Tag Archives: BBC

June 20, 2021 · 00:16

The stage of what is

Yes, we all have that and I am no exclusion, ‘what is’ is the first part of a question that is dangerous. The answer that follows tends to be subjective and personal, as such it is loaded with bias, not that all bias is bad, but it defers from what actually is. This was the first stage when I saw ‘Lina Khan: The 32-year-old taking on Big Tech’. Then we get “when it comes to unfair competition, there is one sector that has been singled out by Democrats and Republicans alike: Big Tech”, this is the beginning of a discriminatory setting. There are two sides in this and let me begin that Big Tech is not innocent, so what is this about? Lets add ““What became clear is there had been a systemic trend across the US… markets had come to be controlled by a very small number of companies,” she said”, now we need to realise that there are two parts here too, in the first she is not lying and for the most, she is correct. 

So why do I oppose?

The US, most of the Commonwealth and the EU all have a massive failing, they have no clue what they are doing. I have seen that side for over 30 years and it is the beginning of a larger stage. You see the big tech part needs to be split in two elements big tech and those who ‘use’ (or abuse) the elements of big tech. Big tech was more than the FAANG group (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google), in the beginning there was Microsoft, IBM and Sun as well (there were a few more players but they were gobbled up or ended up being forgotten. When we see charts of technology and market capitalisation we see Microsoft in second place, so why is Microsoft left outside of the targeting of these people? Microsoft is many things, but it was never innocent or some goody two shoes, the same can be argued for IBM, IBM have been gobbling up all kinds of corporations in the last 20 years, so why is IBM disregarded so often? It it nice to target the companies with visibility towards consumers, but that puts Microsoft with more than one issue in the crosshairs, but they are ignored, why is that?

Then we get back to the BBC article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57501579) where we see “Her general criticism is that Big Tech is simply too big – that a handful of large US tech firms dominate the sector, at the expense of competition”, she is not incorrect, but there are more sides to that story. In 1997 I gave an idea to bosses (in a software firm) on consumers messaging each other and for a firm to be in the middle of that. Being a gateway and a director of messages and giving visibility to people of other matters (I never used the word advertising). It was founded on a missing part when Warner Brothers created (in partnership with Angelfire) a website hub. So fans of Babylon 5, Gilmore Girls and a few other series could Create their own webpage, they got 20MB for free and an address, like in Babylon 5 I was something like Section Red number 23 (I forgot, it was 25 years ago), the bosses stated that there would never be a use for that, it was not their business and there was no business need for something like that and 4 years later someone else created Facebook. Now I am no Facebook creator, what I had was in no way anywhere near that, but that is a side a lot of people forget, the IT people had no clue on what the digital era was bringing and what it looked like, so as they were unaware, politicians had even less of a clue. So when Google had its day (search and email) no one knew what was going on, they merely saw a free email account with 1GB of storage and everyone got on the freebee train, that is all well and good, but nothing is for free, it never ever is. 

As such a lot of companies remained inactive for close to half a decade, Google had created something unique and they are one of the founding fathers of the Digital age. Consider that Microsoft was clueless for close to a decade and when they started they were behind by a lot and there inaccurate overreaction of Bing, is merely laughable. Microsoft makes all these claims yet it was the creators of Google who came up with the search system and they got Stanford to make this for them, just look it up, a patent that is the foundation of Google and Microsoft was in the wind and blind to what would be coming. By the time they figured it out they were merely second tier junkyard vendors. And (as I personally see it) the bigger players in that time (IBM and Microsoft) were all ready to get rich whilst sleeping, they were looking into the SaaS world (diminishing cost to the larger degree), outsourcing as a cost saving and so on, as I see it players like Microsoft and IBM were about reducing cost and pocketing that difference, so as Google grew these players were close to a no-show and do not take my word for that, look at the history line of what was out there. In retrospect Apple saw what would be possible and got on the digital channel as fast as possible. Yet IBM and Microsoft were Big Tech, yet they are ignored in a lot of cases, why is that? When you ignore 2 out of 6 (I am not making Netflix part of this) we get the 2 out of part and that comes down to more than 30%, this is discrimination, it grows as Adobe has its own (well deserved) niche market, yet are they not big tech too? One source gives us “As of June 2021 Adobe has a market cap of $263.55 B. This makes Adobe the world’s 32th most valuable company by market cap according to our data”, which in theory makes them larger than IBM, really? Consider that part, for some reason Adobe is according to some a lot larger than IBM (they are 112th), so when we consider that, can we optionally argue that the setting is tainted? In a stage where there are multiple issues with the numbers and the descriptions we are given, the entire setting of Big Tech is needing a massive amount of scrutiny, and when I see Lina Khan giving us “markets had come to be controlled by a very small number of companies” I start to get issues. Especially when we see “there is one sector that has been singled out by Democrats and Republicans alike: Big Tech”. You see singling out is a form of discrimination, it is bias and that is where we are, a setting of bias and to some extent, we are all to blame, most of us are to blame because of what we were told and what was presented to us, yet no one is looking to close to the presenters themselves and it is there that I see the problem, This is about large firms being too large and the people who do not like these large firms are the people who for the most do not understand the markets they are facing. Just like the stage of media crying like little bitches because they lose revenue to Google (whilst ignoring Bing as it has less than 3% marketshare). 

The who? The what? Why?

This part is a little more complex, to try to give my point, I need to go back to some Google page that gives me “What is Google’s position on this new law? We are not against being regulated by a Code and we are willing to pay to support journalism—we are doing that around the world through News Showcase. But several aspects of the current version of this law are just unworkable for the services you use and our business in Australia. The Code, as it’s written, would break the way Google Search works and the fundamental principle of the internet, by forcing us to pay to provide links to news businesses’ sites. There are two other serious problems remaining with the law, but at the heart of it, it comes down to this: the Code’s rules would undermine a free and open service that’s been built to serve everyone, and replace it with one where a law would give a handful of news businesses an advantage over everybody else.”

