Category Archives: Media

April 24, 2021 · 00:22

They just will not learn

Yes, that was the first thought I had when I was confronted with ‘Google and Apple attacked on app store ‘monopoly’’ today (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56840379). So when I see “Representatives from Tile, Spotify and Match also gave evidence, accusing the two tech firms of charging exorbitant fees and copying their ideas. Both Apple and Google’s app stores charge fees of up to 30% for in-app purchases.” This is just the latest iteration of stupid. Yes, to them it seems NOW to be a large chunk, but when they started it was not. Security and safety were the cornerstones of this setup, yet them (EPIC too) are now are enough to complain, so what about the 30,000,000 other developers? They cannot afford what is needed but these players do not care, they merely want to open setting so their greed is more satisfied. Yet, I will demand that the other side is also set. When they win, they must also accept responsibility for the consequences. I get it that “The Senate Judiciary Committee’s antitrust panel focussed on claims that Apple’s App Store and Google’s Google Play are anti-competitive”, I will add that Amy Klobuchar, the Minnesota Democratic member must accept the cost and the consequences of this for the American people. Just so you know, the current scam gives us: “APK files are a way of installing Android apps outside of the secure Google Play store. By default, such applications will be blocked for security reasons, but the scam page includes instructions on how to allow the installation”, these scams will increase by factor 50 and the people will be allowed to claim expenses from the US government at that point. It is the consequence of short sighted greed. This is not unique, Apple has a play store, Google has one too, for the most, 99.99% of all apps are safe and in no time the 0.01% missed are taken care of, that falls away, nothing to do with Anti-competition, it is all about greed and these players are knowingly ignoring the 30,000,000 startup developers. Yes 99% is a waste of time, but the 1% gives us new mobile technologies, some of them are actually truly innovating. Yet they only got there by launching it via the Google or Apple protected system, if not their changes would have been a mere 0.1% of what they became and that matters to the new people. So when I see “Developers claim that because of a lack of competition Apple and Google can charge extortionate rates”, my view is that these developers are full of shit. When they get the initial bill of $35,000-$55,000 to get launched in a safe environment, they all fail to launch. But these developers used the cloak of Google and/or Apple for 14 years and now they want to claim ‘extortion’. 

As such, I wonder what will happen when organised crime will use the open options available to them, I also wonder what excuse people like Amy Klobuchar will use to not get tainted with the consequences of their action, in this the victims in the EU will have a much larger stake in proceeding with class actions against these American companies, because I feel certain that this is going to be the consequence if this farce becomes a fact against Apple, Google an Microsoft. Did you think that Microsoft is free from this? It will be the consequence and the dangers of Xbox Cloud Gaming on a mobile. You think that it is safe? I do not know, but Exchange was trodden on, as such so will Xbox Cloud Gaming, the amount of targets will be too appealing for hackers and organised crime. And any system transgressed on will add to the enormous class actions that will follow, there is no other way, not in this world and its need to sue large corporations. And when we fall back on the old consideration of “Since mp3 or video files are not self executing programs but just data files, so even if a virus puts it code inside them, they would stay harmless”, yet 4 years ago, someone gave us “it is possible to craft a malicious media file to exploit a specific bug in a media player or media library. Causing a buffer overflow or similar, which could lead to memory being overwritten with malicious code. These would have to be very specifically crafted though, and you see them more on consoles with more closed ecosystems compared to traditional computers.” As such I will happily make mention of Microsoft Exchange anyone? Yes it will have to be specific, but at present specific problems are harder too detect, especially when it is trans-system and that person could become a point of infection for a long time to come and in 5G where everything goes faster and uses more data, a small exploit attacked the Marriott in 2014 and was not detected until 2018, 500 million customers over 4 years, so what do you think happens when a game like Fortnite gets infected? What information can the criminals get from 350,000,000 players? Fortnite will make statements that THEY can protect themselves, but a lot cannot and the consumer will be the victim, but the greed driven players will wash their hands from that consequence. The US government will not get that option, they vied for decreased security, and it will needs to come with consequences.

It is fine if they won’t learn, but the setting of a multitude of multi-billion dollar class actions will be the consequence of all this and at that point Apple and Google will be free from prosecution, that too will be the larger stage the government and the victims will face. I reckon that the first two cases will cause the stock of players like Spotify, Tile, Match and Epic games to drop like an anchor. It will be a panic to behold.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics, Science

April 23, 2021 · 17:43

Innovative?

Yup we heard it all. Quotes like ‘Apple is widely considered as the #1 innovative company in the world’, as well as ‘While most companies are lucky to come up with one major innovation, these three continue to develop breakthroughs and don’t seem to be slowing down any time soon’ and Apple it was to some extend true, especially when Steve Jobs was still mortal, around and kicking. Since then they only gave us the Apple AirPods, which is true innovation. The rest is iteration. Microsoft is calling the Surface innovation, wrong! I see it as iteration and a weak copy from the iPad to begin with, it goes on and on, IBM has the Quantum computing cloud, but that has been pretty much it, beyond that most are merely iteration and weirdly enough, they seem to focus on what can be iterated, not innovated. 

iPad fling
I have had a fling with my iPad going back to 2011 when the first one came out. It was a present from me to me when I got into graduate school at UTS. I saw all these eager students with a laptop in one hand like it was a serve platter running from corner to corner trying to find a powerpoint, as such I decided on the iPad, the very first one, which had 64GB, cellular and WiFi. I was happy as a puppy with a fresh bone. This would continue until 2020 when it started to show issues and most parts would no longer be updated, it was too old. There were no tears, with 10 years 24:7 service it had earned its keep at least twice over and my storage never exceeded 50%, the 64GB was a true achievement. As such in 2020 I updated to the iPad Air, now with 256GB, a more powerful processor, higher resolution and that fling feeling came back in a rush. 

Yet the market has changed, this is fair enough and I see the iPad Air as an iteration, not innovation. It was this step that I saw today that innovation was absent, or more precisely absent from the iPad systems for too much. Now, in the larger scheme I do not care, I am still really happy with what it has, and as pretty much all of it is back, I have little to complain about.

There is this one thing
It is there that I saw innovation, where none was and I do not know why Apple did not see this. You see apps, games (free to play) are all nice, but they need to get their money (as much as possible) from advertisers. As such it does not matter how it is setup, the increasing amount of advertisements, a setting that is beyond the borders of harassment are also grabbing my Bluetooth speaker when I am trying to enjoy music whilst playing a game, and it is there that I saw the lack of innovation. I wonder why Apple never looked at the setting to make the bluetooth an exclusive to for example the Music app. I cannot fault app makers to rely on advertisement, but when your speakers get hijacked every other minute, you either listen to music or nothing at all, why did Apple not see this, or even see this coming?

