Tag Archives: Media

May 16, 2021 · 17:49

The tainted media

Yes, we have all seen it, I wrote about it numerous times, but have you made a tally? In google search for ‘Hamas’, we get ‘Israeli forces destroy media outlets’ Gaza base, says it housed ‘Hamas military intelligence’’, ‘Israeli strikes destroy Gaza tower housing media outlets, and home of Hamas leader’, as well as ‘Israel’s deceptive ‘surprise attack’ an ‘absolute body blow’ to Hamas’. This seems fine, the word ‘Hamas’ is there, yet the third article also gives us “Retired British Army colonel Richard Kemp says in his entire military career he’s never known of such an “extraordinary” surprise attack triggered by “deception” like the Israelis conducted in Gaza by duping the world.” It seems to me that Hamas is very much up to speed on how to use digital media, moreover there is a lack of reporting on the 2,000 missiles fired into Israel. When it is done it is made trivial, even the Miami Herald gives us ‘Some Latin American countries endorse Hamas’ violence against Israel. It’s shameful’ (at https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article251425363.html), these missiles were there, ready to be used at any excuse and the media is not asking questions, questions that matter, why is that? And as we go into that, why are we seeing ‘by duping the world’? All whilst this retired military officer should realise that 2,000 missiles will take 10 forty foot containers, if not more to house all that, and questions on that pat remain absent. Missiles that were clearly designed to target civilians, that too is omitted by the media on nearly all levels. Why is that?

We see the media milk the collapse of ‘a building housing various international media, including The Associated Press’ for every bit of milk possible and that is fine, these journo’s can be an emotional lot but to set view on one side but not the other shows the media to be biased. I too have questions, I asked them, the larger extend of the media did not. The BBC was pretty spot-on (even though they missed two spots) but the rest had close to nothing, merely copy and pasting what Reuters had, that is not journalism as I see it.

In that setting we one more example, when you search “Hamas attacks”, Google search, the news has not one of the large newspapers on the first two pages, not one! That is how you should see bias, I am not claiming that Israel is innocent, I am stating that no one is asking Hamas the hard questions, why is that? And whilst you ponder that, have you considered the price of 2000 missiles? As far as I can tell it should have put Hamas out of pocket for anything between $2,000,000 and $11,000,000, so where did that money come from? That is not including smuggle, transport, fuel and a few more options, oh and getting 10 containers smuggles is quite an ordeal, all things out in the open, the media is not touching that one either, why not?

This might be a global affair and we see ego’s all over the place, but no one is asking the media the questions on them being tainted in more than one way, why is that?

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , ,

May 11, 2021 · 12:34

The tweets that flame

Yes, it seems harsh, and it is not meant to be. You see, this might be the tweet of today, but the setting has never changed not for three decades. Even as political windbags are all claiming that they are doing their bit, they are actually relying on emotional events to keep the flames going, especially when they do not resolve anything. My blog has covered it for almost a decade, and I have been stating it for another two decades. And this tweet is bringing it to the surface yet again.

People are all about ‘taxing billionaires’, ‘taxing corporations’, and ‘taxing churches’, the last one is nice, I hardly ever see that one. So let’s take a jab at this (yet again).

Taxing Billionaires
Yes, it is all about discrimination, taxing the billionaires. I still hope to become one, that is if Papa Smurf (Sergey Brin), Clever Smurf (Larry Page) and optionally Tracker Smurf (Sundar Pichai) wake up and take notice. OK, wake up is incorrect and uncalled for, they are likely awake 18 hours a day and they optionally take notice of a dozen matters every hour of every day, but so far they are not noticing my 5G IP (darn).  So at what point will we ‘tax’ the billionaires? Will we check their bank accounts and levy it for 20%? At what point do you think will these 614 billionaires move to Canada, or Europe and leave the US completely bankrupt? What do you think happens when $5,000,000,000,000 moves to another nation? I have another issue, these people made money in whatever way, and not all are a Lawrence Elliot, Mark Zuckerberg or Google top. As such do you really want the creative top of the world to vacate to another place?

Taxing Churches
There is a larger stage here and I am not against taxing the churches. The Catholic church has pillaged in their own way the planet for centuries. So will you tax one (discrimination) or tax all? It is a slippery slope, and ever as it is not the worst idea, it is a trap waiting t explode in all our faces, we just do not know how. 

Taxing corporations
They are getting taxed, it is the degree of required taxation that is the issue. 

The point is not taxing them, it is overhauling the tax laws and on both sides, both democratic and republican presidents, they all failed. From 1993 onwards the USA has had two democrats, two republicans and now another democrat President, the last 4 all failed to overhaul the tax laws.  As such, blame Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump for this failure. In April 2019 we saw “Amazon, Netflix, IBM, and General Motors are among the 60 big companies paying $0 in federal income taxes in 2018”, not one, not two, not three, but 60 big companies all avoiding taxation, avoiding not evading. Evading taxation is illegal, avoiding it is only paying what the letter of the law tells you to pay and that is how it should be, as such tax laws need an overhaul and this has been clear for 30 years, so why is it not done?

Because we see flames, we react to flames and no one is considering (intentional or not) to push legislation to overhaul the tax laws. It is the same joke again and again. Tax and gun laws are trodden on, we see all the crocodile tears, but people die and die again and until gun laws are truly overhauled, starting by giving the ATF the teeth they need to take a chunk out of guns, this will continue. And the media knows this too, but they cater to their shareholders, their stake holders and their advertisers and none of those three are happy about overhauling tax laws. 

And until the people unite complaining to the media nothing will change. It is funny that a valid objection by a journalist regarding an Oprah Winfrey interview, where we see a reported “Over 57,000 complaints have been delivered to Ofcom” regarding the point of view of a reporter, yet I am willing to bet that NONE of those 57,000 people ever complained on the need to overhaul tax laws. And we notice people complaining that nothing gets done, well, does this not start with you? A person can tweet to high heaven, but that does not change things. Getting hundreds even thousands complain to electable officials never happens (and the politicians, as well as corporations are happy about this), they need the rich to pay for their reelections and that will not happen when tax laws are overhauled.  

This is also not limited to the US, it is a global issue and if people really want poverty to go away, you need to demand an overhaul of the tax laws. It is really that simple. But beware, when you push corporations away it has other impacts. California is now learning that the hard way as more and more corporations are moving to Texas. So this is a much larger slippery scale and their will be consequences, no matter how we slice that tax cake.