This is about that News bargaining setting. Here we get ‘by forcing us to pay to provide links to news businesses’ sites’, and I go ‘Why?’ A lot of them do not give us news, they give us filtered information, on addition to this is that if I am unwilling to buy a newspaper, why should I pay for their information? If they want to put it online it is up to them, they can just decide not to put it online, that I their right. In addition some sources for years pretty much EVERY article by the Courier Mail get me a sales page (see below), this is their choice and they are entitled to do so.

Yet this sales pitch is brought to us in the form of a link to a news article. It still happens today and it is not merely the Courier Mail, there are who list of newspapers that use the digital highway to connect to optional new customers. So why should they get paid to be online? In the digital stage the media has become second best, the stage that the politicians are eager to ignore is that a lot of the ‘news bringers’ are degraded to filtered information bringers. In the first why should I ever pay for that and in the second, why would I care whether they live or die? Do not think this is a harsh position, Consider the Daily Mail giving us two days ago ‘Police station is branded the ‘most sexist in Britain’ after investigations find officers moonlighted as prostitutes, shared pornography with the public and conducted affairs with each other on duty’, so how did they get to ‘most sexist in Britain’? What data do they have and hw many police stations did they investigate? There is nothing of that anywhere in the article, then we get to ‘after a series of scandals’, how many is a series of scandals? Over what time frame? Then we get to ‘Whatsapp and Facebook groups used to exchange explicit sexual messages and images have been shut down’, as such were the identities of the people there confirmed? How many were there? What evidence was there? All issues that the Daily Mail seems to skate around and ‘In the latest scandal, PC Steve Lodge, 39’ completes the picture. Who else was hauled to court and is ‘hauled’  a procedural setting in an arrest? When one rites to emphasise to capture the interest of the audience it becomes filtered information, it becomes inaccurate and therefor a lot of it becomes debatable. Well over a dozen additional questions come to mind of a half baked article on the internet, and they get paid for that? And as we consider ‘He was alleged to have’ we get the ‘alleged’ part so that the newspaper cannot be held liable, but how accurate was the article? That same setting transfers to Lina Khan.

The article gives us ‘or rather a perceived lack of competition’ as well as ‘markets had come to be controlled by a very small number of companies’, they are generalising statements, statements lacking direct focal point and specifications. In the first ‘perceived’ is a form of perception, biased and personal, ones perception is not another ones view of the matter. It is not wrong to state it like that, but when you go after people it is all about the specifics and all about data and evidence, as I see it evidence has been lacking all over the board.
And when we consider ‘markets had come to be controlled by a very small number of companies’ I could add “PetSmart has 1650 shops in the US, they could set the price for tabby’s on a national level, is that not a cartel foundation?” Yet these politicians are not interested in a price agreement of pets are they, it is about limiting the stage of certain people, but by doing so they will hurt themselves a lot more than they think. On November 14th 2020 I wrote the article ‘Tik..Tik..Tik..’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/11/14/tik-tik-tik/), where I wrote “if HarmonyOS catches on, Google will have a much larger problem for a much longer time. If it is about data Google will lose a lot, if it is about branding Google will lose a little, yet Huawei will gain a lot on the global stage and Apple? Apple can only lose to some extent, there is no way that they break even”, and a lot ignored the premise, but now as HarmonyOS has launched (a little late), the stage is here. When it is accepted as a real solution, Google stands to lose the Asian market to a much larger degree and all because a few utterly stupid politicians did not know what they were doing, more important Huawei still has options in the Middle East and in Europe. So the damage will add and add and increase to a much larger degree, especially if India goes that way, for Google a market that could shrink up to 20%, close to 2,000,000,000 consumers are per July 1st ill have an alternative that is not Apple or Google, that is what stupidity gets them. My IP will connect to HarmonyOS, so I am not worried, yet as I see it the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) better start getting its ships properly aligned, because if HarmonyOS is indeed a decent version from version 2 onwards the US tech market could shrink by a little over 22.4%, the US economy is in no way ready for such a hit, all because politicians decided to shout without evidence and knowhow of what they were doing, a nice mess, isn’t it?

The stage of ‘What is’ depends on reflection and comprehension and both were lacking in the US, I wonder what they will lose next. 

1 Comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

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

June 18, 2021 · 20:22

Officials? Bitching!

I have a few ideas on advertisers, don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against people wanting to advertise, or sponsor, yet they should open their wallets and keep their mouths shut. So as such when I saw ‘Euro 2020: Uefa warns teams could be fined if they move drinks at news conferences’ (at https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/57517337) I had to take a walk to cool down a bit. You see, not only is Aleksander Čeferin a bitch, he is apparently a prime time one. We might agree, or not on his position towards advertisers and that super league issue, but he has a duty to shield the player.

So when I see “Uefa has reminded participating teams that partnerships are integral to the delivery of the tournament and to ensuring the development of football across Europe, including for youth and women”, I merely wonder if he had lost the plot (which could be the case). So as we see ‘partnerships are integral to the delivery of the tournament’ we should remind Alex that the delivery of the tournament is not being a photo opportunity for the pleasure of James Quincey (CEO Coca Cola). Sugary drinks are in part a health hazard and if a soccer player does not condone them, he moves them, so suck that up Aleksander Čeferin, and go cry in a corner! If Ronaldo prefers water, that is his business and not the business of UEFA or Coca Cola. And if Pogba, a practising Muslim objects to an alcoholic drink in front of his face, you have to accept that, one better, if you knew that a muslim was there there should not have been any beer there in the first place. So reading “Teams have been reminded of their contractual regulations and Kallen said disciplinary action was “a possibility”” is quite literally a showboat of bullshit. So show EVERYONE just how much you fucked up and show those ‘contractual regulations’ where players have to take photo ops with sugary and alcoholic drinks and I will show you just how much UEFA failed the players! Oh and by the way, please show the UEFA contract that UEFA signed with Coca Cola, I reckon that there will be a few other issues in there that we will openly and loudly object to.