When we have YouTube playing and the advertiser grabs/pushes through the same speaker as YouTube, it is fine, I get that, but I have a problem in the other event when I play a game muted, but the advertiser will hijack/obtains your speaker. Did Apple not see that coming? So whilst we saw in June 2020 ‘13 new innovative technologies and features unveiled at WWDC20’, Bluetooth innovation was absent, Bluetooth iteration too. As such, whilst we herald the addition of “New cycling directions in Maps take into account elevation, how busy a street is, and whether there are stairs along the route”, we see iteration, the natural consequence of what came before, not iteration, which is supposed to mean “the practical implementation of ideas that result in the introduction of new goods or services or improvement in offering goods or services”, yet here we see the problem ‘or improvement in offering goods or services’, the problem there is that ‘improvement’ is now on a sliding scale, especially in software where a lot of improvements are iterations, not innovations. 

Is this me?
Yes, it probably is, but in that same light, there is a larger group of people that see the addition of one new chip as iteration, not innovation. Marketing departments globally have ‘abused’ the word ‘innovation’ to the degree that we see it as a debatable word at best. This is pure in us, driven through the advertisers and the larger brands need to see that innovation is no longer a calling to customers, it is a calling to investigate the brand in just how loyal one needs to be. In this I will also admit that it might not merely be marketing, but the brief that their board of director gives out to marketing, no matter how you slice it. As such what information to trust, and that is fair enough. Yet the stage we see is larger, larger than even I can consider, simply because I am not the greatest expert in the field and there is also the stage that I do not look everywhere. It becomes increasingly difficult where we see the Internet of things (IoT), consider that a device is suddenly used in a field that it has never been used in, this (to me) is innovation, not iteration and that field is in motion, in rapid motion in all directions, as such what might be innovation is seen as iteration in the way it is brought to us, it is understandable that we see this wrong, but it is unfair to the player bringing it. We can blame it on their marketing, but that is not fair either. As such you need to wonder where the threshold lies and here we have a nice example. Are the Bravia XR TV’s (2021) iteration or innovation? We might say one, but consider that speakers have to go somewhere and Sony is the first one to put them behind the LCD display, does that make it innovation or iteration? I am not certain, but they call it innovation. Is it true or false? I actually do not have a clear answer, yet my view of what is would call it iteration, an iteration I desire, but an iteration none the less. 

It goes deeper and ZDNet gave us that part in January 2021 with a list of ARK Big Ideas 2021, which would include the following:

  • Deep Learning
  • The Reinvention of the Data Center
  • Virtual Worlds
  • Digital Wallets
  • Bitcoin Fundamentals
  • Bitcoin: Preparing For Institutions
  • Electric Vehicles (EVs)
  • Automation
  • Autonomous Ride-Hailing
  • Delivery Drones
  • Orbital Aerospace
  • 3D Printing
  • Long Read Sequencing
  • Multi-Cancer Screening
  • Cell and Gene Therapy: Generation 2

When I see this list, we see deep learning, Bitcoin fundamentals, and Long Read Sequencing and in these cases we expect iteration. 

In case of deep learning (often presented as AI) we see the definition “Deep learning (also known as deep structured learning) is part of a broader family of machine learning methods based on artificial neural networks with representation learning. Learning can be supervised, semi-supervised or unsupervised”, yet my issue is with the part ‘Learning can be supervised’, as I personally see it to be deep learning, it needs to be semi-supervised or unsupervised, if not it is merely adapted scripting. I will skip Bitcoin fundamentals, it is in my mind an iterative field, but in that I must admit there is a lot I do not know and I never cared to learn it, as such if someone states to me that I was wrong, it would be a fair assessment, but to see innovation paired with a word like ‘fundamentals’ is weird on too many levels. It becomes a different stage when we consider Long Read Sequencing, I get it data is in evolution and transformation and these sequencings are often linked to biometrics, a field that is very much innovation, even the iterations tend to be innovation, so I see the flaw in my thinking here. Yet it compares to naught when we consider ‘Long-read human genome sequencing and its applications’ by Glennis A. Logsdon, Mitchell R. Vollger & Evan E. Eichler. It was published less than a year ago and it took almost that long for me to get the gist of it (armed with a thesaurus). As such when we see Oxford Nanopore Technologies and its applications we do clearly see a large field of innovation, not merely in biometrics, but in an adapted path towards a string of devices all the way from manufacturer to user, where we see an optional path towards identifying digital forensics, I wonder if Mr or Mrs Technology Nanopore from Oxford considered that part of the equation. In a stage where the IoT is in nonstop motion, setting a chain of identifying hardware and connections in a string, an extremely long string might be (for now) the only way to go and that will be (as I personally see it) a much larger stage in digital forensics to find the paths towards organised crime and disorganised corporate crime soon enough. When parts of a path are identified we would optionally see an identifier of non repudiation. Only that person, and that person could have taken that road. Which might also more quickly identify a larger strain of click farms. Not claiming the innovation, merely stating that this might be a path worth considering. At present some will discard the issue with data size, yet I come from an age where DEC had a Winchester drive with 250,000,000 bytes, which was the size of a work-desk and 50 times the weight, all for the price of a house in 11 specific cities in the USA. This happened within a career, as such do not dismiss the idea, as size becomes ever debatable, as speed is increasing in the better hardware, the application of ONT could go a long way and in directions the makers never considered, or at least not openly considered. 

It might be me, anyway, I am meeting up with an old friend (Gaius Julius Caesar) who is giving me the lowdown on his campaign in Gaul, with my rusty Latin, it will take all weekend, so let’s see if I can afford a nice bottle of Italian wine. Have fun!

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 22, 2021 · 21:55

Who makes the congregation?

Yes, there you were outside and you suddenly see a church, so you wonder who decides on that congregation, the Bible (the third edition reprint with 5 chapters omitted), the bible of King James, the members of the Holiness Baptist Association or the disgruntled members who created the Baptist Purity Association? Yes, it is out there, all versions all creeds and they all have their version of the truth, also optionally the true version that whoever is up there finds the most appealing. But the new religion is sport and we saw that unfold really fast, did we not? With pope Aleksander Ceferin and pope Gianni Infantino at the head of their churches, and they will not tolerate anyone falling out of line. The addition here is that politicians (David freakin Cameron) as well as the media as a whole are really happy to lend a hand to these two popes.

Yet, the media also gives another side. In this, the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/22/esl-european-super-league-global-capitalism-football-tech-giants) gives a really good version, a good story. The writer is giving us the lowdown and Larry Elliott does a really good job of this. He gives us a lot of the goods, not all but a lot. 

