Tag Archives: Newspapers

Lies of the present

That is what I saw hours ago, lies of the present. We all know that tourism in America is down. The strongest influencer in this is Canada and the impact is larger. There is Flight center with the $100M income wallet bash. But no, here is the Financial Times giving us this ‘presented truth’ 

So, when we see another source give us “The tourism industry in the United States is witnessing a notable downturn, with a 17% reduction in European visitors in March 2025 compared to the previous year. This decline is alarming, given the tourism sector’s contribution of approximately 2.5% to the U.S. GDP. The decrease isn’t limited to European visitors; the overall number of foreign tourists fell by 12%, marking a significant drop since the post-pandemic recovery period of 2021.” As such, we only see the little text the FT gives us with the headline ‘The US tourism slump that never happened’ and that is it. I didn’t read the article because I never paid and this is how the FT leaves us hanging. And in light of this ‘debatable’ presentation towards income, the Financial Times can be accused of nearly anything. The downside of throwing teasers to the public to gain fees. With the text “Leading travel industry players are expressing concern over declining interest in U.S. destinations among European travelers. Accor, a French hotel group with a significant presence in the United States, reported a 25% decrease in summer bookings from Europe. Similarly, Voyageurs du Monde noted a 20% drop in bookings since the onset of the current U.S. administration, reflecting a growing disinterest among European tourists.” As such, what slump never happened? So whilst we read “this shift signifies a broader sentiment of dissatisfaction with U.S. policies and highlights the need for a reassessment of strategies to attract European tourists. Industry leaders emphasize the importance of addressing international perceptions to rebuild confidence in the U.S. as a welcoming and diverse destination”, whilst other places (like Abu Dhabi) is showing themselves like a more willing host to tourists all over the world. What possessed the FT to give us this (unread by me) article? As I see it, you cannot play ‘upside’ boy using presented advertising without getting hurt. The Financial Times Is according to some “a renowned British daily newspaper and digital publication that provides in-depth coverage of business, economic, and financial news on a global scale” So what does that bring us “Despite fears of a sharp downturn amid foreign visitor boycotts, the sector has had a decent summer”? In a setting where we see places like NPR gives us ‘Far fewer Canadians are visiting the U.S. this year, new numbers show’ with the added text ““It’s tough, because we’ve developed this relationship with the cross-border economy,” Dame said. “And now here we are, the rug getting pulled out from underneath us.” New data confirms that far fewer Canadians are making trips south. Canadian residents made just 1.7 million return trips by motor vehicle back into their country from the U.S. in July, a nearly 37% drop from the same month in 2024, according to a report published this month by Statistics Canada.” So how exactly is this ‘the slump that never happened’? Then when we see ““It’s a decline that’s not stopping things from happening, but it is affecting the revenue that people are collecting,” she said. The U.S. saw 20.4 million visits from Canadians last year, making Canada the top source of international tourists to the United States, the U.S. Travel Association reported. The group said in February that those visits generated $20.5 billion in spending and supported 140,000 U.S. jobs.” I see that as a slump and it is happening all over the place (Florida is a ‘great’ example), my issue is that America can be delusional all it wants to be, but when the media is catering to certain aspects like catering to big corporations and big tech, they are hindering the truth from reaching us. A nice example is the Chinese mega corporation Evergrande, who crossed all three red lines, resulting in a liquidity crisis and its later insolvency. In summer of 2021, payments due on its debt, estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars, resulted in the Evergrande liquidity crisis. So how many people were hit by that setting? How many people are investing now on bed and breakfast investments in America will be seeking a Chapter 11? (Apparently only the first 10 chapters are worth reading) We the people are depending on correct news and when we are given dubious articles by the people who used to inform us, what hopes do we have to evade any financial fallback? 

It is about the accountability of the media, ‘filtering’ information to give us the information that makes us jump as to what the ‘big dogs’ wants us to do. On June 19th 2012, I wrote ‘The accountability act – 2015’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2012/06/). It never came, and now 10 years later we need to start asking questions, where is the responsibility of the press? Where is the accountability of the media? And this is not just the Financial Times, it is the bulk of the media that is the question. Can we allow the media to play courtesan to big tech and big corporations for the need of digital dollars? Have we become that dim?