So whilst you might not like that they moved the bottles, you as president of UEFA fucked it up yourself. So as Martin Kallen hid behind “We are never fining players directly from the Uefa side, we will do this always through the participating national association and then they could look if they will go further to the player, but we are not going directly for the moment to the player”, you Alexander are in the end responsible for that mess and hiding behind legal talk will not shield you, so when we advertise that Aleksander Čeferin and Martin Kallen support health hazards to players, which we see when we consider “People consider sugary drinks to be a significant contributor to many health conditions, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, and tooth decay. Research has shown that drinking a can of Coca-Cola can have damaging effects on the body within an hour” (source: Medial News Today), so do you have anything else to bitch about? No? Good, now go and for the love of god keep your advertisers (sponsors too) in line. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , ,

June 17, 2021 · 23:34

When perception is the brand

Yes, this sounds confusing, but it actually is not. It started with a simple article on the BBC, the article ‘Chloe Khan and Jodie Marsh rapped by watchdog’ caught me by surprise. The idea was given to me “The Advertising Standards Authority has named and shamed four influencers it said repeatedly failed to disclose when their Instagram posts were actually advertisements”, now I do not are about influencers, I tend to stay away from them and I do not use instagram. But the people that do follow these influencer tend to do so for very specific reasons. It comes to blows (to coin a phrase) when we compare this to Twitter. So when we see these two tweets, we do see the ‘promoted’ mention at the VERY bottom and these pages go towards photo’s and text surrounded by massive amounts of advertisement, some of these providers will try to get one photo per page with a next mention and the next page will show you even more advertisements. So is this not deceptive? What is the setting of the Advertising Standards Authority at that point? Is the creation of what I call ‘click bitches’ not deceptive? This has been going on for years, the in game advertisements on Android, and iOS devices have all kinds of deceptions, what have they achieved there? 

And now we get to the first part, when is perception the brand. What is the perception? Are the tweets safe? Is the word ‘promoted’ enough? When we look at “Promoted Tweets are ideal when you want to increase your Twitter audience reach and engagement. When you have a big announcement, a new blog post, a marketing campaign, or an upcoming event you’d like to reach more people than you would organically, Promoted Tweets is the better strategy. This is because your Promoted Tweets will appear in users’ live feeds and search results” we see and accept that, yet when we see promotion emphasised by large breasts, is it advertisement, or deceptive conduct? Some people might not be able to tell the difference, and I believe that it becomes more and more about the ambiguity of perception. So, as such is the ‘shaming of people like Chloe Khan and Jodie Marsh warranted? As the Advertising Standards Authority is failing people, millions of people on Twitter, on iOS and Android games, is going after smaller players not merely hypocritical? As such, is the advertisement of 23 camping pictures deceptive? Perhaps the overload of advertisements is merely a side effect? As such, does the inability to act against Twitter, Facebook and Mobiles games not merely make the act against the influencers slightly overkill? And all this is before we take notice of “The ASA was responding to the #filterdrop campaign that called for it to be compulsory for influencers to state when they use a beauty filter to promote skincare or cosmetics”, this is what magazines have been doing for years, where was the Advertising Standards Authority then? 

It all takes another turn when we take a look at the freedom of speech, this is shown in the last tweet. 

First of all, the person gives the names and they are seemingly correct, but it is “Given that anti-rationality, anti civil rights (anti-woke) channel GB News is losing major advertisers already, due to the crap they are peddling, suggest some alternative advertisers” that makes me wonder. You see filtered information is handed to us by the bulk of the news channels. The evasion of news regarding Houthi missile and drone attacks against Saudi civilian targets is the most visible one, but not the only one. If the left filters to the left, is the right not allowed to filter to the right? And so far I saw three GB news articles on Youtube there was a view I might not agree with, but should they be attacked as such? So when we are given “I’m excited to tackle difficult subjects with voices you haven’t heard before”, so what is the problem here? And GB News matters, you see perception comes in two sizes, the perception we see and detect and the one that sneaks up unnoticed, but they are both filter forms that aid the perception that the transmitter wants to give us, so where these advertisers leaving through peer pressure, or is there a case of actual evidence? Consider that Andrew Neil has been working as a journalist since 1973, meaning he optionally has more experience than the sum of some news channel cast members. In addition, when we see “due to the crap they are peddling”, do you think that other breakfast TV shows are not peddling crap? Is one side better than the other? No, I do not think so, but there is a chance that if both exist I might get a decent balanced central view. In the end this is not merely about the news, you see if it was about the news, people would simply not watch it and if no one watches it the channel dies, but there is a larger need, the need for advertisers and there is the crux, saturation demands that advertisers choose where they are and they are wherever the masses are, the Express gives us “Despite the complaints from some viewers regarding the sound, the show pulled in thousands of viewers as according to BARB data, 164,500 people tuned in to watch between 7pm and 11pm on Sunday night”, which accompanies ‘Launch show beats BBC and Sky despite ‘technical difficulties’’ and that would scare any news channel, the fact that there might be a market for GB News and that is where these advertisers are soon to be, where do I get the best reach? It is a business decision and that decision is what other media fear, Fox grew to greatness and the news channels are scared of that, and whilst they TOO adhere to shareholders, stake holders and advertisers. The bulk of the advertisers can only afford one place, not all places and that is the fear of filtered information. The news is too much on shareholders and stake holders, all whilst the advertisers play (at times) a dubious role in this setup. Am I a fan of GB News? I do not know, I have not been able to make up my mind yet. I get it, a 24 hour channel needs it human interest stories, but when I see news of a cremated cat, I wonder who will cover the Yemen events. Consider that the BBC gave us on the 8th of March “The UN says the war has caused created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis and caused an estimated 233,000 deaths”, yet the UN gave us on December 1st 2020 “UN humanitarian office puts Yemen war dead at 233,000”, so do you think that in 4 months in slaughterhouse Yemen ZERO deaths occurred over a period of 4 months, or is someone not doing their job? And when we realise the answer to that, do you really think I give a toss on the premise of a cremated cat from either GB News, Fox News, CNN, BBC, Channel 7, Channel 9, Sky News, ITV, CNN, Euronews, or CNBC? You have got to be joking. Does it make GB News bad, lousy or useless? No, but they are slightly to the right and the left does not tolerate any channel on that side of the aisle, they thought that Fox News was enough, but if Andrew Neil gets his way, the European channels will get nervous soon enough and no matter what the advertisers do, when someone bails ship others will try to get a slightly sweeter deal, when that comes out GB News will get its share of advertisers, I have no doubt, what remains is the perception created and it takes a little more time to see how GB News will fare and how the people will perceive it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

June 16, 2021 · 13:35

Is it your taste?