But I am not against taxation, but I too will take the tax avoidance route when called on, it is not because I am against paying taxation, I am against paying too much taxation, that is why tax laws were created. A paper in 2014 gave us “‘Tax avoidance is a taxpayer’s course of action in line with the letter but contrary to the spirit of the law’. Definitions phrased along these lines can be found in many policy statements and legal provisions. They are common, but nonetheless problematic. It is the ‘spirit of the law’ part which poses problems. These difficulties not only have theoretical import; they also cast doubt on the legitimacy of efforts to combat tax avoidance. And the skeptics – ‘non-believers’ in the spirit of the law – are many.” The paper by Hanna Filipczyk gives us a lot in that regard, on the problems and on the 27 references that show that this has been going on for a long time, and until politicians stop wanking about the spirit of tax law and do something about the letter of tax law, this will continue, and its continuation will never cease. And the media is making it easy for them as they cater to part of that group. Should you doubt that, then wonder when the media told you to that to achieve a proper level of taxing, tax laws need to change. Do not take my word, check what THEY said, you will see I was right and I have been correct in this case for well over a quarter of a century. 

It was never hard, it was never complex, it merely needed to be done and the previous 4 presidents did not achieve it, why not? I will let you ponder that part for a little part longer.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

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 , , , , , , ,

March 29, 2021 · 00:05

The better news

Ships run amok, churches are under attack and a funeral in Myanmar is more dangerous than the streets of Detroit, all events that people take notice of, I am not one of them, I saw more, I notice what was actually an important step. Arab News (at https://www.arabnews.com/node/1832566/saudi-arabia) gives us ‘Houthi rejection of Saudi peace plan is based on ‘flawed notion’’, it is one view to have, I am not sure if I completely agree, but their view can be seen as such. So when we see ““But the Houthis must realise that the world is completely united (in its desire to) achieve peace in Yemen, and it is united behind the Saudi initiative,” said political analyst Mubarak Al-Ati.” We need to add the quote “The Houthi militias in Yemen and their Iranian sponsors have rejected the latest Saudi peace initiative designed to end the crisis in the country because they believe the international community is divided on the issue”, you see the setting can now be seen in a few ways, the first one comes from ‘Houthi militias in Yemen and their Iranian sponsors’, this is a first side, you see Iran is in a proxy war with Saudi Arabia and when peace talks start their campaign ends and they need to add another failure to their historical books and that is what they are unable to do, they are willing to sacrifice the ENTIRE Yemeni nation before that happens, and that is only one side and one part of the equation. There is another side in this (highly speculative) and that I seen on the American side who has been cancelling arms deals and are willing to see this war go on risking more and more Yemeni lives, they made what I would call a non written agreement with the UK, Germany and France to stop weapons to Saudi Arabia for now. That act alone is the direct cause for 3 years of prolongation in the Yemeni war, so when does it end? That is a stage that is in the hands of the media as it fans the flames of emotion, you see ABC gave is two weeks ago ‘Yemen conflict escalates as country speeds toward famine’, you see it is not the headline that matters, it is the fact that we have been seeing these headlines for well over 5 months, so were they misinforming us then, or are they misinforming us now? You tell me.

As we take notice of “the world is completely united to achieve peace in Yemen, and it is united behind the Saudi initiative”, we would agree, but it would be nice if the media picks this up more loudly and a lot more front page covering on the attempt, the Sydney Morning Herald has all kinds of news on Saudi Arabia, but not the peace attempt, just like they avoided reporting on more than one Houthi missile attack on Saudi civilians. Several media players have also been downplaying the Iranian involvement in all this, so as I see it no one really cares that much about Yemeni lives, least of all Save the Children Australia, who is eager to mention “A number of Australian companies are involved in exporting goods to countries waging war in Yemen”, yet in their setting, there is not one mention of Iran or the Houthi atrocities against the children, why is that?

So for the most I tend to agree with Mubarak Al-Ati, but in all this the media, the western media has another game play in mind and the death of all the children in Yemen is not a concern for them, if it was than there would have been a lot more camera’s on that place, but there is no value, there is nothing to get for them there, their digital needs and their needs from Google takes precedence, even as it makes little difference, the need for the media is becoming obsolete, not real investigative journalism, but they too will become a casualty of war, I wonder what the media endgame is.

So even as I like the setting of “Martin Griffiths, the UN’s envoy to Yemen, and Tim Lenderking, the US special envoy to the country, will probably travel to Muscat for talks with the Houthis to emphasise that “the time has come to end the suffering of the Yemeni people” and persuade them to support the peace process”, I wonder how much impact it will have. As I personally see it the Houthi’s connected themselves to Iran and they are now Iranian tools and a tool has no voice, Iran has more need of them, Saudi Arabia is still there and that vexes Iran. In this Tariq Al-Zahrani  sees it my way, it is seen in “The Houthis are following the instructions of Iran and are working on preserving Iranian interests in the region”, and where does that leave Martin Griffith and Tim Lenderking? Yup, you got it, out in the cold, a place where Richard Burton found more than these two people will. 

Yet is that all? No it is not!

Arab News makes a jump to the left with ““The Houthis are a political card the Democrats are using to put pressure on the Republicans,” he said. “They are trying to prove that the war in Yemen and (the decision by former President) Donald Trump’s administration to withdraw from the nuclear agreement with Iran are both mistakes committed by the Republicans.”” It is a part I can agree with, but that would also imply that the media has a much larger role to play and misinformation is merely one side, the foundational flaw of catering to the need to Iran is a much larger flaw and it comes with disastrous consequences, a side where the democrats are willing to sacrifice Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Israel to make it happen and the best these three can hope for when it does go wrong is a mere ‘Oops!’ From the oval office, like that will be accepted at that point, and when any of it impacts the northern side of the Mediterranean, the US will have pissed off the Christian, Islamic and Jewish populations all at once, quite the achievement.

