their plea for ratings. But that's all it needs to be, a plea for ratings. No government propaganda campaign required.

Sorry, but if I wanted to continue the ignorance about the physical collapses I would have bumped up the 9/11 thread. This is, as stated, a look at how the media handles "fringe" topics; I just added RT's coverage of that same conference, so take a look and compare the two.

The dependency of ratings is just the means of controlling information flow; Either way, it's propaganda.

 

[Grimstad]

The problem with the truther movement as a whole is that the FBI whistle blower doesn't come anywhere near what the loose change guys say. When faced with a "real" reporter Avery and Rowe are cowards. Avery can't bring himself to say all the bullshit that they push in their video. He's evasive as hell.

Reporter: "Do you believe elements of the US gov't murdered US citizens?"
A simple yes or no answer. And if you watch loose change you KNOW the answer is YES.
Avery "I believe that it's highly possible that there were definitely elements within the Bush admin that either were criminally negligent or criminally complicit in the events."
Reporter: "By complicit you mean they allowed the killing of innocent Americans?"
Avery: "One way or another they allowed the killing of innocent Americans. The only question is how responsible they are."
Reporter: "Why would they do that?"
Avery:" Why wouldn't they?"

He lacks the courage of his own convictions. The bulk of the truther movement AND loose change is NOT about who knew what and when. It's about how they blew up buildings and who was actually flying planes, assuming there actually were any real planes involved, and nanothermite and destroying offices that held "evidence" and an unending list of "textbook paranoid delusions".
People like Avery and Rowe have DESTROYED the truther movement. And they did it for their own aggrandizement AND profit (at $17.99 a pop on their web site).

So why should they NOT be treated like the profiteering lunatic fringe they are?

There is need for an investigation into what the Bush admin and various departments knew prior to 9/11, and whatever steps they took to cover their own fuck ups. But because of all the lunacy injected into the debate, it's never going to be taken seriously. THANK YOU VERY MUCH TRUTHERS!!!!!


Sorry if I seemed to get off topic but to understand why these people are not taken seriously you need to understand why they CAN'T be taken seriously.

 

[Niocan]

The loose change video is simply, as they said it themselves, a digestible form of the collected information they had; And he's 'evasive' because they're fishing for sound-bytes. Look at the quality of reporting between what ABC sent and RT sent, it's *very* clear...

 

[Finger]

So when a tabloid news show fishes for sound bites, it's propaganda and bad journalism. But when some guys get together and make a video filled with quote-mines, emotional pleas, speculative reasoning, false assertions about science, false assertions about history, straw man arguments, and eerie background music all designed to convince the audience of a conclusion and political position that you already agree with, it's called a "digestible form of collected information" instead. Double standard?

 

[Grimstad]

The loose change video is simply, as they said it themselves, a digestible form of the collected information they had;

That sounds harmless enough, unless you've actually see it. It's called Yellow Journalism. (see items 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the characteristics) At most, Nightline is guilty of "misleading headlines" but that's open for debate.

And he's 'evasive' because they're fishing for sound-bytes. Look at the quality of reporting between what ABC sent and RT sent, it's *very* clear...

As for the RT report. I really can't knock it. They do a good job of taking it all at face value and not challenging anything that was said. Exactly what the majority of people do with the whole 9/11 event. Funny, the tag line on the RT web site says "question more". In that report they didn't actually question anything.

"Do you believe elements of the US gov't murdered US citizens?"

I believe through reckless and criminal dereliction of their duties, members of, if not the entire Bush administration, allowed innocent Americans to be murdered on 9 / 11.

THAT is a straight answer and a sound bite worthy of any reputable news organization. But that is just a tiny fraction of their message, and THAT alone doesn't sell videos. more than two million copies of the DVD have been sold ($18 a pop. That's over $30,000,000)

"We screamed from the rooftops for years about needing justice and accountability and we never get coverage. But the second someone decides to pick up a gun and go into the Pentagon metro station, all of a sudden we're press worthy".

Their own web site begs to differ. "Loose Change" has been the subject of controversy, appearing as a topic on many popular outlets such as the History and Discovery channels, as well as media outlets such as Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and the BBC

And then there's Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This is where my personal search for 9/11 truth started. The first true frauds I encountered.

"More than 1100 professionals that say, it was not planes that caused 3 buildings to collapse at the WTC"
There are over 60,000 licensed architects and engineers in the United States. I am pretty sure it's safe to say, by now they have all seen sufficient 9/11 video. At a conference last year with thousands of architects and engineers in attendance, they were able to get 17 (or 7. I don't remember which) signatures added to their petition. I would be glad to thoroughly discredit them in another thread.

I'm really not trying to sidetrack this thread but in order to assert that these folks were treated unfairly, there needs to first be an assumption that they have any credibility.

