You again?

That was my first thought when I saw the Guardian give us ‘France and Israel hold ‘secret’ talks to defuse phone spyware row’ with the added ‘Stephanie Kirchgaessner’. I have seen her work before and it happened on March 26th 2021 when I wrote ‘The joy of discovery’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/03/26/the-joy-of-discovery/)  there I stated “this was an article that an intern could have written and as such more and more question marks on ‘Saudi bashing’ surface and the ring of those doing this is is becoming more and more debatable. Yet in all this, no one is asking questions, no one seems to notice. I did initially in a previous video article with Stephanie Kirchgaessner, but it could have been an editing issue, now I am no longer sure. I am not questioning the stage we see here, yet such a space for a threat all whilst dying children in Yemen get less space, whilst Al Jazeera gives us ‘People in Yemen are not just dying, they are being left to die’ (2 days ago), I start to wonder what the focal point of a US investigative reporter has become”. Now I see her in this piece and the hair on the back of my neck is standing up. So, let’s see if I am right again.

The first thing I see is “In July, it was reported that the phone numbers of some French cabinet members, as well as Macron himself, appeared on a leaked database of mobile phone numbers which included some selected as possible targets for surveillance by government clients of NSO” I and others reported on this, in several sources thee is debate on the truth of that leaked list, the second part is that the list was also regarded as fake in another source years ago. I discussed this part in ‘From horse to course’ on July 23rd 2021 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/07/23/from-horse-to-course/) it is there that I mention the Guardian who gave “NSO has said Macron was not a “target” of any of its customers, meaning the company denies he was selected for surveillance using its spyware, saying in multiple statements that it requires its government clients to use its powerful spying tools only for legitimate investigations into terrorism or crime”, the setting that the so called leaked list sets the stage that the NSO group must have had an income surpassing $600,000,000 which they never did (they are doing well, but not that well). In addition the lack of any dashboard and a lot of other elements make the stage a waste of time. In this I personally see that Stephanie Kirchgaessner has become the journalistic joke she might always have been. The cranky aunt you keep around on Christmas to entice you to have more eggnog so her voice fades into background noise. 

In this there is (as I personally see it) no leaked list, there might be a list, but it is someone else’s list. And the waste of time is seen with “There is no firm evidence that the phones of the five cabinet members were successfully hacked, but the Mediapart allegations indicate the devices were targeted with the powerful spyware, which can intercept phone conversations, text messages, emails and photographs. It can also turn a mobile phone into a listening device by remotely controlling a phone’s recorder”, so basically through this, the Guardian has now less credibility than Russian news organisation RT? In the second, if there is no evidence, how is behind “the Mediapart allegations” why are we not given that? So as the article ends with “Forbidden Stories, a Paris-based journalism nonprofit, and Amnesty International led the journalistic collaboration”, I personally wonder if that part should read “Fake Stories, a Paris-based glossy joke, and Amnesty Insufferable led the tantrum collaboration”, I personally wish that these jokes were buried (alive) and that these articles will not be allowed again until these so called journalists present a proper dashboard, they’ve had months now. It would have been one of the first things I did, just like the Pandora papers, all alleged claims and no verified substance. And like before why on earth is so called ‘Stephanie Kirchgaessner is the Guardian’s US investigations correspondent’ involved in something that is happening in France? Doesn’t the Guardian have credible journalists in Europe (preferably in France) or Israel? Did no one consider that little hiccup of debatable information?

And what are these so called traces? Its always nice to see anonymous sources and with “citing multiple anonymous sources and a confidential intelligence dossier”, all whilst the debatable sides are out there, it seems that the Guardian is slipping from top tier newspaper to some Murdoch wannabe glossy production. Feel free to oppose me, but do some of your homework and you will se that I am right. 

I wonder when people will catch on that this is a mere ploy, optionally an anti-Israel one. 

Enjoy the weekend!