And it was then, that this article that gave me an idea. You see, there is a lot of good in the article and all of it true, but there is a part missing. You see, I have no doubt that they were all in it for the money. In this I have no sympathy for a person like Ivan Gazidis, Andrea Agnelli or Florentino Pérez. I do not hate them, I merely do not care about football, I (for the most) do not see the need to care about people who make more per week then I will ever make a year. OK, there optionally 4 exceptions, but this is not about my 5G IP. But money is the foundation used and we need to see this.

So when we see in the article “Free-market purists say they hate the idea because it is the wrong form of capitalism”, it is correct but incomplete. Then there is “The ESL has demonstrated that global capitalism operates on the basis of rigged markets not free markets, and those running the show are only interested in entrenching existing inequalities” which is almost dead on the nose. You see the media has a role to play, as I have stated many times before, the first three parties the media pleases are the Shareholders, the Stakeholders and the advertisers, the audience is a distant fourth. In all this, if there was really an impartial media we would have seen all kinds of interviews with the owners of those 15 teams, but did we? You tell me, where and when were they interviewed? Then there is the stage we see presented as “Having 15 of the 20 places guaranteed for the founder members represents a colossal barrier to entry and clearly stifles competition. There is not much chance of “creative destruction” if an elite group of clubs can entrench their position by trousering the bulk of the TV receipts that their matches will generate”, there is actually a second truth hidden there and it is ‘trousering the bulk of the TV receipts that their matches will generate’ and this is where the media gets involved, you see there are no arrangements with the media when it comes to the ESL, as such the 15 biggest teams will not fall under some agreement with the media, FIFA or UEFA, that money is theirs, the media will have to make new arrangements, and do you think that advertisers will pay the amount we see for the other teams? That is why the media is the larger problem and those two popes, they would lose out on a lot, so whilst we see “he called on the football world to keep fighting against the “disgraceful” plan for a breakaway European competition, worth an estimated $20 billion to the clubs” (source: Fox Sports) we also see that UEFA and FIFA and the media would lose out on an optional $20 billion, this is the larger issue. And the media has remained silent on it, even at the end, the news was all about the fans, the fans were never part of this. We saw “Forget coronavirus travel lists, when it comes to football the UK was being put on code red”, the money involved is too big. 

In the end I do not know whether the ESL was bad or good, the issue is that 15-20 teams of the upper setting would be playing football, the fans do not miss out, they get their football, these teams are merely in a stage of the same level, the same highest level and they are all playing against one another. So the actual losers would have been Aleksander Ceferin, Gianni Infantino and the media, it got to the point where David Cameron got involved, they were THAT scared and made it a political game from the start. If it was real, if there was really care of football, the UK would also be playing the games from the Russian Premier League. Yet the stage is that those fans can find them on YouTube. Where is the Greek league? Yes it is quite the setup, locality for added local advertising. But on a lot of there there is silence. 

Yes, Larry makes a good case with “the men who made their money out of nuts and bolts and waste paper firms in north London have been replaced by oligarchs and hedge funds. TV, barely mentioned in the Glory Game, has arrived with its billions of pounds in revenue”, it is not merely that these teams were changing the levels of loyalty, they took food from the through of pigs and those pigs can squeal, all whilst the media (who would lose a lot too) were the helping hand these two popes needed. 

What I saw was a massive one sided tsunami of flaming and colouring against anything that was not them three. And the people for the most bought it. So when we see “Asked about the Chelsea fans that gathered outside Stamford Bridge, he shot back: “There were 40 of them and if you like I’ll tell you who brought them there.”” We see in part a larger truth, the throughs are in a stage of added protection and the pigs are swarming to blame whatever they can for the image and view to be pushed to other places, but when we see “Ex-FIFA president Sepp Blatter and former secretary general Jerome Valcke had their bans extended by six years this Wednesday after the pair were found guilty of financial wrongdoing” whilst actions that took millions from the coffers of FIFA hd been going on for well over a decade and nothing was done, whilst the BBC (Andrew Jennings) pulled the alarm, all whilst we now see “when it comes to football the UK was being put on code red”, we see the stage of corruption and intentional avoidance, whilst for 15 years these same organisations did next to NOTHING. 

A stage that is not seen and actively avoided. As such we need to see that there is a larger stage and greed is only allowed by some, weird is it not? More important, this is not over, I reckon that all kinds of agreements are signed up, agreements with the media, the advertisers and the teams, as I personally see it, the throughs will be protected, greed is all.

Enjoy the week!

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 20, 2021 · 22:58

One sided media

We are falling for another one sided attack on the people, pretending to talk for the people, but what is going on? To be honest, less than a day ago I did not really care, but now things are changing and not for the good. It might have started yesterday, but the setting ‘UK government may legislate to stop European Super League, says minister’ makes it a larger issue. Let’s be clear, I checked several sources and they all attack the European Super League, not one, I say again NOT ONE gives us a clear timeline and the other side. So when I saw ‘FIFA voices disapproval of proposed breakaway European Super League plan’ with the added “warning they must face up to the reality of their decision”, yes just like the consequences of large settings of corruption by FIFA, in this, FIFA needs to keep its mouth shut! We get some information (at https://acmilan.theoffside.com/2021/4/19/22391526/official-ac-milan-is-one-of-the-founding-members-of-the-european-super-league-uefa-fifa-lega-serie-a) yet the news groups give us nothing, merely wave after wave of negativity. It makes me wonder where their interests lie and personally I think it is whomever has the most money. 

So the setting where we are informed is not coming, merely politicians shouting, media flaming and no real information. I voiced yesterday that this might be the consequence of unadulterated expansionism and I personally feel that it might be a larger reason, yes more money for the owners might play a role, but when I see “20 participating clubs with 15 Founding Clubs and a qualifying mechanism for a further five teams to qualify annually based on achievements in the prior season” gives view to a competitive side, all whilst several sources give voice in the setting like “The joy of the game’s current structure, one that has kept people coming back year after year, generation after generation, is that even the most seemingly endless period of frustration is made bearable by the possibility, however remote, that one day you could see them rise up”, yes you might voice it that way, yet ‘joy of the game’s current structure’ also implies the funds as they are ‘distributed’ now, as these teams fall away, advertisements will take a different tour, a tour that the power people are not happy about, and such they are all crying. If there was a real concern for the people, there would be neutral interviews with the owners of these breakaway teams. Do you think that people will NOT watch AC Milan-Real Madrid? Do you think that the fans of these two teams are shutting their eyes? No! But media money will now take a different path and the media is crying like a little bitch taking the lames as far as they can, because that has worked so often in the past. 