Questions that are not answered by anyone as the political players hide behind the ‘game that is played, as business as usual’ whilst they are all arranging the chessboard like a game of blindman chess, with only big business getting to see both chessboards and depriving us of the real deal. So how is that valid? Because when the setting is that we need to pay to see it all, and they deprive us of a fair view, is that not some form of discrimination? What happens when an audience of billions see that big corporations made themselves the royalty they were never supposed to be, that they replaced real royalty in places they could and as they lived through the settings of ‘live like presented’ and than change the presentation so that only ‘they’ could remain is not a way to live, not for the others. And this has been going on for decades, all presenting ‘partners’ having each others back. Often hiding behind ‘the people have a right to know’ but in the underline it is given in the way of ‘the people have a right to know what we want them to know’ and as such the filtering goes on and now that the economies of this world are in turmoil, the cracks start showing. You see World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers represented over 18,000 publications in 2011, and Wikipedia notes that in 2005 there were approximately 6,580 daily newspaper titles globally, with 1,450 in the U.S. alone. There is no real up to date number. But consider that there are 340 million people in America, there are 1450 newspapers, which means that there are 234.5K readers per newspaper (through pig latin analyses) but that is never true, as such they ALL want to get their advertisement money, that is the rule of newspapers, not the news, the advertisements. And as the media exploded in size, it stood to reason (their reason) that this income increased, it did not. So as more and more were deciding that chasing the digital dollar was the way to go, the intent and the credibility of the media decreased. As advertisement evolved and digital advertising was the next new thing, the media exploded into the field of exploiting digital advertising. And here the setting changed. As the media is now ‘depending’ on that setting, the news takes a turn for the bad of the land and can now be influenced by big business and as such we get the setting we see now all over the place. People like Murdoch live of this venture and it is their right, but the larger media, the media that is ‘depending’ on credibility, what about them? I am not saying that all media need to adhere to ‘old’ standards, but we now have an issue. When we are given ‘the slump that never happened’ all whilst we see others give us ‘US Tourism in Peril as Decline in Foreign Visitors, Soaring Visa Fees, and Stricter Travel Policies Drive Away International Travelers’, so did the slump never happen?

I’ll let you decide. Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Tourism

Retrospectively the media

That is what is happening, but how did it start? Around In 2007, News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire were convicted of illegal interception of phone messages. According to the News of the World, this was an isolated incident, but The Guardian claimed that evidence existed that this practice extended beyond Goodman and Mulcaire. It started a whole mess which was shown to the world and as such the media was no longer any reliable source. Several cases hit the limelight, but for the largest setting, it was the media that was largely the problem. At some point (after Leveson) Hacked off was created with amongst them Hugh Grant Board member, actor (famous for comedies like Love Actually and Heretic) as well as one of the phone-hacking victims. I do not want to skip the Leveson enquiries. Yet that part is the larger issue, not the inquiry as much as the blatant support of the media by political players and basically the larger stage of a corrupt media. Hacked off gave us “In March 2013, the three main political parties supported the implementation of Leveson’s reforms, and so did the public. In fact more than 175,000 people signed our petition calling for immediate implementation. 10 years later however, this has still not happened. Press abuse continues and in the place of the PCC, the majority of newspapers in the UK are ‘regulated’ by another toothless complaints-handling body, IPSO.” Yet a week ago in ‘A letter from Hugh’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2025/03/20/a-letter-from-hugh/) I got a letter from Hugh Grant giving us all the option to write to our MP’s and today I received 

