From one to the other

That is a setting we are all familiar with. We get one and it tends to lead to the other. This is as generic as it can be stated and it applies to pretty much anything. In my case it is more than speculation, although it is important to realise that speculation is part of this setting. The idea started recently as I got a hold of an interesting PDF, there are many like it, but this one is now downloaded and mine (a Stanley Kubrick pun). It is also a larger station in the actions of the CIA and NSA towards the ICIJ (their favourite tool) and the Pandora Papers. You know that trough of information with millions of documents and relying mostly on flames and 600 essay writers. There was a side I had suspected, but I am (still) lacking in evidence. Yet suddenly my eyes cross a research paper that was published in 2016. It is called ‘Analysing How People Orient to and Spread Rumours in Social Media by Looking at Conversational Threads’, yet the more I saw of it, the more the secondary station became ‘Analysing How People Orient to instigated Rumours in Media by starting Conversational Threads’. The research gives a lot and the setting of the ICIJ and the insanely stupid articles written by essay writers is starting to show a new surface. Now, I cannot state that this is the CIA and NSA, but the amount of transgressions leave the NSA as only viable option and as this is a stage to change the international political grounds of the US it seems more than likely that the CIA is holding the hands of the NSA (courting them) and that is a speculative view, but it is the one I have.

Consider the hundreds of thousands of documents. Consider the headlines we have seen and now we see ‘Panama Paper leaks: More than Rs 20,000 cr undisclosed credits detected for 930 India-linked entities, says govt’ (source: Times of India) and all whilst they still have had no time to make a dashboard. Now we can go with “India’s Income Tax Department has detected total undisclosed credits worth Rs 20,353 crore for 930 India-linked entities in the Panama and Paradise paper leaks, the government Parliament on Tuesday.” We can accept that, or realise that someone is there as a secondary channel whispering certain people certain things via another channel. Like: “I just noticed something interesting. Did someone look at the tax records of …..?” Yes, it is a bit of a stretch, but when you seek the original raw files and consider how many people were ‘suddenly’ found all whilst the ICIJ never gave a clear dashboard implies that there is some form of orchestration and no one is asking questions, especially the media.

We can go all conspiracy theory on this, or we can analyse (I opt for the second one), when you set out those threads things make little sense, it is almost top-line reporting by the chaotic, and I do not really go for that. 

To understand the link with the two elements, I offer “The spread of misinformation is especially important in the context of breaking news, where new pieces of information are released piecemeal, often starting off as unverified information in the form of a rumour. These rumours then spread to large numbers of users, influencing perception and understanding of events, despite being unverified. Social media rumours that are later proven false can have harmful consequences both for individuals and for society” from the article. In it self a statement, a theory (one that has been proven correctly) but a simple observation. I am altering it (to a small extent) to give us “where new pieces of information are released piecemeal, often handed to us as ‘from anonymous sources’ giving us a speculative ‘more than a rumour’ and eagerly accepted by the hungry, angry and frustrated media observers.” Here we need to observe two elements. Because my version fits, does not make it true, the data of this research was captured with other means and other observational investigations, you cannot take a research on Apples and a research on pears and combine them into research on fruit. It does not work that way, yet the eery side of how certain stages match and the ICIJ with their “We got it as long as we did not investigate the source”, If it was GCHQ, DGSE, FSB or the MSS, these 600 essay writers would be all over the limelight breaking that deal after the data was received, leaving us with the NSA and by popular foreign demand the CIA as a linked buddy. 

So, yes there is speculation and as long as you realise that you are OK. Yet the document (added at the end) shows a few more images (as phrases go) and that sets in motion a larger area of consideration (which is not the same as a larger stage). At first we see “One of the main challenges when studying rumours is to come up with a sound definition of the concept”, as well as “Highly reputable users such as news organisations tend to support rumours, irrespective of them being eventually confirmed or debunked, tweet with certainty and provide evidence within their tweets.” And when you combine the two you see the fictive validity of the ICIJ (as I personally see it). There is a snag, it is not out in the open, but the population at large is more and more questioning what defines a ‘reputable users’ and as such news organisations catering to certain elements are less and less seen as reputable. And there are cases all over the world where being first tends to imply that vetting can be done afterward. Not unlike the image below.

So as we see the escalation of the Pandora Papers more and more lacking clear evidence and relying on flames, there is now a perspective view that the CIA is setting a stage where THEIR political stage is altered and less desirable political players (and their wealthy friends) are suddenly in the limelight, with al the angry people aimed through emotional articles and flames.

Am I right? Am I wrong? 

I honestly do not know, but there is more and more published evidence adding to my side of the scales and it does not look good for the global press at present, or perhaps to the pool of media supporting the ICIJ with their own essay writers. I will let you decide, yet consider what is already out there and how the media is spiking its population to themselves for all kinds of reasons and why the neutral absolute truth is not considered. I am not super intelligent (more intelligent than most), as such others especially in media would have seen these elements, but somehow they do not report it, why?

I will let you brood over that part of the equation.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.