Oh, and when that happens, the media will not have to wait for some new Leveson inquiry, there is every chance that members from the media will be strung up to the nearest tree in a whole range of nations, it is a risk that comes with catering to ones stakeholders, stakeholders who will be in hiding and in denial all over the US at that point, all claiming miscommunication, what a world we live in. Yet, do not take my word on this, just watch the event unfold as Iran is catered to again and again, that is the play I personally see and perhaps I am all wrong, I will let you see the lack of covering on one side and the downplaying of events on the other. The better news is that it would solve the media issue quite nicely.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

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

February 18, 2021 · 21:00

The danger of being wrong

It happens, to you and me, sometimes we are wrong. It can be because of belief, it can be because of presented facts, or it is linked to the faith you hold. Faith, not religion! In this I have a surprising large foundation of preference towards being incorrect, not being wrong. They are not the same. When you are incorrect, it tends to be towards a specific part of the equation, when you are wrong, you are looking at another equation. That tends to set you on the wrong foot, the one that cannot kick the ball.

For me it started roughly 780 seconds ago when the BBC gives us ‘Facebook Australia: PM Scott Morrison ‘will not be intimidated‘ by tech giant’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56109036). To be honest this mess started a few weeks ago when politicians were starting to suck up to a desperate media setting. The larger fear is not merely the new linking and cookie solution that Google is working on, and that is before they realise that my new IP takes the newspapers out of ALL equations. It was not intentional, but the fact that my solution gets rid of ‘filtered information’ carriers is just icing on the cake. So the article gives us “Australians on Thursday woke up to find that Facebook pages of all local and global news sites were unavailable. People outside the country are also unable to read or access any Australian news publications on the platform”, which suit me just fine, it is not my use of social media, as such I do not care of seeing news (read: filtered information) there. So when we consider the information from the same source giving us “The world-first law aims to address the media’s loss of advertising revenue to US tech firms” my initial somewhat less diplomatic view tends to lean towards “Who the fuck are you legalising advertisement revenue and who gets it?” From my seat it looks like that everyone is all about free trade until the friends of politicians lose their trade, then it becomes a political setting towards protecting those moneybags, that is how I see it. The fact that the media did not comprehend what digital media and digital advertisement was until it was much too late, why do we cater to them? In that same setting how much protection will the Yellow Pages receive against that same media outlet trying to rip dollars from tech companies? The world evolves and those who cannot adjust die, or go under. This is how capitalism works. The stage is even less acceptable when we consider the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/oct/11/the-press-were-never-in-a-post-leveson-straitjacket) giving us “It has always suited journalists to suggest it is unwise for victims of illegality to pursue justice against newspaper publishers”, so not only is it unwise for victims to get against their media harassers, we see a larger stage where politicians and laws are devised to protect them from acts of technological evolution. In this at what point are they held to account for their actions?

So when we consider the part where we see “Under the code, news outlets will be required to negotiate commercial deals individually or collectively with Facebook and Google. If they cannot reach an agreement, an arbitrator will decide whose offer is more reasonable. If Facebook or Google break any resulting agreements, they can be fined up to A$10 million ($7.4 million) in civil penalties”, we see discrimination. Microsoft Bing is not in that equation, why not? In addition, why would we want to see any Australian news in our social media? Come think of it, the setting that Facebook has with advertisements goes back to 2007, so over almost 14 years, the media was incomprehensibly incompetent toward advertisements and the impact. 

In 14 years they did almost nothing to counter it with their own version, by the end of 2012 they had passed 1 billion users, 5 years later they doubled that. (at https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/)
And the media sat on their hands, they sat on their hands to such a degree that now politicians are aiding the filtered information bringers to get some more undeserved revenue, in addition these same politicians did nothing to overhaul the tax laws, so how does that play?

As such why do they deserve that leg up? Oh and in this stage if the population is a solar system, planet earth becomes a system with planet Bing, planet IBM, planet Google, planet Facebook and planet media. In this planet media is mercury, scorched from being too close to the sun, Saturn and Jupiter are Google and Facebook, each with their own asteroids and moons, al having their own function, Mercury, like the media has no moons, no services to offer, merely a printed media solution, as such, how much protection did the parchment guild get when the news went to the pulp business? What was left for the paper mills?

The paper mill is a nice touch, I actually went to one, I saw how paper is made and we all go towards: ‘Yes, but that is now obsolete’, this is true, but in that same light, the media we see today made THEMSELVES obsolete. They did not apply the brakes when they had the option and the Leveson inquiry is merely one of a few examples. When one side of media becomes too populistic, people can no longer tell or differentiate, that made them obsolete and now that this is the stage they want to hang to any solution they can, even the ones that require legality, all whilst they hang freedom of speech and freedom of expression somewhere else so they can accuse others of negating their right to show that freedom of filtered information.

Another voice is journalism professor at City University New York Jeff Jarvis, he gives us (at https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-bargaining-code/) ““The Code is built on a series of fallacies. First is the idea that Google and Facebook should owe publishers so much as a farthing for linking to their content, sending them audience, giving them marketing. In any rational market, publishers would owe platforms for this free marketing, except that Google at its founding decided not to sell links outside of advertisements. The headlines and snippets the platforms quote are necessary to link to them, and if the publishers don’t want to be included, it is easy for them to opt out…”, he gave this yesterday, I was on that train a week ago. And as I see “if the publishers don’t want to be included, it is easy for them to opt out”, the ACCC was eager not to include that little snippet of the equation making them a tool and optionally a joke too. As such we might wonder what politicians are dong (apart from helping their media friends remaining a non-poor entity), I could be wrong, I could be incorrect. I believe I am neither and that is the stage we see, all whilst the bringers of filtered information continue their revenue round one more lap, that is until the race is called. I believe it was called some time ago, but that is merely me. I could be wrong.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

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

February 15, 2021 · 09:43

From drain to sewer

To be honest, I am not surprised. In this day and age of overruling greed and the lack of care I see a change and this change will set woe to Australia and its local brands. It all started with overly stupid shareholders and stake holders, who engaged greed driven politicians on prolonging the lifestyle that some would and should never have been allowed to continue. I am of course talking on those relying on journalism. This is not about the journalists, although they are not entirely without blame. The news was happy to side with a player who has less than 5% of the market. So they were happy to go towards a player who has a mere 1/20 slice of the advertisement cake, this was never about fair, or about realism. 