Here we see that “Our records show that a staggering 97% of MPs have now received letters from the public calling for action on press reform.” Now, we get the larger view. You see, the media doesn’t want the Leveson papers implemented and the people do. So what will the politicians do? That is the larger setting because the Media will see its visibility crumble when this happens. So what will the politicians do? I have set this stage in my blog several times over the last few years. The media is no longer reliable to any level and the pro-Hamas stories from the BBC is showing too many that the media is basically done for. Consider the fact that the UK is characterised by a comparatively large national press with 11 national daily newspapers, and 10 Sunday sister titles (this is more than France, Germany and USA). Seven of these titles publish special editions for Scotland, and these compete with three Scottish dailies. National newspapers are typically divided into three sectors which relate to their physical size, as well as the quantity of news, values and quality of content: broadsheet (also known as quality), mid-market, and tabloid. They are (mostly) all vying for the attention of the 69 million people in the UK. The turnaround is with “Print newspapers are read by 1 in 4 adults over 15 every day (13.6 million daily) and reach larger audiences weekly (24.9 million) and monthly (30.8 million). Print Circulation has fallen approximately 40 percent between 2010 and 2018.” And all these newspapers have advertising and that is the larger issue. That is money for the publications and as that 40% is cutting deeper and deeper. The media will resort to larger non-news steps, mostly to gain digital dollars from their audience. And with 97% off the MPs are getting requests to act, there is not much to do and I reckon that action will follow. Perhaps we will see another episode from some editor in chief stating like a little cry bitch that they can be trusted, that they will give a tooth to IPSO, but the larger setting of people are over the stage of misbehaving. Oh, and before you all think I am exaggerating, on March 14th 2014 I gave you all ‘Bad Journalism’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2014/03/25/bad-journalism/) where we were shown “Flight MH370 ‘suicide mission’“, so where is the evidence? Was any evidence ever given to us? The media is done for and I see it as places like the Khaleej Times, the New Arab and Al Arabiya are now more reliable than the western press has been for over 10 years.

So now the wait starts for action from British political parties. I wonder how long they can sit on their hands before the people have had enough. I wonder how many editors will cry like the little bitches they have been for years. And IPSO? Well they are soon to be under a microscope too.

Have a great day. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

The unsettling realisation

There is a stage we all see, it is not the same for all. We see it, but the words do not completely come, there is a sort of disjointment between what we see, what we perceive and what we think is right. It was all over the field when it came to blow in my mind with a Reuters article. Weirdly enough they gave the pieces, the missing pieces to form the new image, an image I did relate to and as such the article becomes a reality.

The article in question is the article (at https://www.reuters.com/technology/elon-musks-twitter-suspension-journalists-draws-global-backlash-2022-12-16/) giving us ‘Elon Musk restores Twitter accounts of journalists but concerns persist’, you see, the elements start with “The reinstatements came after the unprecedented suspensions evoked stinging criticism from government officials, advocacy groups and journalism organisations from several parts of the globe on Friday, with some saying the microblogging platform was jeopardising press freedom” My initial response is that if these idiots did their job, their proper jobs, their credibility would not be on level -23. They did this to themselves. 

When you whore for digital dollars there in a consequence. In addition players like the NY Times print not properly vetted information (see one of my previous articles on the subject). The press does not bring freedom. It brings us filtered information. Information that is approved by share holders, stake holders and advertisers. So stop talking about the freedom of the press. Start doing your bloody jobs or become Uber drivers, they have a shortage at present. So when we get “A Reuters check showed the suspended accounts, which included journalists from the New York Times, CNN and the Washington Post, have been reinstated.” We do not get a clear picture on why certain issues happened, in case of the NY Times I could speculate but this is larger. These people REFUSED to do their jobs when there was time to openly ask Jack Dorsey for answers, there was time to give a clear response towards a stage where a company was overvalued by close to 100%, but you did not do ANYTHING, did you? 

And for the man blocking Elon Musk with a facial covering with license plate CJ82G38? Did you do anything, did you report on who the man was, was the car stolen, was there anything? No, you merely try to collect on digital dollars, didn’t you? 