Taste is a peculiar thing, it is more than personal at times and sometimes it is massively selective, I for one loved to try my new girlfriend having a Chicken Vindaloo (before I went to Australia), or an Indonesian restaurant. You see, I need to know that she at least likes the dishes I love. I had an ex who hated pizza and therefore I ended up not having pizza for a year. And that setting of taste (and balance) continues over a larger field. So when the BBC gives me ‘GB News: Several brands pull advertising from news channel’, it gets me in two ways (both with happiness), the first is seen in “it has faced criticism from campaigners such as the group Stop Funding Hate, who say its launch brings highly partisan Fox News-style programming to the UK”, yes it all seems nice, but haters will be haters and the choices some channels make are at times proven to be hateful, the other media makes sure that it is hateful. And this can happen in a whole range of ways and the media is all over that part. For the largest reasons they do not want another mouth eating from the digital advertising dish. 

Andrew Neil (chairman) gives us “In an opening monologue to viewers on Sunday night, Neil said GB News would aim to “puncture the pomposity of our elites in politics, business, media and academia and expose their growing promotion of cancel culture for the threat to free speech and democracy that it is”” is not hateful, yet the part I have stated several times in the past and even yesterday is seen in “puncture the pomposity of our elites in media and expose their growing promotion of cancel culture”, I did not phrase it like that, but it does fit. Consider these two parts, the first is an alleged attack on Jamal Khashoggi, a journalist no one cares about and the media is hounding it for the longest time, more importantly the UN is helping push the media agenda on this via some essay writer called Agnes Calamard. Yet the actions of Martin Bashir, who as seen by a lot of people as a massive reason of het divorce and ultimately led to her death is pushed outside of the media limelight, moreso as an inquiry showed him to be manipulative using forged documents and he is not even arrested (not even pro forma). Andrew Neil has a point, will he have a case? Time will tell, I remain skeptical of nearly all media outlets that are not presented by trained journalists, morning entertainment channels giving us filtered information.

The second part is actually not good for Andrew Neil. We see Kopparberg and Octopus Energy cancelling what they had seemingly placed, as such even as the channel is only now on the air, these people did not do their due diligence, and even I cannot call whether GB News is actually hateful. Yet there is a place in the media for Fox News, not my favourite channel but I believe that we can only see actual news when we are not depending on Al Jazeera and Reuters. In this the other side of that coin is that Kopparberg, Open University, Ovo Energy and Ikea had made suspensions hiding behind “not knowingly booked slots on the channel”, implying that they advertise without investigation, as such, how stupid is that? I believe that there is more behind that. I would speculate that not unlike the old PS2 versus Dreamcast issue in 1999, some media outlets might have stated that if you are with them, you cannot be with us. I can never prove that, but I was a witness to the PS2-Dreamcast event. So it is not too far-fetched. 

Oh and by the way, so far there is the indication that GB News and Andrew Neil is getting more news flak from other media that Martin Bashir so far has. I wonder why that is, especially after these same sources had no issues posting whatever speculative (not evidence) based posting on the Jamal Khashoggi case. Do not take my word for that, investigate yourself! I do not care whether you watch GB News, that is your choice, I merely wonder how much of the news media has not been trustworthy for the longest of times and that includes the views of Piers Morgan. You see I avoided the interview for my own reasons, he had a point of view, and I am not judging him to be valid or invalid, it was a point of view, he is allowed HIS point of view and we see thousands of complaints on a point of view. So how many complaints did these people lodge against Martin Bashir? And that was before I saw ‘Meghan Markle’s claim ‘doesn’t add up’ – ‘Strange’ remark in Oprah interview picked apart’ from the Express (at https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1447782/meghan-markle-oprah-winfrey-interview-queen-elizabeth-II-prince-harry-lee-cohen-news-VN). There we were given “Mr Cohen pointed to a moment in the Oprah Winfrey interview where Meghan said she was unaware of needing to curtsy the Queen and did not know the words to the UK national anthem. The political writer found it “odd”, stating he was given stringent protocol training when he met the Queen and questioned whether the Duchess of Sussex was overall willing to learn the new customs”, it is a point of view, but that also gives a rather large nudge towards Piers Morgan optionally might having a case. As I avoided the interview I cannot really say, but who else had that part Mr Cohen stated? Why was the rest of the media not all over that? Was it the ‘Awwwww’ moment? Now take these elements and you will see that there might be place for someone like GB News. Will it be on my list? Not sure, I will look at it initially via YouTube (as I am on the other side of the planet for now), yet its future will not be depending on the advertisers, it will largely be depending on the quality of journalism and that part is left out of the media consideration, at least the dozen articles I saw and none mentioned that part, I wonder why that is, don’t you?

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

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

June 15, 2021 · 21:11

If it bleeds, it leads

Yes, one of the famous sayings from the entertainment media regarding the media and the news media. We can find all kinds of response regarding the media, yet at present we see an overly cool head when it comes to the matters involving Martin Bashir. We saw the media blow out of proportions when it came to news regarding Lady Diana Spencer, even more when she became the wife of the prince of Wales, it continued as they divorced and continued as she became close to Dodi Fayed. The people still believe that paparazzi’s were directly responsible for her death, as such I still believe that it is my civic duty to mutilate any paparazzi if I ever get the chance. The paparazzi and the media have never been held to account, the media wants its images, its pound of flesh to get revenue through circulation, yet when it comes to their own (like Martin Bashir) the bare minimum of exposure is required. Yet, that might soon change. As we are told by the Texas News Today (at https://texasnewstoday.com/martin-bashir-misled-and-duped-michael-jackson-during-2003-interview-former-lawyer-claims/314833/): ‘Martin Bashir ‘misled’ and ‘duped’ Michael Jackson during 2003 interview, former lawyer claims’, we see “The attorney, Brian Oxman, claimed in an exclusive interview with DailyMail.com that while Bashir was ‘not evil’, his ‘careless actions’ were fuelled by ambition and began a fatal downward spiral for the star”, if this is proven we get 3.5 million plus 47 million fans.