In the first when we see “Under the proposed bill digital platforms would be required to pay media companies for content” EVERYONE is ignoring the part where the media can decide not to be on the digital format, they can decide not to post their messages on Google Search or place them on Facebook. So why is it an option. It is like advertising on the Yellow Pages and demanding the Yellow Pages for payment for the privilege of showing these articles. The ACCC and a few other players were happy to ignore that part, in addition we see them ignoring the fact that some of these papers have articles that ALWAYS push the link to a payment portal. There is more, these greed driven silly people relied on Microsoft and their Bing flaw to take the forefront into staging the response of “both would have to better compensate news publications for displaying their content, as well as give outlets more information about their search and newsfeed algorithms”, in this, the stage of ‘better compensate news publications’ as well as ‘give outlets more information about their search and newsfeed algorithms’, in this Microsoft who only has at best 5% is eager to increase its market share, yet there is a reason that they only have 5% and the news is only getting worse. As Australia moves away from Google search, they are cutting their fingers in a few more places as well. As silly people are all about their personal gains and personal wealth, the idiots owning the media that they are demanding payment for are all in a stage that they never understood in the first place. The Conversation gives us ‘The old news business model is broken: making Google and Facebook pay won’t save journalism’ (at https://theconversation.com/the-old-news-business-model-is-broken-making-google-and-facebook-pay-wont-save-journalism-150357). There we see “The code is meant to help alleviate the revenue crisis facing news publishers. Over the past two decades they have made deep cuts to newsrooms. Scores of local print papers have become “digital only” or been shut down completely”, as such, we seem to overlook that the elderly owning news media (example the Murdoch wannabe’s) never understood the digital part. We optionally see this in “To understand why the commercial news model is so broken, we first need to recognise what the primary business of commercial news media has been: attracting an audience that can be sold to advertisers”, Google already has the audience and Microsoft wants them too, so silly people (optionally including the politicians) are setting a slippery slope and Australia is about to lose whatever global foothold they have. In this the silly people are clueless on the damage that will hit. 

This is seen in two parts, the first is “2021 Cloud Report from Cockroach Labs ranked Google Cloud Platform as the best-performing of the three major public cloud platforms, offering an impressive threefold advantage in throughput capability”, so not only is Microsoft out of options, they are severely outclassed by Google (and optionally IBM as well), a stage that is influencing a global stage that we see (at https://www2.deloitte.com/au/en/pages/consumer-industrial-products/articles/global-powers-of-retailing.html#), so consider the players that have some global visibility. Players like Wesfarmers, Woolworths and JB HiFi. All players that were until 2020 in the top 250, now consider that they are removed from that field. This is because Microsoft does not count on the global field, not with a mere 5%, 7% on the global stage, we get it that Microsoft wants it desperately, but the silly people never realised that the media is now influencing a stage where others will no longer count as well. It is the purest form of ‘Think local, act global’ it would sound nice, but it merely makes Australian brands no longer a global player, a stage that will make New Zealand the number one consumer target for Australian brands and wherever they are second place, they become obsolete. The ACCC should be proud of not comprehending the larger stage. And in all this as the Conversation informs us of “before 2000 print media attracted nearly 60% of Australian advertiser dollars, according to an analysis for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s Digital Platforms Inquiry. By 2017 it was just 12%”, we see the initial folly, it almost reads like the setting of Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin where we see ‘There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader’, but the media was never a leader in the digital media (or media for that matter), they were merely facilitators to shareholders and stake holders, as such ‘their’ people are already the population of planet Google and Microsoft wants to annex that population in any way they can. So whilst the ACCC is setting a Microsoft stage, the media is still clueless on what is required. As we see “the core of the problem is that funding such journalism through advertising is no longer viable. Other solutions are needed – locally and nationally – to ensure its survival”, it is the larger setting they all relied on advertisers, advertiser whores for a better reference, yet in all this the newspapers are all drowning most pages in advertisements, it is partial evidence of remaining clueless. The owners needed to act over a decade ago, that is seen in the decrease from 60% to 12%, a decade of decrease and nothing was done and now that they are desperate Microsoft steps in, they will save the day, or so they say but will they? They only have a 7% global penetration, they did this to themselves by forgetting that the consumer had become in charge to some degree, it is what Google wanted all along, they merely became the facilitator of whatever the consumer required and requested, the media does not understand as they think that they are the centre of the universe, but in a global setting with thousands of voices they are merely a discord in a choir at best. 

So as the small players listening to the media are throwing away whatever options they have to the media, the media is locally acting to fill its pockets, although they will not see it that way and Microsoft is in a stage where they gain 25,000,000 bing users. And in that stage where 5G passes Microsoft by, the Australians will see a decade of hardship with no future options at all. Well some players will proclaim in their presentations that this is not the case, but when their presentations run dry and when we get to 2023 and players like Wesfarmers, Woolworths and JB HiFi will no longer be on a top 500 list, at that point some people will wonder why they listened to the silly people. I can only hope that my IP is sold before that because the hardship Australia faces with no global audience is not one I hope to rely on, and when you realise just how dangerous this setting is, you will not want that either.

In this when you realise that the media pushed you to a room in the sewer with that view, will you finally realise that the media, their shareholders, stakeholders and advertisers have sold you a bag of goods whilst calling it ‘life on quality street’? Who will you hold accountable the moment you realise that?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

January 15, 2021 · 22:11

Stupid is, as stupid does

Yup, we all have these moments, any person (including me), a setting where we think (or delusionally hope) that effects will turn to our favour. We go through this a few times in our lifetimes, or if you are a civil servant, or elected official 3-4 times a week. So when I saw something that had hit the ‘news’, we see something which was announced previously, as such I am not surprised, and as we are given ‘The Australian government has urged Google to focus on paying for Australian content instead of blocking it’ I merely wonder how stupid the Australian government (my government) needs to get. It is a business principle, one that THEY embraced for a lifetime. ‘Why pay, when you can get it for free?’ A setting that is globally accepted, and as such, why are we surprised? The governments lost credibility and confidence on not overhauling tax laws for decades, now they want to sulk and cry over media not getting paid? Media that does not have the most reliable track record in the last 10 years, so do you think that the people care? Media and taxes have been pussyfooted around on a global scale, as such the people do not really care what happens there, they do not care because the media made it easy not to be cared about.