In that same setting there is an issue with “The German Foreign Office warned Twitter that the ministry had a problem with moves that jeopardised press freedom.” We get that, but when the press isn’t taking its ‘responsibilities’ serious, should we give them any consideration? And with that we get the second part that rubbed ME the wrong way. It was “Melissa Fleming, head of communications for the United Nations, tweeted she was “deeply disturbed” by the suspensions and that “media freedom is not a toy.”” Well, see what pot is calling the kettle black. The UN made its own bed with stupid settings regarding Jeff Bezos (an anti-Saudi stage) and a few others. If the United Nations actually get things done and focussed on areas like Syria and Yemen and got communications on Houthi terrorist events started the people might get informed at some point. For example the Middle East Monitor gives us “The US Special Envoy for Yemen, Tim Lenderking, said on Wednesday that the Houthis’ “maximalist demands” had hindered UN efforts to renew a six-month truce in the country that ended in October.” As such, these so called ‘culled’ papers. How much did they expose to the public of this? I think that Miss Fleming has other problems and making sure that the Press covers the actual news might be a clear first. It comes with the stage where she claims that media freedom is not a toy and it applies to the media just as much, in case she forgot.

So, I got that off my chest. You see, I cannot see if Elon Musk is guilty of anything at all, because we keep on getting one sided news from the media and they have no credibility left (as I personally see it). 

I will let you consider who is correct and consider what you are shown, and what is trivialised by the media.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

The anger within

We all have it, something sets us off. It is not always fair and just, but to some extent, the buttons pushed are getting to us all, and I am no different. It all started (again) this morning with 

Here we see a retweeted Tweet. We get to see dozens a day and we cannot verify the truth on most of them, people with hatred of Elon Musk whilst no one is asking that procrastinating wanker (Jack Dorsey) to properly explain himself. If Musk has a case to fire thousands, then the previous custodians fucked up, they screwed it all up royally and it is all about floating the value of the company, but the media (with less credibility than a crack pusher) refused to set the stage of asking serious questions and it is the bulk of all media, the little who asked seemingly critical questions asked too little of them and they never followed up on them or reported on the simple fact that Jack Dorsey did not elaborate. His feigned apology was all we got and the media helped him massively. We still have no clear stage of the bots, a clear stage of fake accounts and hen this comes to light it will be too late, Dorsey took the billions and ran, with massive help from the media. Media is now slapping Elon Musk every chance he gets and he is waiting time on answering whilst setting the stage for a trimmed and optionally more profitable Twitter. This sinking ship came with a $45,000,000,000 cost. Did you think that it was a hand off to get Dorsey to buy a more luxurious coffin for himself? 

Then we get the Financial Times with the claim that Twitter use went up. OK, fair and also a lot seemingly (what I saw) based on people spouting negativity regarding Elon Musk and no one asking clear questions on the changes that came AFTER Dorsey left. Some things do not add up. Several accounts losing hundreds and some claim to have lost thousands. Why would changing the guards have such a setting? Yes, a few hundred might have bailed to an alternative, but when the alternative does not deliver, they will come back. Their ego’s will make them come back and then we will see the excuses of ‘Lets give him a chance’ all whilst that should have been the starting position. I get that some might create a Mastodon (or was that a Megaladon, sorry Jason Statham) account. Makes perfect sense, especially if that person is an influencer, they will go where the masses are, but the right influencer would have a Mastodon already. The stage of one person having a dozen accounts to butter the conversation are in a stage that they do not know where their ‘powers’ are going. That makes sense too, but I would need clear data to identify that part. I do know someone who has that but he is too busy looking after other things. 