Well over 50 million fans out for blood, for the blood of Martin Bashir and this time the media will not abide, they are scared that they are optionally a future target. So as the Guardian gives us “Just three weeks after the devastating Dyson report into Bashir’s use of fake documents to secure an interview with Princess Diana in 1995, the BBC’s internal investigation cleared the corporation and its existing executives of any wrongdoing when it rehired him to report on religion some 20 years later”, the Guardian seemingly goes out of its way to not investigate the Michael Jackson interview, and now we see “Bashir’s interview with Jackson was aired in the explosive 2003 documentary Living with Michael Jackson on British channel ITV. The documentary was credited with sparking a child sex abuse prosecution against the star, in which Bashir testified. Jackson was acquitted of all charges in 2005”, and the media is largely reporting as little as possible as I see it. Even now, the Guardian is all about being as timid as possible, we get to see “BBC did not get to bottom of Martin Bashir’s lies, Hall tells MPs”, yet the rest is all about “Of course, it depends what allegations you mean. But the report from Lord Hall, which has already been discussed, went to the board of management and the board of governors and it was on the basis of those reports that an understanding was reached”, yet the foul stench that accompanied Martin Bashir is avoided as much as possible, even now when we see from a few sources “Martin Bashir: ‘No evidence’ journalist was rehired by BBC in cover-up over Princess Diana interview, review finds”, yet the smallest sentiment is ignored: ‘Why was he rehired at all?’, with the abundance of decent journalists out there seeking a job, they rehired the one with a report against him, a damning one that was thrown to the bottom of any available pile. And the media is apparently not asking the questions, or at least not loud enough. So when we now consider “Oxman is now calling for an investigation by ITV, similar to a recent inquiry into Bashir’s landmark BBC interview with Princess Diana in which she candidly admitted to cheating on Prince Charles, prompting a scandal and royal family crisis. The inquiry, run by UK lawmaker Lord Dyson at a cost of $2million to the corporation, found Bashir fabricated bank statements and lied to convince Diana to talk”, should something be found, than it is more than the end of Martin Bashir, it will damage both ITV and the BBC further. If 40,000 complaints was enough to remove Piers Morgan from a show, what do you think 50,000,000 complaints gets us all? And at that point the media will find it in its heart (and their wallets) to burn a media man at the stake, revenues are to be considered (as I personally see it). It is such a shame that when it comes to ethics and evidence the media is willing to take a page from ‘unnamed sources’ a little too often. And when the people reconsider that part 2 of the Leveson inquiry would be about “the extent of unlawful or improper conduct within News International, other media organisations or other organisations. It will also consider the extent to which any relevant police force investigated allegations relating to News International, and whether the police received corrupt payments or were otherwise complicit in misconduct”, we need to consider the small part called ‘other media organisations’. And even as the Tories scrapped it, they might no longer have that option, the setting we currently see regarding Martin Bashir could sway the people in demanding part 2 and that is what the media fears. The accusations by Brian Oxman are of a very different nature and it might fuel a few additional parts in this debate. It might be the one part the BBC (and ITV) never banked on and that is the one flaw the people will get to see a lot more than the media bargained for. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

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

June 14, 2021 · 22:19

Discriminators big and small

It happens, we sometimes discriminate, even if that was not the intent, even if it was just a joke (obviously a bad one), or even if it was an unknown reason, merely because you never knew. The last one is actually a larger slice of the cake and it is not held against anyone. If it was unintended, and we never knew the foundation of that discrimination, we feel a little ashamed when it passes and we make a mental note not to do it again. Should the media be given a pass? Are they allowed to be ‘uninformed’? It is a much larger question than you think and it is brought to the surface today by two events. The first is ‘Saudi-led coalition intercepts Houthi drone, says state TV’ (at https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/saudi-led-coalition-intercepts-houthi-drone-says-state-tv-2021-06-14/). Here we see “air defences intercepted and destroyed an armed drone launched by Yemen’s Houthi group towards the southern Saudi city of Khamis Mushait, state television said on Monday” they are one of THREE non muslim sources that gave me the article. So when we have the BBC, Boston Globe, NY Times, Washington Post, the Times, San Francisco Chronicle and several other large news papers, I found a total of three sources that gave me this article. Saudi Arabian citizens are under terrorist attack by Houthi forces and we see none of that, we will see teabag ladies holding up CAAT signs on arms trade against Saudi Arabia,  that makes all the newspapers, optionally the teabag lady was the human interest side. Some of us will shout all kinds of ‘evil Saudi intent’ yet these people have not been told the whole truth, why is that? Why is the media setting the stage of intentional discrimination? And it is not one nation, this is global, or should I say Christian global? We saw the French examples of pushing a ‘non-religion’ agenda, or is that a christian agenda?

Islam does not allow an image of Mohammed

It took me 3 minutes to come up with an alternative image to make sure that the classroom would understand that an image of Mohammed was taboo in Islam, so instead of the image explaining that is was against Islam to give any image of Mohammed, we see an image causing outrage and they knew it was going to lead to outrage, so why was that?

The second one is more despicable, I saw a few sources give us ‘New Zealand’s Ardern criticises Christchurch attack film amid uproar’, with the added text ““They Are Us” film about PM Jacinda Ardern’s response to 2019 Christchurch terror attacks has been slammed by New Zealand’s Muslims and others for pushing a “white saviour” narrative and “sidelining the victims””, I wonder why the powers are so afraid of Islam and Muslims, when we see “Philippa Campbell, New Zealand producer, on Monday announced that she was resigning, according to The Guardian”, when we realise that the producer is resigning, there is a larger issue in play with the director and the people behind the screens and that too does not yet make it to the forefront, why is that? 

As I see a daily dose of age discrimination and religious discrimination all over the field, do you really think that statements by others in the area of ‘Trust them, it will work out, they know what they do’, do you think there is any trust left? The media is eager to put ‘the people have a right to know’ in the drawer when it suits the needs of their friends, yet they are well versed in staging these friends into the circle of ‘unnamed sources’, so why is that? And more importantly why do we continue to let this happen? Gallup had a nice presentation (at https://news.gallup.com/poll/157082/islamophobia-understanding-anti-muslim-sentiment-west.aspx) for me there were two slides, but I will give one, here we see how massive that problem is and the media is shunning its responsibilities to the largest extent. 

