There are all kinds of tools. There are chisels (used by Carpenters), there are hammers and they are used by all kinds of people in all kinds of endeavours. So let’s invert that question, what is a political tool, and who is representing them? From my point of view the media-man is becoming evermore the political tool, the man now more openly then before mis representing the events, so that the people will not look to deep into the matter at hand.
These were thoughts forming as I looked at the article at (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-60092458) 2 hours ago. There we are given ‘UN condemns deadly air strike on Yemen prison’. The news we are given gives us “a stronghold of the rebel Houthi movement in north-western Yemen, was hit on Friday”, that one line. After that we get “Millions have been displaced and much of the population stands on the brink of famine.” From my point of view, people in Yemen have been on the brink of famine for three years now, in massive part by Houthi forces. Then we get “US Secretary of State Antony Blinken also called for de-escalation”, I could continue stating that the man is an idiot, but that part will be clear soon enough (in this article). We are given “Houthis carried out a rare drone and missile attack on the UAE on Monday” here we see the word ‘rare’ added, the reason is seemingly clear, but I will inform you a little further down. We also see “the first deadly attack of its kind in the emirates”
So what are we not told?
In the first, 4 weeks ago Saudi spokesperson Turki Al-Maliki gave us (via Arab News) evidence that both Hezbollah and Iran were involved in the Yemeni war. None of the western media covered that, why not? We see one sided attacks on the activities by Saudi Arabia and its allies, all whilst no one, not even the UN is holding Houthi forces to clear account. This is more than just annoying, it is the beginning of media corruption and as I personally see it, the BBC is not innocent, it has not been innocent since Martin Bashir, that journalist that got the Princess of Wales killed.
So moving on, we also get ‘F-15 destroys two ballistic missile in Sanaa’ (source: Saudi Gazette), again the western media gives us nothing. Now, if there was opposition, contra-dictionary evidence and it was mentioned, it could be regarded as an optional issue, but it is silenced by nearly all. That is the part that does not add up, yet I promised more.
The final part of all this is not seen in Yemen, it is seen in the Guardian (I reported on it yesterday). The Grenfell situation, the Guardian gave it and only something called MyLondon seems to have mentioned it, no BBC, No Express, No Daily Mail, No Times. You still think that the media is innocent? I talked about it in ‘Is there a difference?’ On January 21st. You think the media needs that much time to assess their thoughts? One sided reporting is becoming the norm, not the exception and that is more than sad, it is right out dangerous. The greed driven media is all about their digital dollars and in that process we are not given the information that we should be getting. Is there any doubt that the final hours of media will soon be coming? Remember all these crying editors claiming that they could police themselves in the Leveson report? So what is left of them at this point?
So back to the Saudi Gazette. How do Yemeni’s get ballistic missiles? They cannot create them, they have no means of manufacturing. They have no resources for ballistic missiles. This is a clear setting that the Houthis are getting supplies,. So as I personally see it that idiot Antony Blinken should have been informed by the CIA, so either he is setting a filter to NOT get that part, or the CIA has become a lot more incompetent. I will let you judge was is happening there. But there has been clear evidence for over two years that Iran is directly supporting Houthi forces and the media will not tell you, so why not? So what makes a tool a tool? When the media decides not to tell you, who do they serve? You better believe that this is not about you, this is about stakeholders and profiteering. That is how I see it, because if someone keeps us in the dark it tends to be about the opportunity of others and that tends to hold a price tag. So one final nice part about that piece. No journalist set his or her name to that article, interesting, not?