I do not get the stupidity of the attacks on Elon Musk, even the clearly presented lies and misrepresentation. It goes nowhere, in the end we merely cut ourselves. It is clear that Twitter needs time to get itself on  a new path and the media seems very driven to not let this happen. Especially when you consider how much leeway they gave Jack Dorsey, months of reporting constitutes that evidence. You merely need to Google search ‘Twitter’ and see how much critical questions were asked of Jack Dorsey and how much non-accusation based questions were asked of Elon Musk, the numbers should scare you and most people  with their attack on Elon Musk are part of that trend. I? Well I do not know what will happen, so I will await until the dust settles and see what happens next. I will fall several steps as I see no need to buy a blue checkmark and more important will be reduced in the seek algorithm. I will not care, I will see the people I follow and I should see their tweets. Only if that fails will I consider moving. We need to take care who we follow with their loud mouths and their needs for attention with failing evidence. Yes there are parody accounts, but we either follow them or we might not care. The anger within is fuelled by the loud making statements that evidence does not support and why is that? It is their ego, or their need for attention as they try to become influencers. There is of course the singular person seeking the limelight for self, but they are seemingly a huge minority. Happy to see them go into the dusk of yesterday. Oh and that statement of government making statements regarding Twitter. I think we should seek these people and their links to Jack Dorsey. Because the loudness of that equation does not make sense, it only makes sense when we consider who they cater to, especially in the beginning of a new equation, they never did that in the age of smoking or anything else, only two hours past the 11th hour did we see the government react to smoking dangers. They had filled their pockets s much as they could and that is a dangerous stage, I get that. But to filter Elon Musk in hour 1 seems adversarial actions that seemingly have no foundation, especially as they never bothered asking Jack Dorsey several serious questions, but that is merely my speculative view on the matter. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media

That screwed up media

Here I was, relaxing, looking at tweets when suddenly a tweet Elon Musk passes by (see below). 

Now I had a hard time here. You see I do not trust the media, but the top shelf media (LA Times, SF Chronicle, Boston Globe, and Washington Post) were always above board. Actually there was one more, but it seems that the NY Times now joins the third tier newspapers right next to the Daily Mail (UK). How could any newspaper be so stupid to give us the article (see below). 

The idea that a newspaper does not properly vet the information they have is not new, but in the past the NY Times was always above board. Whether they hate Elon Musk, whether they have other needs (like towards former Twitter owners) or whatever the reason, not vetting information is a problem, it is one I have been talking about for years. When the media cannot differentiate between real news and fake news the media has a problem, they merely hand over the news to TikTokkers like the one claiming that there are a large number of UFO’s over Australia (a TikTok ad), so now you know.

Now what was one the huge and mighty NY Times is now a bringer of debatable fake news, which will deteriorate any other news they bring. Although, I do realise that if Elon Musk was not honest my goose is cooked. Yet Elon Musk has a lot more credibility than most media ever could hope to have, so I am presently siding with the E Musk group. I could not read the whole article because the subscription nag overlapped my article again and again, so there might be an ulterior reason for the NY Times.

In this day and age when we trust the media less and less, they need to bend over backwards to vet the information again and again and hiding behind a mention of Reuters no longer does the trick.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

When it is the typeface

There is an expression that we all use; I used it as well, twice most recently. The expression ‘the writing is on the wall‘, which implies that “there are clear signs that a situation is going to become very difficult or unpleasant“, the stage to a specific warning. Yet I believe that the expression is further than that, I also see it was an approach of something inevitable, yet always in a negative connotation. So when I saw the article (at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/aug/16/independent-evening-standard-links-to-saudi-arabia-inquiry-blocked), where we are treated to ‘Court blocks inquiry into Independent and Standard’s links to Saudi Arabia‘, I saw something that has been given exposure before, yet I looked in another direction. And that direction is shown at the very end. The quote: “Since the investment was made the Independent has launched a range of foreign-language websites run by a Saudi publisher that uses its name, raising concerns about editorial oversight given the Middle Eastern kingdom’s poor record on press freedom“, it is here where I see that Jeremy Wright has another agenda. As former Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport of the United Kingdom he knows what is in play, but he is not telling us that, is he? I believe that the expression ‘the writing is on the wall‘ is one that is set in two places and they impact one another. Even when we get back to the origin of the expression, we see a shortening of ‘mene mene tekel upharsin‘, which is of Aramaic origin. Yet how was that staged? We see that some give us: “The point of the moral tale was that Belshazzar couldn’t see the warning that was apparent to others because he was engrossed with his sinning ways“. The subtlety of the biblical wordplay is now somewhat lost on those of us who don’t speak ancient Aramaic, yet a Daniel in a stage set to war could have translated it into its actual meaning: “Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy, a kid’ll eat ivy too, wouldn’t you?