Here we see that Italy seems to be the most accepting nation with 28% not accepting muslims, but with a 15% data gap the message there could be a lot worse, in the US that non acceptance is 52% with only an 8% gap, so at best it is a 50/50 premise there and why is that? Muslims have been part of investigations against extremism. In the FBI, CIA, and other players in town on a global scale all whilst we are shunning our duties as people, as citizens, as concerned people who need to be told the truth and the truth is being skewed and negated n nearly every turn, why is that? I do not expect you to have the answer, but I believe it is more important to be told the truth and the media is not part of that, why are news agencies stacking news to set an anti perception? Consider that today, today is a good day to consider just that. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Religion

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

June 12, 2021 · 00:55

Changing perspectives

As I was about to lose sleep again, the BBC helped me out with an article in a very different direction. The headline ‘Actor Riz Ahmed wants to stop Hollywood’s ‘toxic portrayals’ of Muslims’. And he is right, for the most there has been too much toxic portrayals. When I try to find an alternative direction, my mind comes up with a title like Traitor, an amazing piece of work by Don Cheadle, I do not believe that to be a toxic movie, it stands out as a Muslim finds a way to stop bloodshed in a very innovative way, the end is to be seen again and again. I came up with ‘How to assassinate a politician’ which might be toxic, but I saw it as a response to ultra right discrimination and unacceptable levels of anti Muslim actions. Yet it is about Riz Ahmed, and when we see “The progress that’s being made by a few of us doesn’t paint an overall picture of progress if most of the portrayals of Muslims on screen are still either non-existent or entrenched in those stereotypical toxic two-dimensional portrayals” (at https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-57438750), he is right, there is another side given to us by Ali-Baab Khan “Muslims live all over the world, but film audiences only see a narrow portrait of this community, rather than viewing Muslims as they are: business owners, friends and neighbours whose presence is part of modern life”, there I see nothing new.

I have friends who are business owners, friends who were neighbours and still friends who live far away, they are Muslim and there is nothing wrong with that. Yet it is not merely about the narrow portrait, you see I have always considered myself well educated (three University degrees) and a whole range of experience all over the field, yet until a little after the Charlie Hedbo event I learned that the image if Mohammed was never to be displayed, it was a massive no-no in Islam, I never knew that, my schools never told me that. Now the era was out there that until I went to high school, I had never met a Muslim and even then I did not notice him for the fact that he was by himself a lot and I was in high school. Yet the knowledge behind Charlie Hedbo gave light to my version of ‘How to assassinate a politician’. Yet the stage was that I did not meet any Muslims until 1982 when I entered the Middle East, and in all that the teachings of the Catholic Church that was given to us in nearly all schools was about the evil saracens and us the good christians saving Jerusalem. So was it when Ridley Scott made Kingdom of Heaven (2005) that we woke up? Some woke up a little early, but a lot of us still haven’t woken up and those who rely on Lawrence of Arabia (1962) to give us the real news we will be up for a rude awakening. So as some give us “The film is widely regarded as one of the greatest and most influential films ever made. In 1991, it was deemed “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant” by the United States Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the National Film Registry” we need to recognise that it comes with the added “Most of the film’s characters are based on actual people to varying degrees. Some scenes were heavily fictionalised, such as the attack on Aqaba, and those dealing with the Arab Council were inaccurate since the council remained more or less in power in Syria until France deposed Faisal in 1920”, and as we take notice that there is no real actual and factual representation and this was until way deep past 1991, we see that not only does Riz Ahmed have a case, it is a much larger case than anyone can fathom, even if he is that one Muslim downing the Empire (a Rogue One joke). For me the massive filtering by the media gave me the clue that things are not right for almost a decade, but that means that for the longest time I was not aware of the party that was playing and that bothers me a lot. Does that not bother you? If you are in a small village like Hilversum (Netherlands) and you lived there all your life and you never looked around you might miss it too and you would be forgiven, I take it harder because I am supposed to be intelligent enough to see things, but there too is the crux, the media is a much larger problem in all this and they are banking on people staying asleep for as long as possible, and that gives light to the movie Syriana, a movie with 5 stages and the more you know the more brilliant that movie comes across. Does this help Riz? No, I do not think it does, but it does show that his claim is a lot more solid than we would have given it credit, and that matters too.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, movies, Politics

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

June 8, 2021 · 20:40

It started with pride

Yup, pride was mine. As I was considering what to do at the end of season 3, I had a brainwave. Of course I will not give it away here, as it might give me an added value to a player like Amazon (Prime), the setting I have not high hope on, but with all the sources want new and unique stories, my story could be a hit, so as I was looking at a map I remembered something and that helped me to set an additional side to the cliffhanger of season 3. It is a side and a direction I had not considered, and that what makes it fun. I had no plans as I was designing season one, now in the water I see the stage of season 3 entering season 4. A direction that until today was not considered. I wonder if other TV series makers have the same events that led to breakthroughs in thinking, plotting and planning. 

And it is the plotting and planning that was central, especially when you see ‘ANOM: Hundreds arrested in massive global crime sting using messaging app’, it comes with “conceived by Australia and the FBI, saw devices with the ANOM app secretly distributed among criminals, allowing police to monitor their chats about drug smuggling, money laundering and even murder plots” with the additional “This included eight tons of cocaine, 250 guns and more than $48m (£34m) in various worldwide currencies and cryptocurrencies”. There we see a new method of a trojan horse, a concept that comes from the age of Homer, a story that is well over 3,000 years old. But someone found a new adaptation of it. It feels like I am in synch with other people, or it merely seems to be the case. When you consider the headline ‘More than 800 suspected criminals have been arrested worldwide’, it seems that this was an operation that was months, if not well over a year in the planning and execution. And when I see “being tricked into using an FBI-run encrypted messaging app”, I get the idea that those on the dark side of the law, decided to trust the wrong person. And all this in the same day, no wonder I feel hyped and eager to continue my idea for Keno Diastima, a stage in play that I never considered a stage that goes beyond the oceans, beyond normal data. Yes, it is true that some see dots and wisdom, some see a unicorn and some see a dragon, but in the end they are merely plot points.