And the stupidity does not stop there. As we see “After media reports said Australian news websites were not showing up in searches, Google confirmed it was blocking the sites for a small number of users”, we might overlook ““The digital giants should focus on paying for original content, not blocking it. That’s my message to those digital giants,” said Australian Treasurer Josh Frydenberg”, now we accept that Josh Frydenberg is not the most useful person, yet the setting is different. 
Consider the news below (one of hundreds)

We click on it because we are curious, yet we do not get the news. We get

In this the station is that the news USES digital media for free advertisement, and why exactly should Google, Facebook et al cater to that? Yes Josh, do you have a list of ALL the media outlets doing that? 

As such we are not going to lose any sleep when these ‘news providers’ are no longer in the mix, so perhaps we should change ““The digital giants should focus on paying for original content, not blocking it. That’s my message to those digital giants,” said Australian Treasurer Josh Frydenberg” into “Digital giants should leave uninvoiced advertising attempt by so called news groups alone said Australian tool Jay Eff”, am I right, am I wring, you decide.

And the same news outlet sent three articles (in that same approach) in the last hour alone, so the fact that we see “Google said the tests affect about 1% of Australian users, and will be finished by February” and we get “After media reports said Australian news websites were not showing up in searches” implies that someone at the news outlets is keeping track on what w see and what we look for, so how Orwellian is that side of the news?

A stage they set, a stage they tried to bake and now that they are getting bitten, they cry like snivelly little bitches, oh whoop ti do. And this is the stage we walk on, the media is getting less and less reliable and we need to wake up, especially when the treasurer is crying too instead of overhauling tax laws for corporations. Is anyone paying attention?

Enjoy the weekend, Monday morning is 58 hours away.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media

Tagged as , , , , ,

June 16, 2020 · 01:34

Donkey Balls!

The explanation is actually almost too simple, I am writing this whilst I am rewatching the Expanse on Bluray (thanks to the awesome sale JB Hifi had 3 weeks ago). I was watching and browsing whilst I got exposed to ‘Media rules must help news providers harness digital platforms’ value’, the link was on LinkedIn and came from Facebook. I do not disagree with the setting, but the entire issue is much larger and has traps on a few levels. That issue is a little less complicated when we consider the news on the daily mail where we see ‘Top Facebook exec says it DID help Donald Trump win but only because ‘he ran the single best digital ad campaign I’ve ever seen. Period.’ And NOT because of Russia’, the claim was apparantly made by Andrew Bosworth and it was in the Daily Mail on January 8th. It is not the claim that is the issue, it is the linked advertisements that the viewer gets. I ended up with advertisements by Telstra and Microsoft. Now, there was nothing wrong with that, yet if I had not clicked on the story, the advertisements would not have come. That is the issue, even newsmakers need to rely on clicks and there is the first issue. Basically the (short) story has the following 2nd headlines:

  • Andrew Bosworth is a longtime senior Facebook executive and confidant of Mark Zuckerberg
  • Bosworth wrote a 2,500 word memo shared internally with Facebook employees that was published on December 30
  • He claimed the Cambridge Analytica scandal was a ‘non-event’ and admitted the Russians did manipulate the U.S. election
  • Bosworth also essentially branded criticism of the company as fake news because the press ‘often gets so many details wrong’ 
  • The memo was initially leaked to the New York Times on Tuesday before the top executive published it in full on his public Facebook account 

5 times to get the clicks, 5 times to get advertisements and the news channels are in the setting to get CLICKS, making the quality of news debatable and there is the larger issue. When the news becomes a commercial vessel, how can it be trusted?

SO when I looked at the news (according to the Sydney Morning Herald) we get: “It would allow news publishers and digital platforms that distribute news to continue building on existing commercial arrangements, and support the development of a Digital News Council to advance cross-industry collaboration. It would also encourage more transparency for significant changes to the ranking of news content in News Feed and guarantee to publishers we’ll continue to share measurement data on how their content performs on Facebook as well as insights on their audiences, without sharing personal user information.” Here I see that there are optional ‘agreements’ on the sharing of revenue (which I do not debate, or wonder whether that is wrong), yet I do wonder about who has the stronger pull. Revenue based decisions, or news quality decisions and the ambiguity of it deepens the innate mistrust in me and the mistrust of the optional news that it breeds. So the quote “It would allow news publishers and digital platforms that distribute news to continue building on existing commercial arrangements” sets the steps for commercially inclined news, not neutral based and news baked news. It ends up not getting the clicks and that is the larger problem. The digital problem is that there needs to be space for news to set the parameters, yet the click is what gets the revenue and they tend to be on opposite sides of coins of different currency. Better stated was the Expanse response, which was ‘It really is Donkey balls’, the settings a larger one and those relying on click based revenue would not be interested in slaughtering the goose with the golden egg and I get that. But we need to move the news into another stage of the media, now making it revenue based, all whilst those participating should require to pay these newsagents something, it was their material used.

So whether we accept that the previous elections used a much better digital profile, we need to take the news out of it, and give them their own digital channel, not set to a click based system. It requires new levels of innovation on digital media and we all better accept that fast. 

What is the solution?

I actually do not know, but in part it will be creating awareness with the people, they need to realise that they are part of that problem, they are the inquisitive types and usually that is not a problem, yet the push the click based activities forward and at the point they become part of the problem. As I see it, the news might be part of social media, yet they should not be part of the click based equation and until the news starts realising that, as well as the fact that their shareholders, stakeholders and advertisers are part of the problem and not part of the solution, this issue will continue.

So those who have seen the Expanse season three and know that the initial weapon was something more might realise that in the digital media that click is the something more towards a weapon, all thanks to the shareholders, stakeholders and advertisers. We need a much larger change and until cash is taken out of the equation it cannot continue, yet that too is a dicey position, because the news has every right to cash in on materials they created. We cannot ignore that part of the equation.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Science

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

August 2, 2019 · 17:28

The biggest issue

The Guardian has given us several articles, by themselves there is nothing strange there (well there is), yet it is when we look at them together that an image starts to form. It is united that the larger problem becomes visible and the fact that a larger group is not catching up to this is a worry.