Is this league a good idea? I do not know, I do not really care about football, but I do know that there is a limit to expansionism and greed driven people will never accept the term ‘saturation’. A stage larger and larger in football, with well over 90 teams in Europe? Yup, you are looking at 4000 minutes per weekend, all that time for advertisement, all the media vying for those coins. None of that is mentioned. Yet we get “Now, more than ever, we must protect the entire football community – from the top level to the grassroots – and the values of competition and fairness at its core”. Fairness?  Are you freaking kidding me? Real Madrid has an estimated budget of 616 million Euro. You really think that Dutch PSV, German Werder Bremen, or British Newcastle United has anywhere near that level of budget? As I see it for FIFA and UEFA this will be about loss of revenue and we need to see this clearly, but the media cannot be trusted, they have too much to lose. You see if they were fair, their would be a clear interview with those breakaway teams, but I see nothing of that. And it gets to be worse, when these teams breakaway, the bulk of all football fans, they will switch to that channel, that is the fear and I believe that if FIFA had cleaned house half a decade ago and stopped expansionism things would not be that bad, it is the clear consequence on what I see as unadulterated greed. The denial of saturated sport venues. Let’s be clear, do you have time and the drive to watch 4000 minutes of soccer every weekend? We know, the ‘smaller’ teams will get a fragmented highlight expose, with the fill match on some other channel (for the local fans), but the breakaway groups are a massive drain on funds. There is no mention of that, is there? We get headlines like ‘European Super League planners condemned as ‘snakes’ by UEFA chief Aleksander Ceferin’, with quotes like “he hoped UEFA could ban Super League clubs and players “as soon as possible” from all of its competitions”, “Betrayal was a theme Ceferin was to return to frequently as he denounced the 12 clubs as “the dirty dozen”” and “I have seen many things in my life. I was a criminal lawyer. I have never seen people like that,” he said, “It is hard to believe the level of immorality of some people”, well as we saw the unquestioned actions by a certain FIFA member, his words are hollow and meaningless, fear mongering in the hope to turn things around, but the crux remains expansionism and the media have too large a slice of that cake and the media is not making any serious effort in giving us a real interview of the breakaway teams, and with real I do mean an interview where they give us THEIR side. And in all this, it is the interview of Ceferin in 2019, where we see “The two finalists, Arsenal and Chelsea, were only able to allocate 6,000 tickets each to their supporters. Plus, fans wanting to attend the final have to make a long and expensive journey”, so that is one side, but according to what I saw, we see that Stamford Bridge stadium has 40,834 places, so what happened to the other 25,000 seats? I get it, others want to see it too, but shouldn’t the fans of these two teams have a much larger share of the tickets? As such, who got the lion share of the ‘allocated’ tickets? Perhaps it is all on the up and up, but the stadium would prefer to give ITS fans a much larger share, and Ceferin gives us 6,000 seats. There is a lot more going on and all these funds from the breakaway teams are up for grabs, as are the media contracts, which are now not covered, making the media cry like little bitches. And as we see Boris Johnson give us “has promised football groups that the government will consider using what he called “a legislative bomb” to stop English clubs joining a breakaway European Super League, as official efforts to thwart the plan were stepped up” (source: the Guardian) With all due respect, how the fuck is that any of your business? This is not political, the media, UEFA, FIFA and the advertisers are making this political, which is not the same. 

Sports is one place where the nanny state mentality (social equality) will never ever work and in that stage expansionism is not the solution, it never ever was and now that there is a group of upper league teams, the stage is set. As I see it, it is the consequence of greed, is it not interesting that the media is not picking up on that either, they pick up on greed as a stone to throw towards the European Super League. I am not stating that this is not the case, cash might be involved, but I reckon it is more about FIFA and UEFA losing out, then the ESL is gaining. It is my view, and I might be wrong, I will admit to that, but the lack of neutral media makes me doubt that I am wrong, I still might be, I get that.

But consider the news, the accusation and the flames, all whilst we see no decent response offered by the other side. This might just be another example of filtered information, filtered to the needs of the big three. Shareholders, stakeholders and advertisers. It is merely my point of view on the matter.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 20, 2021 · 17:05

Both sides against the middle

This is not some wannabe setting, not some educated evolution of events, this is pure fiction, this is purely the idea for a script, for TV (or movie) and none of it is real in any way, or if it is, I am seemingly unaware of it. A “Names, characters, business, events and incidents are the products of the author’s imagination. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental” quote is added, so the neighbours wife (and the neighbour) need not get alarmed when I write about seeing her coming out of the shower naked and me as. Result masturbating, it’s purely coincidental (that was a funny). So the setting is a stage where the world, most nations are now in a setting where the military are set into a station where they have become the police, a sort of governmental Helpdesk and a facilitator of services. In this there are the opportunity seekers that have a balance between the military and the people, not unlike the setting in the Third Man. But here we see that the new military are at the mercy of the marketeer, all whilst the veterans are given the goods at near cost price, all whilst the people pay for the matter, with the exception of children, they get their needs at cost price. By setting these margins the dealer gets to swim through the mazes of the law and through the nets of the facilitators in reasonable safety. Yet the path is changing, a new officer is sent into the field taking care of the exploiters, in an age where resources are dwindling down, the exploiters are ending with too much and the military wants it to stop. As such the dealer gives up whatever black market fish there is to keep himself/herself safe. Yet the stage is even larger than the officer realises when a stage evolves where the large corporations are employing their own black marker dealers to keep the private needs of their board members satisfied, the dealer however knows too many of them and as such a larger stage of cat and mouse begins, a stage the officer dreads and loathes as his bosses need these corporate players as well, as such a larger stage of equilibrium is created and basically nothing gets resolved, for the officer it was a lose-lose proposition from the very beginning, so he sets a premise of safety for the dealer to get the goods on the larger corporate exploiters and all whilst he is trying to document the larger goods on all players including the dealer. 

It is a stage that is purely fictive, yet when we look at todays world, we see these element in play and the media is playing a dangerous game in the middle of share holders, stake holders and advertisers. So what happens when one media member jumps the fence? What happens when that person states enough is enough? We see the impact of FIFA and Sepp Blatter when we see “Blatter was found to have accepted undue economic benefits totalling 23m Swiss francs (just under £18m) and approved payments or bonuses of a further CHF46m to other officials” (source: The Guardian), and all whilst the alarm bells were rung by Andrew Jennings in 2006, it took close to 14 years to get that ball seriously rolling, why that long? As I stated before the media had too much power stating all kinds of facilitating settings all whilst it was the share holders and stake holders pulling the puppet cords, so is that setting that weird? We can see (and accept) the headline ‘Parliamentary inquiry into media diversity is ‘a sham’’, yet in that same setting we also get ‘The Biggest Risks to Big Tech’s Continued Dominance’, we want to be clever and hit out against one or both of the two (big tech and media), yet everyone seemingly forgets that the stakeholders are in the middle keeping the seesaw in a position that profits THEM the most, and everyone is ignoring that part of the equation. This is not a new setting, this has been going on for close to a decade at least and we are given news article after news article, by those who want to flame the audience, because emotions are set into profits, into clicks and into $$$$. A stage ignored by most as the media is at the centre of things, now consider the officer in the story when you have these elements available to you, do you think that the stakeholders in the story will give that officer even an inch? The seesaw is there to unbalance opponent after opponent and the officer becomes a tool of the larger players, because the image and documentations were whatever they allowed to get out into the open. 