Yet the idea that some see a an image of a man, others see something different, it is about perception and that got me thinking of a different stage towards the new horizon, what happens next is up to my imagination. But I feel good about the options and I feel ready to take my imagination to new heights, like taking 5 left turns on a square and selling it to the readers as a circle. We all have our moments, yet today, it seems to be the case that 800 criminals are not having theirs. 

For them it all started with pride to trust the wrong application, and those offering that application. 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Military, Science

Tagged as , , , , ,

June 4, 2021 · 03:32

Any more staff in the range of stupid?

It is a question that is seemingly asked in political circles, but these questions never get the limelight it deserves. There are numerous examples, but the clear ones are starting 11 years ago. ABC at that point gave us ‘The $77 Billion Fighter Jets That Have Never Gone to War’ with small raised issues like “the U.S. led an international effort to secure a no-fly zone over Libya last month, the F-22, the jet the Air Force said “cannot be matched,” was not involved. The Air Force said the $143 million-a-pop planes simply weren’t necessary to take out Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi’s air defences”, the US armed forces spend (read ‘optionally wasted’) $80,000,000,000 on a plane and over a period of 3 major combat operations it never saw the light of day in active combat testing. Yes, as I see it the most advanced plane is one that never tests its ability in combat, it makes perfect sense, like the cold war did. Then we go to 2016, a bombing target that I have written about a few times, the USS Zumwalt. A ship so ugly that it is optionally too ugly to be used as target practice and sunk in a place where we can regrow coral reefs. The Guardian gave us ‘US navy’s most expensive destroyer breaks down in Panama Canal’ with the added “The Zumwalt cost more than $4.4bn and was commissioned in October in Maryland. It also suffered a leak in its propulsion system before it was commissioned. The leak required the ship to remain at Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia longer than expected for repairs”, with a few other sides of failure, even as the Guardian gives us “One of its signature features is a new gun system that fires rocket-powered shells up to 63 nautical miles”, a side that never ever worked. That is because and this is merely one of the sources ‘The USS Zumwalt Can’t Fire Its Guns Because the Ammo Is Too Expensive’, yes a side that was never charted properly, was it. It came down to the setting that “The two Advanced Gun System howitzers are fed by a magazine containing 600 rounds of ammunition, making it capable destroying hundreds of targets at a rate of up to ten per minute”, however, “now the U.S. Navy is admitting that the LRLAP round is too expensive to actually purchase, leaving the nearly $4 billion dollar destroyer’s guns high and dry”, now the class were adjusted for Raytheon solutions making the ship a joke on a few levels. So at this stage a group of people wasted $84,000,000,000 and it adds up that the tax payer has nothing to show for it. How is that for a sense of humour, but now, wait for it…..Now the BBC gives us ‘Major design flaws in Army’s new armoured vehicles, report shows’, a stage where we see “An internal leaked government report also raises serious doubts as to whether the £5.5bn Ajax Armoured Vehicle programme will be delivered on time and within budget. Problems include excessive vibration and noise”, yes that makes total sense. You see the two governments should be considered guilty of wasting $91,000,000,000 of the taxpayers funds, and that is the group that thinks my £50,000,000 post taxation fee on 5G technology is a waste of time and space? Hah! I found a way to sink the Iranian fleet in new novel and slightly overt ways (the sinking of the Kharg was not my doing and a complete coincidence). I also had a novel idea on melting down the Iranian nuclear reactors, but I hope to test that one in the near future, someone has to do something about that lot, don’t we? But this is not about me, this is about alleged stupid people, so when we get told that “the Ministry of Defence signed a contract for 589 of the Ajax armoured vehicles in 2014”, and we see the flaws, optionally massive ones with the added “successful delivery of the programme to time, cost and quality appears to be unachievable”, oh wait, didn’t the article start with “will be delivered on time and within budget”? Oh no, that too was wishful thinking, because if we see “An internal leaked government report also raises serious doubts”, it implies that some level of stupid thought that on time and within budget was achievable at some point, although there has been 7 years of budget (w)holing, or was that a political seven year itch?

And I need to restrain myself, because I came up with an idea that all the boffins at DARPA did not see coming and at present I am realising an additional stage that is a nervous one and letting my ego get the better of me is not a good thing as it opens up the theatre of war to a much larger stage. And even as I might not feel completely nervous, the fact that two governments failed the Army, the Navy AND the Airforce implies that there are a few issues all over the field and the media is not going after these political names who were buttering their sandwich on both sides of every slice, so there is a lot more to come in the near future.

So when you realise that “The MoD has already spent nearly £3.5bn on the flagship programme, which is meant to provide the British Army with a “family” of modern tracked armoured fighting vehicles. The Army describes it as a “core capability’ and key to its modernisation.” And that core capability does not work, float or fly. Did you honestly believe that the Chinese and Russian problems are real ones? If we cannot counter what they have to offer we are merely sitting by watching politicians draining funds and we see another iteration of ‘Tibetan exile leader warns of Chinese aggression: ‘China will transform you’’ by Fox News and others. Did you think that Chinese and Russian opponents have not figured out that large projects are now showing a fail rate of 80% or more, I will agree that a 100% fail rate is too exaggerating, yet consider that bucket of bolts (USS Zumwalt) that ended up with no shells to fire and now relies on conventional Raytheon technology on a ship that is $3,000,000,000 too expensive for its firing solution. Did you think that they had not noticed the issues, or the Issues with an untested Raptor even though it could have been taken through its paces three times over, you think the other players overlooked that?

As I see it There are a few sides of US and UK governments that require massive overhauls. And I am not trying to win them over for my £50,000,000 post taxation solution, for that I merely need Sundar Pichai, Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk to wake up and smell the coffee (and opportune stage for yours truly). When you consider the waste of $91,000,000,000 is am merely a wrinkle in the fabric of economy and a small one at that. So in all this as we are all trying to get by, fear not, there are players in this field wasting well over 100 times the funds that would keep you alive, so in this age and in the era of Covid, where almost 4 million are dead and 172 million got sick with 250K new cases a day added, we can relax knowing that funds for survival are wasted on all kinds of military problems and we need not worry about war, the wasted funds are for systems that seemingly will not ever work at present. So world peace is within our grasp, we merely had to spend it on systems that do not operate.