The first one is ‘Greta Thunberg hits back at Andrew Bolt for ‘deeply disturbing’ column‘, which happened less than 12 hours ago (at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/02/greta-thunberg-hits-back-at-andrew-bolt-for-deeply-disturbing-column), then we get ‘Revealed: Johnson ally’s firm secretly ran Facebook propaganda network‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/01/revealed-johnson-allys-firm-secretly-ran-facebook-propaganda-network), as well as ‘Brexit, cycle lanes and Saudi Arabia: CTF’s Facebook campaigns‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/01/brexit-cycle-lanes-and-saudi-arabia-ctfs-facebook-campaigns). Now let’s start up that on the whole nothing wrong was done by the Guardian. They reported and we can agree that reporting is what the Guardian does. Yet the larger issue is not what they do, it is what we are not getting that becomes the issue.

It starts with the Houthi attack on Dammam with missiles, a missile attack on a civilian target, Al Jazeera informs its audience, but the Guardian is not there. Bloomberg, the Guardian, basically the Western Media are all shunning it, yet they go to lengths to waste paper on the issues that “Women in Saudi Arabia will no longer need the permission of a male guardian to travel“, however the BBC did report on ‘Houthi missile attack on military parade kills 32‘, where we are told that “The parade in the southern port city of Aden was targeted by missiles and an armed drone, a Houthi-run TV channel says“, yet it seems that it was limited to the BBC, the near complete Western Media ignored that one too.

Now, I can accept that plenty of people are no fan of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, yet to shun attacks that cost lives is new, they all group together to give accusations without evidence (that journalist no one cares about), yet actual events are shunned. It is a new level of discrimination, it is political discrimination, where unwelcome groups are given exposure when it can be tilted to the negative side of the seesaw and the more negative it gets, the larger the exposure.

Now, let’s get back to the first article, because that is seemingly not linked. With the Quote “The widely read Herald Sun columnist and Sky News commentator used his significant platform to take aim at the 16-year-old campaigner, dismissing her followers as members of a cult and disparaging her decision to sail across the Atlantic in a high-speed racing yacht to attend UN climate summits in the US and Chile“, as well as: “The highly personal character assassination published in Rupert Murdoch’s tabloids repeatedly referred to Greta’s mental health, saying she was “deeply disturbed”, “freakishly influential” and “strange”“, yet in all this, we see no exposure on how that information was acquired.

As I personally see it The editor of the Herald Sun, Damon Johnston, as well as his fucked up sidekick Andrew Bolt did something in addition, is it the small part “the evidence does not suggest that humanity faces doom“, all that to hide the smallest snippet to oppose the environment. It actually gets more interesting, that is when we consider the case that Justice Bromberg presided over. When we consider “Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt and his employer Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp clearly violated the Racial Discrimination Act“, we could argue that he could face court again in this case. When the case was judged and we get: ‘The lack of care and diligence is demonstrated by the inclusion in the newspaper articles of the untruthful facts and the distortion of the truth which I have identified, together with the derisive tone, the provocative and inflammatory language and the inclusion of gratuitous asides‘, we see the chance that history might repeat itself. The article (at https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/andrew-bolt-continues-on-about-adam-goodes,12947) gives a lot more, what is key here that the Guardian exposes it and that is good, I have no issues with it. Yet it also shows the lengths that Murdoch media goes through to set the stage in one place, whilst other parts are seemingly intentionally ignored. Perhaps some of you remember the mental health escalation at Martin Place in 2014. Rupert Murdoch acted personally and the responses like ‘Rupert Murdoch’s Response To The Martin Place Siege Is As Tasteless As You’d Expect‘, as we were given: “AUST gets wake-call with Sydney terror. Only Daily Telegraph caught the bloody outcome at 2.00 am. Congrats“, it seems to me that bloodshed are his bread and butter, it also is seemingly implied that as long as it is not Saudi Blood, Rupert Murdoch has no issues. Some gave us: “the hostage situation as the work of an IS “Death Cult CBD Attack”, something we labelled at the time – and will continue to do so – as one of “the most vile, deliberately inflammatory, fundamentally wrong and wholly speculative front covers in the sordid history of Australian print media“, all whilst from the beginning, within a few hours it should have been clear that not only were the journalists not doing their job, the issues that in the beginning, hostages were seen holding an Islamic black flag against the window of the café, featuring the shahadah creed. It was wrongly identified by the media and the part where Monis later demanded that an ISIL flag be brought to him should have been clear that this was not a terrorist, at the most a wannabe, and more viable a person with mental health issues, but as I personally see it, Murdoch and Channel 7 were all about milking the event as much as possible.

At what point is journalism about milking?

The fact that this was buried as fast as possible is another part where we see a mingling of political discrimination, racial discrimination and religious discrimination and no one is telling Murdoch in clear language that it needs to stop.

The other two

Ok, it becomes essential to get to the deeper side of the pool here. First of all, there is a larger setting that has not settled. The accusation is twofold. The first is actually the one that does not work for the campaign players. It is also reported by CNN through ‘Facebook announces first takedown of influence campaign with ties to Saudi government‘, even as we accept “covert campaigns on Facebook and Instagram in a bid to prop up support for the kingdom and attack its enemies“, CNN et al are not reporting on the media blackout that is pushed out towards Saudi Arabia either. So anything that makes Saudi Arabia look like an attacked victim is suppressed, whilst actions by Saudi Arabia are spun to its most negative path and spattered over all media and all social media. Yet as the article gives us: “Facebook has hired staff with backgrounds in areas including intelligence, law enforcement and journalism to be part of a team finding and closing down coordinated campaigns on the platform, including some spreading disinformation and linked to nation-states“, it is equally absent in the case of “bogus mainly far-right disinformation networks were not identified by Facebook — but had been reported to it by campaign group Avaaz — which says the fake pages had more Facebook followers and interactions than all the main EU far right and anti-EU parties combined“, so we get one group with a following of 13 million in the past three months, with a following larger than all the European main party pages of the far right combined. Yet in all that, Saudi Arabia was specifically mentioned (they also illuminated the false pages of Iran). It is shown in a larger degree with: “Avaaz reported more than 500 suspicious pages and groups to Facebook related to the three-month investigation of Facebook disinformation networks in Europe. Though Facebook only took down a subset of the far right muck-spreaders — around 15% of the suspicious pages reported to it“. The fact that Facebook only took down subsets that represents 15% of the reported pages shows that there is a larger degree of political discrimination in play and even as some are overly clear, that larger extent shows that Social Media is optionally promoting to some degree the survival of Racial Discrimination, Political Discrimination, Religious Discrimination and Age Discrimination.