 

[Andiferous]

You're welcome, but, Woah!

I agree that, in general, journalistic integrity has taken a nosedive and unfortunately, news reporting seems to have lost credibility in recent years.

I also agree that there was an obvious lack of transparency and what seemed like propaganda and emotionally charged reporting following the events of 9/11 and into the war, and I think this left many folks very skeptical about the Bush agenda (rightly so, I'd think), but the "Truth movement" from these clips looks like little more than a brand of selective skepticism. Skepticism isn't terribly useful when only applied in one direction... ie; conspiracy theory, or in my opinion...

 

[Finger]

Great post, Grimstad.

"More than 1100 professionals that say, it was not planes that caused 3 buildings to collapse at the WTC"
There are over 60,000 licensed architects and engineers in the United States. I am pretty sure it's safe to say, by now they have all seen sufficient 9/11 video. At a conference last year with thousands of architects and engineers in attendance, they were able to get 17 (or 7. I don't remember which) signatures added to their petition. I would be glad to thoroughly discredit them in another thread.

That would be fantastic. There's already a 9/11 thread in the Conspiracy Theory section. I'd also like to talk about the whole "negligence" topic there myself.

 

[Niocan]

So when a tabloid news show fishes for sound bites, it's propaganda and bad journalism. But when some guys get together and make a video filled with quote-mines, emotional pleas, speculative reasoning, false assertions about science, false assertions about history, straw man arguments, and eerie background music all designed to convince the audience of a conclusion and political position that you already agree with, it's called a "digestible form of collected information" instead. Double standard?

You justify ABC's position of ignorance by labeling it as a simple tabloid and you attack a, relatively speaking, very short introduction to the 911 story with assumptions it's supposed to be the crown and glory of this kind of information; Please argue correctly.

The loose change video is simply, as they said it themselves, a digestible form of the collected information they had;

That sounds harmless enough, unless you've actually see it. It's called Yellow Journalism. (see items 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the characteristics) At most, Nightline is guilty of "misleading headlines" but that's open for debate.

If I'm correct in thinking that you equate loose change to yellow journalism and thus justify ABC's level of interest in this issue by sending someone from the 'tabloid' section to report, then..
I'm afraid you're side stepping the issue of journalism ethics; As it isn't the job of news agencies or reporters to put forth their own opinions for the opposing person to defend. Their job is to report; To give a platform for those without a voice. But, the current state of the 'western mainstream media' is laughably corrupt to it's very core.

As for the RT report. I really can't knock it. They do a good job of taking it all at face value and not challenging anything that was said. Exactly what the majority of people do with the whole 9/11 event. Funny, the tag line on the RT web site says "question more". In that report they didn't actually question anything.

Because RT is more akin to real journalism then ABC and it's *your* job to question the information, not the news agencies.

"I believe through reckless and criminal dereliction of their duties, members of, if not the entire Bush administration, allowed innocent Americans to be murdered on 9 / 11."

THAT is a straight answer and a sound bite worthy of any reputable news organization. But that is just a tiny fraction of their message, and THAT alone doesn't sell videos. more than two million copies of the DVD have been sold ($18 a pop. That's over $30,000,000)

They aren't trying to sell videos, and it's this kind of bad reporting that has caused you to completely dismiss anything they say. If they made money from this, then they deserve it, although it's been viewed *far* more times online for free then what's been bought.

Their own web site begs to differ. "Loose Change" has been the subject of controversy, appearing as a topic on many popular outlets such as the History and Discovery channels, as well as media outlets such as Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and the BBC

I'd love to see the obviously real and ethically sound interviews from one of your mentioned news agencies... Or were they hit stories like what we see with ABC here.

And then there's Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This is where my personal search for 9/11 truth started. The first true frauds I encountered.
"More than 1100 professionals that say, it was not planes that caused 3 buildings to collapse at the WTC"
There are over 60,000 licensed architects and engineers in the United States. I am pretty sure it's safe to say, by now they have all seen sufficient 9/11 video. At a conference last year with thousands of architects and engineers in attendance, they were able to get 17 (or 7. I don't remember which) signatures added to their petition. I would be glad to thoroughly discredit them in another thread.

I'm really not trying to sidetrack this thread but in order to assert that these folks were treated unfairly, there needs to first be an assumption that they have any credibility.

I'd say it's hard to find anyone willing to give up their jobs and reputations if they're proved wrong, and issues like these are always treated poorly. You're just appealing to the heard when you bring up numbers and the apparent authority they have.

 

[scalyblue]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

The fact that this man is alive...

...is proof that "Loose Change" is bullshit.

Here's why:

1. The man in the picture above is Dylan Avery. To be more precise, the fact that Dylan, his friends, and family are alive, is proof that "Loose Change" is bullshit. He, along with a couple of his friends, created a 9/11 conspiracy video claiming that the US government and the military caused 9/11. Take a closer look at the last part of that last sentence: he's claiming that the US government, for whatever ends, killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans, and tens if not hundreds of thousands of more lives in the conflicts that ensued because of it.