Can we hire any more in the range of stupid so that world peace becomes a reality? Although if Russia and China do not embrace that political arena we still have a problem but I might be the one negative thinker here. What do you think?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military, Politics, Science

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

June 2, 2021 · 03:39

Genuinely puzzled

Yup it happens, the news at time makes little sense, it makes little sense for several reasons and that is fair, even for me. Consider the BBC headline ‘Saudi Arabia: Authorities defend mosque speaker restriction’,  which in itself outside of any Islamic nation might be treated with a simple ‘Meh!’ This would not be a negative response, merely a response that approaches the sentiment of ‘Whatever!’, so as I read “The country’s Islamic Affairs Ministry announced last week that all loudspeakers should be set at only a third of their maximum volume. Islamic Affairs Minister Abdullatif al-Sheikh said the measure was in response to complaints from the public. But the move in the conservative Muslim nation sparked a backlash on social media”, I initially wondered why the BBC even took time to give notice to the event, for the most, what does it inform us about? Is it to give visibility to Abdullatif al-Sheikh? Perhaps it was to alarm us to “the move in the conservative Muslim nation sparked a backlash on social media”? I actually do not know, but this news also gives us that there was no space for ‘WHO to start COVID-19 vaccination in Houthi-run north Yemen’ with “Houthi authorities in control have played down the impact of the pandemic, largely denying any outbreak there”, or perhaps it is ‘UAE shows last minute unity to host Asian Qualifiers as China baulks at covid outbreaks’ with “The remaining seven matches in Group A – which will qualify teams for both the next round of the AFC’s World Cup 2022 qualifying and directly into the Asian Cup China 2023 – will be now held at the Sharjah Stadium”, neither news is seen at the BBC, so whilst we accept that speaker settings for announcements are important to the people in the KSA, the western population would all like to know the impact of Football decisions (people in the UK are weird that way), oh I reckon that the people in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Italy would react in a similar fashion.

So whilst it is nice to read “the measure was in response to complaints from the public”, I personally would reckon that the rules of Islam have been clear in many Arabic nations, and as these speakers tend to be set, why would there be complaints now? So whilst some might know that the 5 moments are “Fajr (sunrise prayer), Dhuhr (noon prayer), Asr (afternoon prayer), Maghrib (sunset prayer), and Isha (night prayer). Each prayer has a specific window of time in which it must be completed”, the internet also shows us “In a mosque, the muezzin broadcasts the call to prayer at the beginning of each interval. Because the start and end times for prayers are related to the solar diurnal motion, they vary throughout the year and depend on the local latitude and longitude when expressed in local time”, when we see that, some (including me) might wonder why the speaker settings are suddenly cause for concern. The sound of a person calling to prayer the islamic people is part of Islamic heritage, I wonder who the complaining people would be. I would go as far as stating that unless these calls are lately a lot louder, who would complain on speaker settings and the part we read “the move in the conservative Muslim nation sparked a backlash on social media” gives rise to my puzzlement. It is fair that this news would be (and is) seen in Al Jazeera, but I saw no mention in Arab News, so Islamic news made it to the BBC and not to Arab News? What is going on? 

And when we see “Mr Sheikh said that those who want to pray do not need to wait for the Imam’s call to prayer” the wondering does not top and here I found that the news also made it to Radio Athens, they give us on their website with the added “In a country where there are tens of thousands of mosques, the decision was generally welcomed. However, it also provoked reactions on social networking sites, with the appearance of a hashtag calling for a ban on loud music in restaurants and cafes”, I could not rely on the radio as I haven’t spoken proper Greek since 3575BC. And more important the information on Athens Radio is seemingly the same as the BBC, but the paragraph comes across different due to “with the appearance of a hashtag calling for a ban on loud music in restaurants and cafes”, all whilst both sides give us the one side that is seemingly strange “The restrictions come as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman continues attempts to make Saudi Arabia more liberal and lessen the role religion plays in public life”, I am not sure how to react, optionally, I see in part a reason to disagree. I get that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia wants to make liberal moves and as we can see on YouTube, several tourists are showing the world just how pretty and how amazing Saudi Arabia looks. I have seen a few of these video’s and the view we see from the Sky Bridge Kingdom Tower is amazing. It was the first time I saw this and I wonder why other media have never given a clear view of an architectural marvel like that and what it offers. Yet even if I were to go to Riyadh, I personally feel that I would miss out on the call of prayer, not that I am Islamic, but it is part of Islamic life. As a visitor we would not want to see changes that are part of the foundation of a nation. Yet, I admit that this might merely be me. And in all this I am personally more stricken by “those who want to pray do not need to wait for the Imam’s call to prayer” I have no idea what to make of that, but I understand that as I am not Muslim, I might not get that part. Another source gives us “The decision has angered ultra-conservatives in the country”, it is fair that there are those in favour and those opposing any decision, yet the BBC (Radio Athens neither) gives us anything on the ultra-conservatives and who they are. This sparked a revisit to the Washington Post who gave us in 2018 ‘Saudi Arabia’s once-powerful conservatives silenced by reforms and repression’ with the addition of “these conservatives now tiptoe on social media outlets like Twitter. In mosques and at community gatherings, they reluctantly criticise recent changes they stridently oppose, such as the easing of social boundaries between men and women”, with that in sight we see certain patterns emerge and the BBC was not informing us of that, or perhaps they assumed we knew that, which in light of the Martin Bashir caper is massively silly on several levels. In all this the one part some people overlooked. If the speakers are to be set to 33%, what stops them from upgrading the sound equipment in Mosques from 100 Watt to 300 Watt? It is merely a thought. All parts the BBC is overlooking and I know for a fact that they have faced the ‘hardware upgrade’ in the past. So the lack of information in their article is calling for a few questions. In the end, the only useful information I got from the article was the existence of Islamic Affairs Minister Abdullatif al-Sheikh. From my personal point of view the BBC article was a blunder, one that the BBC should not have made. 

As such my genuinely puzzled setting is quite complete.

A new starts and breakfast is approximately 3 hours and 32 minutes away. Have a great Wednesday!

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

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