It is the revelation of: “vote manipulators are able to pass off manipulative propaganda and hate speech as bona fide news and views as a consequence of Facebook publishing the fake stuff alongside genuine opinions and professional journalism. It does not have algorithms that can perfectly distinguish one from the other, and has suggested it never will“, it is at this point where the realisation grows, when we add the two elements and we add the fact that the media is filtering what we are ‘allowed’ to know, it is there where the larger failing becomes clear, it is the axial and the seesaw of illumination of the view that opposes clear news, the media is now part of the problem. And it is there where we see the wisdom of TechCrunch with: “loud Facebook publicity effort around “election security” looks like a cynical attempt to distract the rest of us from how broken its rules are. Or, in other words, a platform that accelerates propaganda is also seeking to manipulate and skew our views“, it is merely part of the issue, it is not merely Facebook, it is the Media to a larger degree, their alliance is towards the Shareholders, the Stake holders and the advertisers, in that the larger issue is seen, those who advertise are optionally the controllers of what we see is possible, and that is where the truth is pushed out of view. It is seen in one final swoop when we consider the key word “Neom City“, a project like that, a project initially designed to be well over 30 times the size of New York, a project that has well over half a trillion dollars, set to construction, engineering and IT, should be on the front page of EVERY Newspapers, yet when you seek, you get Bloomberg last January (at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-16/saudi-arabia-to-begin-building-homes-in-futuristic-city-neom) and Business Insider in October 2018 (at https://www.businessinsider.com.au/jamal-khashoggi-saudi-arabia-neom-megacity-2018-10?r=US&IR=T). The view that is part of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s Vision 2030 plan is silenced to death and that started before the journalist no one cares about vanished. In addition a new bridge that will connect Saudi Arabia to Africa is kept silent. In this day and age how does that make sense? I am looking at billions in 5G revenue in Neom City alone, as well as the underlying infrastructure required, opening a much larger need for the entire Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, all ready to be set to a much larger stage (when the first phase region is a fact), yet the media is more about the rumours of the PS5 which is well over a year away with 6,940,000 mentions, and that makes partly sense, it is about awareness and creating hype, so when we see in the Guardian “the latest revelations reveal that the company has pursued that approach more broadly, in the service of previously unreported corporate interests and foreign governments. And they expose a major flaw in Facebook’s political transparency tools, which make it possible for Crosby’s company – which boasts on its website that it deploys “the latest tools in digital engagement” – to use the social network to run professional-looking “news” pages reaching tens of millions of people on highly contentious topics“, so if it is about ‘provoking argument‘, we should see nothing wrong as Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft rely on that part 24:7. If it is about ‘involving heated argument‘, we still see no issue as this is Sony versus Nintendo versus Microsoft, as this has been the media bread and butter for close to 7 years and more. When we look at the ‘likely to cause an argument‘, almost nothing changes. It is the part I did not mention “without apparently disclosing that they are being overseen by CTF Partners on behalf of paying clients“, where we need to question the use of ‘apparently‘, is it or is it not mentioned? The Guardian did or did not do their job becomes the issue and yes, we can see ‘on behalf of paying clients‘, and how does that differ from Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Nespresso and a whole league of others? They are all in it for the money, the awareness and the creation of viral messages, over-hyped and often way too short on facts. That part is not given to us either and it is there where we see the interactions of layers of discrimination and ‘misinformation’ that is usually brought as ‘missed information’, I would personally see it as an exercise in ‘miscommunication’ and it has been happening for a much longer time. So when we get from the Guardian: “employees always operate within the law”, and if they take to the bank the task of giving positive visibility to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is there an actual issue here?

The biggest issue is that we see the information that “It does not have algorithms that can perfectly distinguish fake news from the other, and has suggested it never will“, whilst the underlying issue is that what is not fake news is not that trustworthy either, it is limited to the filtering of shareholders, stakeholders and advertisers and Facebook has no clue what to do, they to relay on those three groups. The news for the longest time never gave us that part. As I see it people like Greta Thunberg will never get a fair deal here, not as long as people like Andrew Bolt keep on being regarded as Journalists. That part is seen when we see: “the evidence does not suggest that humanity faces doom” all whilst that statement is not scrutinised to the largest degree. The opposition to that claim can be seen in the simplest sentence by World Vision, their quote: “Globally, 844 million people lack access to clean drinking water” gives the goods, close to 10% of the population of this planet lacks access to clean drinking water. When we consider that a person can only survive a few days without water. How much danger is the population exposed to, does that qualify as doom facing? How many must die before the ‘humanity faces doom‘ is satisfied? It seems trivial, but it is not, that same media that ignores attacks on Saudi Arabia, that does not report on Houthi transgressions, acts of terror and other events also ignores Yemeni plight for water, food and medication to a much larger degree. So the question becomes a simple one, give us the list of parameters that must be placed on staging or dismounting the accusation that ‘humanity faces doom‘, when we realise that there is a larger collection of evidence, we merely have to set that stage to those elements. I am not stating that Greta Thunberg is right or wrong, yet we can look and accept that Andrew Bolt and his so called opinion piece on Greta Thunberg should be seen as triviality towards journalism and that does matter, because if that is allowed to continue, Facebook will never solve anything, as such the only way to solve it is to push media deliverers like Andrew Bolt into the ‘Fake News’ category so that we might find a solution. The fact that SBS called it an opinion piece and the Guardian did not is the larger failing, any opinion piece, especially those in newspapers, digital or not should be clearly labelled as such like [opinion piece] before the text begins, identifying those pieces will also change the way that they are perceived and we might get a better quality of journalism. When writers get $100 for an opinion piece and $200 for an actual journalistic piece (researched and all), the matter might resolve itself soon enough.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

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

June 23, 2019 · 15:08

When it becomes pointless

Have you ever considered the actions that you need to take, yet you already know that whatever you do, it is a pointless exercise from the very beginning? The problem is not that there is discrimination, it happens everywhere; the fact that the media is part of it to a much larger degree is becoming an increasing problem.