A stage that remains a lose-lose for anyone offered that position, with a large promotion as incentive, so when we know that, who do the bosses of that officer serve? That is the stage we see unfold in the story, but the story remains slightly illusive. Because in that setting as the officer is keeping balance on a river standing on an ice-plate as it goes down the river hitting other ice-plates. The result being that the ice-plate with the officer diminishes in size the longer that officer is on the river and the more it hits other ice-plates. The premise of a lose-lose situation, so what can that officer do?

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, movies

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

April 19, 2021 · 19:51

Consequences of balls

We all face them, you, me, pretty much everyone, we always face consequences. We do not always face them the same way and some see a diminished version of it, but they will be there, no exception. So when I saw the FIFA corruption scandal explode 2-3 years ago, I wondered what would happen next, and yes reports were suppressed and we got to see all kinds of excuses. But it was an event with far reaching consequences. Now, I personally believe that some of the upper class leagues decided to fight the expansionism by certain members and they created the European Super League, the BBC gives us all kinds of news including “Uefa said it will use “all measures” possible to stop the “cynical project”.” To them I say ‘If you had done something to stop the fucking corruption by FIFA, you might not be in this mess’, and that is not all, when we consider ‘Sepp Blatter gets new six-year ban from football after Fifa investigation’ (source: the Guardian, 24th march), so not only was the first conviction not enough, we see him getting more and there is no way that the high end of UEFA was unaware, the BBC investigation over 10 years shows that there is a lot more going on and they stayed silent, so in the setting of anti-expansionism, the largest team set up a new league and it will draw crowds. Is it fair on the ECA (European Clubs’ Association), or UEFA? Not sure if that is in call, it is the consequence of letting Sepp Blatter and his friends getting away with the amount they have. So when we see “Senior figures at European football’s governing body are furious about the proposals”, are they? Where was their indignation stopping FIFA? Where was their indignation on the suppressed reports? Sitting on your hands also comes with consequences and these teams are looking at a way to make it pay for them, so when we see “This proposal risks shutting the door on fans for good, reducing them to mere spectators and consumers” I cannot stop laughing, this is exactly what fns are, they are spectators, they are consumers, this is how sports work and any display or marketing event to show that they are more is pretty much a lie. Consider that “The gross salary awarded by FIFA to its President Gianni Infantino rose to more than $3.2 million (£2.4 million/€2.66 million) in 2019. The world football body’s 2019 annual report details amounts earmarked for both Infantino and Fatma Samoura, secretary general, in salary and allowances last year”, at what stage is that level of income seen as normal? I get that they optionally earn a decent penny, but that decent? A source gave us in 2018 ‘UEFA reveals president Ceferin is paid $1.64M salary’, yes these people will see a drop in income, so they are furious, in all this what is the stage we need to see? Can we blame that Andrea Agnelli (Juventus), Ed Woodward (Manchester United) and Ivan Gazidis (AC Milan) want to see a chunk of that money go towards their own club? Oh and before I have stop typing (from excessive laughter) consider “Labour leader Keir Starmer said the clubs involved should “rethink immediately” or “face the consequences of their actions”” I wonder where the hell he was when FIFA got away with event after event, at this point he is better off keeping quiet. So when I see all these people cry havoc, on how fair it is and how greed driven it is, consider their silence when Andrew Jennings initially voiced his show on FIFA in 2006 and for how long serious investigations were avoided and pushed into the dark room in the back. Now we see the consequences on the biggest teams, having to chance injury on Edinson Cavani against a third tier team a week before to head of against AC Milan, this is not against that third tier team, but we all know that the biggest teams want to play the other biggest teams, not fall to injury against a low level team and the fans, the chances to see the big teams fight each other, I am certain they will love it pretty much right of the bat. It is the consequence of badly thought through expansionism, the biggest players are wondering why they need to suffer the consequences of bad management. I believe (still speculatively speaking) it is that simple.

I for one, do not really care, I am a hockey fan, there are 31 NHL teams in total over all of the US and Canada combined, UEFA (Union of European Football Associations), has 4 groups adding up to 79 teams. There is a cost to expansionism and I reckon that they are seeing it now. If Ron Francis (Seattle Kraken) offers me a place as goalie on his team, I will happily accept, I get it, we all want to be in the big leagues, but a stage where we have 4 groups combined to 79 teams, the setting is off the wall and the people in charge should have stopped a long time ago, but the media coins were just too appealing and in this we see that FIFA and UEFA are in a bad place, they got themselves there and now we see politicians (if we can call Keir Starmer one), they are all about the change and how these manager have to ‘rethink immediately’, all whilst there are larger flaws to consider and these teams are now setting the stage for THEIR team. Let’s not forget that UEFA is not beyond the paint reach. So when we see “Michel Platini, who was the head of UEFA at the time that Blatter headed up FIFA and the corruption allegations were taking place, had to deny receiving a ‘disloyal payment’ last year. He was paid £1.35 million for, he describes, ‘legitimate consultancy work’. The problem he had, however, was that he received the payment in 2011 – a full nine years after his initial payment for work with FIFA and just three months before Blatter was re-elected at FIFA boss in 2011” (source: Football Stadiums), in all this who even remembers Andrew Jennings? Who is asking the deeper questions? I personally see that expansionism led to Qatar 2022, now, personally I like the idea of Football reaching the Middle East, if sport gets a conversation going, their participation should be welcomed, but in the light of expansionism, there is a drawback and those sponsors are crying like little girls, and now as that is taking place certain funds are suddenly questioned on a larger scale, there is a consequence on nearly every turn and whilst people like Keir Starmer cry foul, the tend to get awfully quiet around the Sepp Blatter case, what cries did he give us when Sky Sports gave us “FIFA’s ethics committee found Blatter was part of a “vicious circle” of officials who sought to award themselves over £50m in undeclared payments”, which is funny, because that much money took years to gather and for the longest time there was nothing and the media was quiet on nearly all of it (which makes sense), but it took a BBC investigative journalist (Andrew Jennings) to create the visibility, even then it took over a decade for all of it to make the limelight and the headlines, why do you think that was? Perhaps a decent look on stakeholders and their influence in media is not too weird a call to make? What do you think?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 16, 2021 · 11:04