2. Since Dylan's arguing that the government has no problem killing 3,000 innocent people, this raises the question: if his documentary is true, and we've established that the government has no ethical qualms about killing thousands of its own people, then why wouldn't the government kill Avery and his friends as well? What's a few more lives to them to ensure the success of this conspiracy?

Whatever reason it may be that the government supposedly orchestrated this conspiracy, it must have been worth it to them to cause so much suffering and loss of life. So if there's any truth to this, then you can bet your ass that the government wouldn't let a couple of pecker-neck chumps with a couple of Macs and too much time on their hands jeopardise their entire operation by letting this stupid video float around on the Internet. I can picture you morons emailing me now: "BUT MADOX, MAYBE DYLAN POSTED IT ON THE INTERNET BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT HAD A CHANCE TO REMOVE IT LOL." Yeah, too bad this rebuttal is inconsistent with the premise of Dylan's shit-festival of a movie: that the WTC was brought down "in a carefully planned and controlled demolition ... and it was pulled off with military precision." Now we're expected to believe that the same government that was able to commit the largest terrorist operation in history--with military precision no less--is suddenly too incompetent to sniff out and shut down a little website set up by some college losers within days, if not minutes of its creation? The US government has the capability to monitor every electronic communication made anywhere in the world, yet we're expected to believe that they wouldn't be able to nix this kid long before his video ever became popular?

I win. There is no conspiracy. Eat my shit, losers.

 

[Niocan]

You're strawmanning the collected research that's gone behind their video, and the continuing research done today; Congrats, blue, but as you clearly haven't watched their interview I'm afraid there's nothing constructive about what you've added here. You can't claim this entire movement is a fraud based upon one video, and you should know that.

 

[scalyblue]

You're strawmanning the collected research that's gone behind their video, and the continuing research done today; Congrats, blue, but as you clearly haven't watched their interview I'm afraid there's nothing constructive about what you've added here. You can't claim this entire movement is a fraud based upon one video, and you should know that.

I'm not doing anything but copypasta; you clearly haven't read Maddox's Truth. Since he is right and anybody who disagrees with him is wrong, that makes you wrong.

I'm curious, how is this raising a strawman? Do you even know what it means to raise a strawman? It's a legitimate asertion: any entity capable of justifying the killing of thousands of innocents through one of the greatest coverups of recorded history would have no trouble killing a single family. It's almost as if loose change is bullshit.

And what research? You mean the research into how airplanes full of fuel crashing into buildings can bring down buildings? There was no controlled demolition, unless they've invented magic demolition charges that don't make any noise and work in a building that isn't completely gutted and strategically weakened, but that's another thread.

Loose change isn't journalism, it's yellow journalism, there is no integrity in those twits and they're happily profiting off of people as gullible as you until the next big thing comes through. They're right up there with the kid who supposedly got advice on how to manage a pimp business from acorn, producing a heavily edited video to show it, same difference, really.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/larebelde/B3DD3827A79240B19820FCB4A79FE0F6/homer-bad-man.aspx

 

[Niocan]

It's interesting to note how easy it is for some sheeple to overlook the current state of journalism today and instead insist that a simple consolidated documentary should be help upon a pillar so it alone can be demonized without regard to the original sources used. It's the equivalent of attacking simple presentations on the basis that they don't explain the details enough.

Stop setting up your own strawman to beat down, and realize that this cannot be based upon one video alone. Instead, how about watching (if you wish to participate here) the interviews themselves so you can add some points into how journalism is used today not to inform but to conform ideas into pigeon holes. Or perhaps you think it's appropriate to allow the medium to do the attacking and not the informed citizen (Assuming they're informed to begin with..)

 

[scalyblue]

It's interesting to note how easy it is for some sheeple to overlook the current state of journalism today and instead insist that a simple consolidated documentary should be help upon a pillar so it alone can be demonized without regard to the original sources used. It's the equivalent of attacking simple presentations on the basis that they don't explain the details enough.

Stop setting up your own strawman to beat down, and realize that this cannot be based upon one video alone. Instead, how about watching (if you wish to participate here) the interviews themselves so you can add some points into how journalism is used today not to inform but to conform ideas into pigeon holes. Or perhaps you think it's appropriate to allow the medium to do the attacking and not the informed citizen (Assuming they're informed to begin with..)

You used a great number of words there, but they don't seem to form a coherent thought. Your use of the word 'sheeple' removes any ability of mine to take you seriously.

The sources are biased and/or flawed, the premise is untenable, and you think you're more informed? How can you possibly be informed when you throw away any sources and information that disagree with you.