We merely have to look at Saudi Arabia to see that reality. First of the bat, I do not claim or think that Saudi Arabia is innocent, I cannot claim that they are because there is no evidence making them innocent, yet there is also no evidence of guilt and that is the part that matters. When we look at Jamal Khashoggi, a journalist no one actually cares about and we are given: “The report suggested that Khashoggi first struggled with his killers, after which he “could have been injected with a sedative and then suffocated using a plastic bag.”” we see our larger failing. when UN reports hide behind ‘could have been‘ as well as ‘report suggested‘ we see the failure called Agnes Callamard, the U.N. human rights agency’s special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, places guilt for the murder squarely on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. When we see: “There was “credible evidence,”” Agnes Callamard is a failure, because the condition of murder (as well as manslaughter) fails as the court must acquit a defendant unless the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt and that was never done there was no evidence and the UN knows this, the media know this, but they decided to ignore, so that they can blame the death of a nobody to a government. The difference between murder and manslaughter is intent, and even if we had some degree of certainty that there was intent, there is still no evidence of any kind, they all know it, they all ignore it.

Now, did I overstep my mark with the ‘nobody’ statement? Optionally! I use that word because for the most (exception of drug dealers, politicians and in many cases journalists) people matter. My issue is that there are real things happening and they need exposure, yet in one month finding 70 million articles on one person is rich, it is too rich and no one seems to notice that and the media will not tell you, so why not exactly?

Then we take another look at the arms deals, it is an important part not merely for the commerce needs, not merely because any sovereign nation has the right to defend itself, the fact that we stop ourselves and alienate optional strong allies through the banter of bullshit by politicians is just too weird. The UK and US are about to walk away from billions in revenue, billions that are legally fine, will give funds to their treasuries and these coffers fund all kinds of things; Yet some people think it is dirty money, as such it should not be touched. I have no qualms about it; I will take over and sell Saudi Arabia $5 billion at the drop of a hat, any hat. They are a sovereign nation and allowed to purchase materials for their military needs.

Yet the media will not report that, will they? They for the most need the people to live under the guise of emotion in this case. Why is that? When we see the Arab News (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/yemen-escalation-houthis-ramp-attacks-saudi-arabia-190622055136031.html) showing us the missiles that were fired on Saudi Arabia, as well as the fact that we see the UN allegations “In January, the United Nations’ experts concluded in an 85-page report to the Security Council that Tehran was illegally shipping fuel to Yemen to finance their war effort. A year earlier, a UN panel had criticised Iran for violating an arms embargo on Yemen by enabling Houthis obtain Iranian missiles“, and how was this proven? Well the missiles impacted, the images show that these weapons are Iranian in origin. In addition Yemen does not have the technology, the skills or the ability to make the drones or missiles, that constitutes evidence. Even as we cannot prove Hezbollah’s involvement here, Iranian involvement is clear, but the media will not give you that, will they? Why is that?

Now, I am not assigning blame left and right, yet we need to remember that the legitimate government of Yemen called for the help from the Saudi coalition, Saudi Arabia did not invade Yemen, they attacked the rebels who started a Yemeni civil war as per request of the legitimate Yemeni government, also a part the media remains silent on. In war there will always be blame on both sides, yet the entire Yemen issue is fuelled and funded by Ian and gets openly assisted by the terrorist organisation Hezbollah, a fact that many members of the media remain silent on. Now that things are escalating in the Middle East the media gets all touchy feely on how the US-Iran escalation goes, yet they still remain silent on the Iranian acts against Saudi Arabia, so how do you classify the media when it is seemingly actively discriminating others?

Yet in most media we see on how parties are being stated to be responsible for carnage, all that whilst the driving force in all this (Iran) is left out of consideration for the most of it. Why is that?

Even as we are all willing to accept Channel 4 airing an investigative documentary – Britain’s Hidden War – on the British role in the Saudi-led intervention and “the extent to which the war in Yemen is made in Britain“, the overall picture takes to a far too large an extent the involvement and activities by Iran and Hezbollah (Lebanon) out of consideration, we accept the story and the articles, yet the lack of balance as none of the other side gets the limelight is still an issue. It is not an attack on that investigative piece which was all above board, the lack of the other side is still to be noticed. And it does not end there. Even in Lebanon things as escalating. We are getting ‘Hezbollah Armed, Ready to Strike Israel, if Iran-US Tensions Grow‘ is speculative and unproven, yet the premise behind it: “The IDF estimates Hezbollah has hidden well over 100,000 rockets in these towns and villages in southern Lebanon. “All of them comfortably hidden behind Lebanese civilians, inside Lebanon.  All of them aimed at our civilians,” said IDF spokesman Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus.” shows the same tactic that they (Hezbollah) employed in Yemen, that part is not out in the open is it? The problem we see in addition is that neither player has the funds of the infrastructure to have that much firepower, so the question becomes more than how is Iran fuelling it all? It becomes how do you get large shipments of weapons to destinations under watchful eyes? That part matters, as it impacts both the Yemeni and Hezbollah side of the matter and the media remains largely silent. Even the intelligence players remain silent on it as they cannot prove any of it, but the strikes on Saudi Arabia are evidence that it is happening and some are too afraid that it will open additional hot zones, an issue no one wants, yet the consideration is not given towards Saudi Arabia, who is under attack and that does not add up to any extent.

There is a large failing and the wider the newspaper net you look at, the more clarity is given on what I regard to be intentional miscommunication. Even as it all escalates towards US Senate blocking arms sales and it becomes vetoed by President Trump, the entire matter constitutes delays and I will optionally step in and sell them the hardware myself, we all need a hobby and my passions are linked to an 80 meter Yacht names Kore that is to be built at the CRN Shipyard at Via Enrico Mattei, Ancona Italy (we all need a passion that is slightly out of our reach).

To keep it, I will need the better part of $2 billion, so I will sell them the Chinese and Russian hardware if need be, it is after all their sovereign right to be armed and to be well defended, and that is besides the IP that is still up for grabs. Yup, they wanted commerce, now they can all have it at a price. If you want to fuel ethical boundaries and hide behind Humanitarian reasoning whilst leaving the Iranian and Hezbollah involvement completely out of the picture, than I can sell weapons and technology to anyone. The issue with discrimination is not merely the only part that it is wrong, it is that it opens up other venues as well, but then the media did not disclose that either.

When it becomes pointless we can decide to ignore it all and just fill our pockets to the largest degree, the media entitled us to do that. In the end there is a much larger failure and I feel that a humorous side is required and I found it in the shape of a new US candidate for the elections next year. I wonder if that is the person we need to rely on to make matters fair, although fair for who remains the open question, I accept that.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

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