When anger wins

We all have that moment, some call it ‘enough is enough’, others refer to ‘the straw that broke the camels back’, we have all kind of expressions, but in reality anger took the forefront of the debate and emotions run high, so whilst we get the view (by Al Jazeera) ‘Houthis say they attacked Aramco, Patriot targets in Saudi Arabia’, all whilst CNN, BBC, and a whole range of sources are quiet, in a stage where we get the news from merely Al Jazeera and Bloomberg. The other players were not that quiet when it concerned a journalist no one cares about, they were all screaming then. So this was my moment of anger, if news has to be filtered to this degree, it is time to set the  premise to a different scope. This first weapon system I designed (to sink the Iranian navy) is now public domain and in the hands of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the next step will be a new weapon that can meltdown the Iranian nuclear reactors. The hack that (allegedly) Mossad did was nice, but soon Iran will figure out how to set the nuclear reactors to closed systems with two separate systems with people at both ends and that ends the hack option, but I am still here, so a weapon (based on a novelty snow globe), should (in theory) create a nice and solemn Chernobyl reactor setting and it should work on most reactors, well at least the Russian reactors. I am nothing if not creative and I personally do not think anyone had considered that approach, so my science teacher in secondary school was right, I will not grow up to be any good, but I was preceded in this by most media and most politicians, so I am apparently in good company if I get to hell. 

At times anger gets to win, there is no other way, it brings to mind an old saying ‘Change is valuable, it lets the oppressed be tyrants’ and most of us have had enough of the current tyrants, even if we live in a golden cage. Yet I see no other option but the make matters worse, perhaps it will wake up the media and as they have to explain the essential need of share holders and stake holders, take notice of ‘their’ essential need. We wanted the news, we wanted all the news, but the share holders and stake holders did not agree, so I decided to pave the way for them to take the front seat in the limelight. It is not subtle, it is not a decent approach, but it was the only one left to me. 

You might oppose and that is fine, but consider all the actions that Iran was behind in the last two years and the amount of actions that somehow never reached many of the western media, now also take into consideration all the transgression Houthi forces did in Yemen, whilst we got one sided news on the actions of Saudi Arabia, how long do we tolerate a corrupt media circus? That is how I see it, filtered news is a form of corruption. I personally see no other way to interpret this.

It is my view and optionally my flaw as well, but as I said, as some point anger takes over and in that stage anything can happen, the media banked on that premise too often, but did they ever consider the fact what happens when that premise goes into another direction?

So, my weekend will be a weird one, but an essential one.

Have a great weekend.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 12, 2021 · 19:07

Saved by the Ding Dong

Yup, we all have these moments, you are about to take a dive into one direction, hen just in time, you see the shark swim by and as it goes, you end up jumping the shark by jumping away. I was about to go into a stage of my opposition to existential philosophy, it does not matter why, but the stage is seen as the shark (scammers) give me a reason to jump the other way. So as ABC gives us ‘Scammers target desperate renters on Sunshine Coast as housing crisis continues’, the article (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-12/scammers-taking-advantage-of-desperate-sunshine-coast-renters/100032390), where we see “Late last year Morgan Smith, a single mother of two, found “a gorgeous house” in Peregian Springs at a reasonable price, listed on Facebook”, it is a state of as close as pointless and useless as a situation gets. This is not about the almost victim Morgan Smith, she did as much as she could have, the idea that in a stage of 0.4% availability. Do you seriously think that anyone would would offer a ‘reasonable price’ location via Facebook to complete strangers? A person with available rental property will soon have more fake friends than Kim Kardassian ever had. 

The stage of Facebook is overrated and to some degree outright dangerous and the federal government there (QLD) is clueless, outmatched and overwhelmed to the largest degree. I will bet you that there is not a viable trace to work on with these scammers, is there? 

So when we take notice of “Since the start of the year the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has received 32 reports of rental or accommodation scams from Queenslanders, totalling $8,000 in losses”, we see the larger failing of places like Facebook, a stage not for the openminded and openly communicating people, but the ones seeking scams and phishing opportunity against unknown people and the stage is set by not INFORMING the people on the dangers of Facebook, because like that shark in the deep blue sea, Facebook has it own level of vermin and they hide better online than the roaches in your living room. So, as we start to take notice of ““The second one is that Australia has really lax laws around cybersecurity.” Mr Connory estimated there were about two million cyber crimes committed last year”, some might take notice of just how clueless the federal government is. A stage that has been there for several years and a stage that has according to some ‘two million cyber crimes committed’, and still we see the federal government fighting for advertisement money and a lot less for increased protection for it citizens and increased options for hunting down cybercriminals? Aren’t you wondering why that is? Is it because the bill is only $8,000? I wonder what ill be found when we consider “1.93 million of those cybercrimes were never investigated, never looked at”, as such when we see ““If somebody has your date of birth, your tax file number and your driver’s licence  they can act as if they were you. “They can go and create companies, they can try to set up phone bills.” Mr Connory said that a driver’s licence and tax file number could not be changed in several states. “Once they’ve been compromised, you’re always going to have issues, pretty much for the rest of your life,” he said.” In this I take offence to: ‘Once they’ve been compromised, you’re always going to have issues, pretty much for the rest of your life’, if the Federal Government has that much problems fixing the matter, give me the name and address of the roach, I will personally cap their fucking brains, it needs to end and there needs to be a clear consequence there too. If if cannot be fixed we need to find another solution and if the only good scammer is a dead scammer, then so mote it be. We see the government coming up short, we see tech firms coming up short and we merely see victims, so who is with me on this?

I do not fault the ACCC, I get it when they give us “A spokesperson for the ACCC said to be wary of “any property you are told you will be unable to view in person before handing over any bond or rent money”.” And it makes sense to do the research, it really does, yet the stage we see now is a stage with two players (government and Facebook) letting the scam ride and none of them have a clue to stop it, especially when they rely on AI, and when we consider that AI is still a decade away, they are basically telling the scammers that they have a decade left to make a killing, so why do we not invoke our own killing? 

Emotions?
This is indeed overemotional, yet the stage of people in pain (shortage of budgets), people hurting (impact of budget) and we see some scammers having a field day. We need to make sure that they understand that they must be willing to put their lives on the line, if they are relying on the minor defence, too bad, their parents should have been there to teach them the lessons that matter, if they are adult they should accept that there is a price for everything. We played the nanny state to these clowns for too long and now when we realise that there are well over a million optional victims, it is time to make the tally. It is the cost of doing business and if so, business will be good. When you consider that we can buy a 9mm bullet for $0.61, we can conclude that business will be good for us and perhaps a little less good for the scammers. We can twist and turn all we can and come up with some kind of ‘compromise’, yet I feel that it is way too late for that, especially as the law and Facebook seem more protective of the scammers, than the victims, so why do we not turn that around?

I am all for the law, yet I believe that the law has failed its victims too often and it is time to give the scammers less protection, also less life, but that might merely be me. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , ,

April 7, 2021 · 23:30

Feel free to lose control

Yup, we all have that. You, me, pretty much everyone. Even the Catholic cleric in [censored], should you doubt that, ask any choir boy there. So when the BBC gave us ‘Facebook sued for ‘losing control’ of users’ data’, I merely shrugged and went ‘Meh’. You see, it is not about “the case against the technology giant, expected to last for at least three years, will argue a “loss of control” over users’ personal data warrants individual compensation”, which is hypocrite on a few levels, we see people handing over data and fact to complete strangers in Facebook and plenty of other social media paths. We laugh at “Coolum resident Essena O’Neill, 19, said she was paid up to $2,000 for the posts, which show her posing with products and often in revealing positions. With more than 600,000 followers on Instagram and 260,000 on YouTube, Ms O’Neill has deleted many of her original photos and re-captioned others with more honest descriptions” (ABC, 2015). We also get (two weeks ago) ““I accidentally posted a picture on Instagram of my wine glass and I was naked,” she said whilst nervously laughing. Then, she went on to explain that you could actually see her naked body in the reflection of the wine glass”, is anyone buying this? Social media has been used on a huge number of settings revealing ‘accidentally’ facts that normally do not get to see the light of day, and in all this we are given ““loss of control” over users’ personal data”? Go cry me a river! In the mean time, did anyone see Alexander Nix, Julian Wheatland, Rebekah Mercer, or Steve Bannon in the dock of a courtroom in any of the hit countries? In this the quote “harvesting of Facebook users’ personal information by third-party apps was at the centre of the Cambridge Analytica privacy scandal” applies, a third party app, was there any documented agreement, or documented acceptance of the harvesting of personal data? I do not see Microsoft in the dock in court over their exchange failure that had hit 250,000 businesses, so why not? And when we see “Cambridge Analytica’s app on Facebook had harvested the data of people who interacted with it – and that of friends who had not given consent” did anyone consider putting the board of directors of Cambridge Analytica in prison? I wonder how far we have strayed from the flock of convictions to go after the money and not the transgressors. I do get it, it is a rule or Torts, the mere “go where the money is” is not a wrong setting, but in this setting all the blame on Facebook seems wrong. They are not without fault, I get that, but to see a reference to Journalist Peter Jukes giving us “leading the action, claims his data was compromised”, so how was his data compromised? What evidence is there? In turn I have equal issues with “The Information Commissioner’s Office investigation into these issues, which included seizing and interrogating Cambridge Analytica’s servers, found no evidence that any UK or EU users’ data was transferred by [app developer] Dr [Aleksandr] Kogan to Cambridge Analytica”, I wonder how far backup investigation went, in turn the setting of ‘no evidence that any UK or EU users’ data was transferred’ is almost preposterous, the data was collected, as such it went somewhere, the fact that the Information Commissioner’s Office couldn’t find that part is mere icing on the cake of Cambridge Analytica. In addition, when we see “Mr Jukes told BBC News it was not about “where the data went” but rather “that Facebook didn’t care”. “They didn’t look after it,” he said.” Can this be proven? ‘Didn’t care’ is subjective and presumptive, we can agree that security measures failed, yet ‘They didn’t look after it’ is equally unproven, and these people are not going after the people of Cambridge Analytica as THEY transgressed on the data. As such as we look at Eton boy Alexander Nix, in the setting of “Nix agreed to a disqualifying undertaking prohibiting him from running U.K. limited companies for seven years after permitting companies to offer potentially unethical services, while denying any wrongdoing”, he got a mere slap on the hand, with a mandatory 7 year vacation all whilst we are told ‘denying any wrongdoing’, in addition there is “agreeing to delete previously obtained data”, a 2019 agreement, so where was the data all this time? Let’s be clear, Facebook has made blunders, huge ones, yet in light of the fact that Microsoft gets a mere fine and the issues is closed after that, why keep on going after Facebook? When we see ZDNet give us ‘Microsoft Exchange Server attacks: ‘They’re being hacked faster than we can count’, says security company’ two weeks ago (at https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-exchange-server-attacks-theyre-being-hacked-faster-than-we-can-count-says-security-company/), what gives, why are they not being sued for setting a dangerous precedence on corporate information? We go after Huawei without evidence, we ignore alleged criminals and their app transgressions with our data, but it is fine to go after Facebook whilst ignoring the massive flaw that is Microsoft? So what gives?

So yes, we can lose control all we like, but if we hamper the courts with empty cases that are set on emotion, all whilst people like Alexander Nix, Julian Wheatland, Rebekah Mercer, and Steve Bannon are allowed to return to positions and try again? And what about Cambridge Analytica? As it was soon thereafter acquired by? The only reason I see to acquire Cambridge Analytica is because of hardware, because of software and because of data, so who is looking into that, preferably all before we lose time slapping Facebook around? I see very little after 2018, but perhaps Peter Jukes is too busy to see were his alleged compromised data optionally went. 

So whilst we giggle on statements like “I accidentally posted a picture on Instagram of my wine glass and I was naked”, we see a setting where a large group of people are using social media for all kind of things, the limelight most of all and in this we need to separate the real issues from the fictive cash cows. In this, did you wonder if the people are realising that Wired gave us a mere hour ago “collaboration platforms like Discord and Slack have taken up intimate positions in our lives, helping maintain personal ties despite physical isolation. But their increasingly integral role has also made them a powerful avenue for delivering malware to unwitting victims—sometimes in unexpected ways” (at https://www.wired.com/story/malware-discord-slack-links/) and that is a mere tip of the iceberg, a massively large one. How many apps are a gateway to YOUR system? So when we take notice of “hackers have integrated Discord into their malware for remote control of their code running on infected machines, and even to steal data from victims”, as such in that case it is not the nude reflection shot that matters, it is the wineglass porn that some people decided not to post that is out there for everyone to see. Consider the words by Stephen Fry on 2014, when he said “The best way to prevent nude pictures online, is to never pose nude”, or something according to those lines and he is right, the best social media is the boring one, where you just say hi and connect to relatives. But the limelight is for some just too appealing and to give everyone the lowdown on all your needs and that is what players like Cambridge Analytica were banking on. As such, when we add that light, that spotlight, what data of Peter Jukes was transgressed on and in light of the Exchange server issues, the Cisco issues and the larger stage of interconnecting apps, can it even be proven that it was Facebook? 

I’ll buy popcorn for that court case, it should be fun.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 6, 2021 · 18:41

Et tu, Guardian?

We all have views, we all have issues and we all have believes. Some are agreed upon, some are debatable and some are just silly. You, I, we all have them in all three categories. I for one do not claim to be any different here. A lot of them involve family, freedom, security, loyalty, intelligence, connection, creativity and humanity. Yet these are the big eight. We have some version of a belief here and it seems that some are not allowed the freedom part. For me this all started a little over two years ago. Piers Morgan got attacked online for a view he had. Now, I had no real issue either way, but the attack was seemingly unrelenting, as such I started to follow him on Twitter to see what made him such a danger. As such I learned that he was not that much of a danger, he came across as reasonably intelligent and a little bit of a clown, a funny one at that. I saw (on YouTube) his views on Monaco, Dubai and Shanghai, three places I was least likely to visit and I saw three often light presented views on paces that were fun and educational to watch. Educational? Well, I knew nothing before and little more afterwards, I also saw a nice side to Dubai which was unexpected. So when the initial interview with a couple was given, with several sides, I backed off, I still haven’t see it (reason to follow). Piers Morgan made personal statements in this as one is allowed and it came with a charade of accusations and no less then 41,000 complaints (in a place that has 68,000,000 people, and he walked off. 

There was something with the wife of Ozzy Osbourne on the Talk and now she is off her show as well. Something did not sit well and I almost regret staying away from that interview. 

The Interview?

No not the movie with Seth Rogan, the interview with Prince Harry and his wife. My issue is that the media to the largest degree uses the Royal family for click bait and to watch flames go up again and again, a distasteful view of the media exercising its right to speech and expression, it has been going on for well over a decade. As such I keep away from most of these events (it is impossible to avoid them all), I personally belief that the royal family is intentionally targeted (beyond the click bait needs). For this we need to see that the media has its own version of the truth. It adheres to shareholders and stake holders and after that it sets the story to the need of the advertisers, only if none of the three are a part, we get the goods as is. That is my personal belief, and I feel that I have been shown correct on a number of events. Yet this is about Piers Morgan, and he had an issue of disbelief on the interview. He stated against it and felt that the setting and the facts presented were incorrect. OK, we has a dissenting voice. I believe it was his right to disagree, yet in all this we see an explosion of opposition against his presence pretty much anywhere. Why is that? I personally belief, and I have had this believe for some time that the stakeholders abhors monarchy. You see, monarchial views are set to the need of ALL the people, non monarchial views are set to the people that matter and that difference is rather big, especially in this Covid age. These stakeholders are there to make sure that their enablers and facilitators have a better view, because that is what they need. A setting to flame more completely, and the media is their number one part in this. 

So any opposition to royal attacks is a danger to their agenda, and Piers Morgan was not having any of it, it was HIS view. So as the Guardian now attacks his view too, isn’t it interesting that a reporter gets top call here? We need to consider the New Daily who gives us ‘Bitter Piers Morgan launches another tirade at ‘delusional duchess’ Meghan Markle’ (at https://thenewdaily.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/royal/2021/04/06/piers-morgan-meghan-markle/). Here we see “In his first TV interview since he departed the breakfast TV show, Morgan told conservative US news personality Tucker Carlson on Monday (US time) that he stood by his comments, accusing Harry and Meghan of the “most extraordinarily disingenuous smear, hit job” on the royal family”, we also get “Morgan accused Meghan of lying in the interview “I’m sorry, I don’t believe a word she says,” he said. “I wouldn’t believe her if she read me a weather report.””. We are given his view and he is allowed them, so far is there any clear support for the statements “she was ignored when raising concerns about her mental health and that racist comments had been made before the birth of the couple’s son, Archie”? Then we get Alex Beresford (a weatherman) giving us “I understand you don’t like Meghan Markle; you’ve made it so clear a number of times on this program – a number of times. And I understand that you’ve got a personal relationship with Meghan Markle, or had one, and she cut you off”. As such we see a little more like “the Sussexes’ Winfrey interview was “tacky, tasteless, disingenuous, and I’m afraid, I believe, in some cases, downright lying on a global scale”” whilst the article ends with “For support with mental health issues, contact Life Line on 131 114 or beyondblue on 1300 224 636”, isn’t that nice?

My issue remains that Piers Morgan is used as a wave of flammable articles, the interview by Oprah Winfrey isn’t held up to the cold light of day and we see a form of group deterrent against Pier Morgan. The Guardian who gives us “He cast aspersions on her claim that negative press and lack of support from the royal household had left her suicidal, and that a request for help with this had been rebuffed by a senior person in the monarchy” (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/06/piers-morgan-claims-he-has-universal-support-of-the-british-public). So when we look at ‘negative press and lack of support from the royal household’, well when it comes to royalty, all press is for the most in a negative light and what evidence is there agains ‘support from the royal household’, that becomes a she said, she said debate and when does that support anyone except the media needing click bait?

No one is investigating the evidence, not me, I abhor royal interviews, the media can set the pass in too much of a negative view, I believe that Oprah Winfrey is of good character, she has proven that often enough, yet in this the interview is set in an emotional premise and she is universal queen there, there is a reason she is valued at $2.6 BILLION dollars, she is the best and millions flock to her show, emotions get you there and emotions better be real and be valued, I reckon that her pre talks got her the setting she needed and the interview did the rest. I believe her to be real and to be genuine, I am not sure about Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex in this. 

No matter how that pans out, and consider that the media steered clear of evidence towards the ‘lack of support from the royal household’, as well as any evidence regarding the ‘left her suicidal’ part. So when I saw “let me just state on the record my position about mental illness and on suicide. These are clearly extremely serious things that should be taken extremely seriously”, of course Piers Morgan is right, it is serious, and that too gets painted over. So far, outside the realm of interviews, I believe that Piers Morgan is on the money for a lot of things and when his joining new TV startup GB News surpasses Good Morning Britain, I reckon that they will have a larger issue than they ever banked on. 

And consider for yourself, why anyone will have such a go at one reporter with a dissenting voice?  Yet a mere hour ago we see ‘New information exposes a total contradiction in something Meghan claimed – and the revelations don’t stop there’ (source: news.com.au), so how come no one was fired there? Oh, sorry, they didn’t walk off. The fact that we see “the deal did not go ahead and in the later months of last year, the Sussexes announced they had signed deals with Netflix and Spotify that have been estimated to be worth $180 million”, all whilst another source gives us “he’s turned into this whiny brat in his mid-30s complaining his dad isn’t still financing everything he does” shows is 180 million reasons and no one is looking into the matter? One interview sets a 180,000,000 stage? Yes, I reckon something is going on and the more genuine Megan Markle, Duchess of Sussex is, the better return of value that this 180,000,000 becomes, a decent motive right there, yet the media is steering clear from that part, or so it seems and the people are not asking questions, because (as I personally see it) the emotional whirlpool has not been siphoned enough and those enjoying the windfall can live with Piers Morgan becoming a casualty of war, a greed driven war no less.

That I how I see it and watching the interview was not needed, as I personally see it. So feel free to investigate the media and what they present, in that also watch the presented evidence and you will be surprised just how the emotional articles go.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media

Tagged as , , , , , , ,