The problem is that the writer is assumed to be on a stage, and in that stage we see writing, we see the text, but we forget that text is more. It is a font, it is a size and collected we see a typeface. We are so used to take the newspapers and merely gobble up the text like it is an ASCII phrase, we forget that the stories are presented, the typeface presents this and newspapers have done so for well over a century. They have been in a stage where they represent themselves as neutral and authoritative, and this style of type has come to represent those attributes. Yet they have not been that for the longest of times, they have had an agenda for decades, WW2 started it and progressed through wars as they maintained facts under the air of neutrality, an air and stage they forsake long ago. In the end, the entire stage of ‘concerns about editorial oversight given the Middle Eastern kingdom’s poor record on press freedom‘ was never an issue. You see, the simplicity here is that people can always change papers. It is when that freedom is not trodden on; it is there that the old owners see the dangers. It is not about what is not presented, it is what is presented and how it is presented. The Russian Evgeny Lebedev, figured that out long ago and now he has arranged that Saudi Arabia and optionally more Middle Eastern players get a seat at that specific table.

The media silenced the truth of a lot of issues in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, now we get the stage where the people will get informed on a lot more of it that is the fear. When we hold a large candle to the media, we see the greed driven faulty and now we optionally see a new player informing all others and that rattled people like Jeremy Wright. We see the events in Yemen, we see a civil war within a civil war and the media is blaming Saudi Arabia to the larger extent, yet we are told half a story at best. Now we will face the stage where Saudi Arabia has a larger voice and it will be heard. The Independent and Evening Standard are too large to ignore and that voice will carry on an international level. And the court case gives us: “The judges ruled that while it was legitimate for the government to have issued an intention to intervene, the final referral should have been made by 1 July“, if there was a true danger the government would have acted sooner, they did not. Now they must face the events that two papers will get a lot more information and the previous times where the media initially disregarded missile strikes in Saudi Arabia will be ignored no mare. We can also question whether the media has failed its readers to a much larger degree, but that would be on the papers that are not the Evening Standard and not the Independent. The accusation is almost ludicrous, the UK has well over 14 larger daily newspapers, if there is real diminished freedom of the press, the other 12 take over and the value of these two papers fall to zero, after which a new owner will come and take over. As I personally see it, the entire oversight is a bogus issue, the fact that Saudi Arabia would now have a typeface that allows them to be heard is another matter, is it not?

So if the writing is actually on the wall, we need to look at the typeface used and who would place the text on the wall in the first place. And that is before we look at: “It was claimed in court that the companies were ultimately part-owned by a Saudi bank with close ties to the government” we can argue that the bulk of the newspapers are owned by banks with close ties to governments on a global scale, to me it all reads and reeks of a stage where the larger players are just too uncomfortable with Saudi Arabia getting a seat at the table, which is a whole new issue on discriminating elements. It is also the slow question that comes to the surface here. As we see: “A spokesperson for the news outlets said they were delighted by the outcome and that the intervention had been “disproportionate to the facts, unfair and a waste of public money“, as such, if we openly demand to see the costs involved for this case, will we be given the actual costs involved? If the UK had only 3 newspapers the stage would have made sense and more important, the chance that Evgeny Lebedev owned any part of it would be out of the question, but that is not the case. There are dozens of papers all over the UK, losing two would not be a huge impact and if Saudi Arabia intervenes with press freedom, a dozen of others take over on the spot diminishing the value of two newspapers, a temporary small market shift at best. A simple fact not given at all, so when we look at the typeface of it, what was this really about? Is it really about Freedom of the press, or is it about stopping Saudi Arabia from getting a larger international voice that is clearly heard all over the UK?

It seems to me that several players are not happy about that last option; we can now hold those players to account for news that was never given to us before.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

The cost of being in business

Yes, any business has its cost, the price of milk, so that farmers keep their cows; the price of beef, so that the farmer decides to slaughter its cow. We are all in a stage where we need to realise that there is profit, after we had the cost of getting there. For the most farmers know what they are doing, it is their livelihood. Yet, what happens when your livelihood is terrorism? Where is the profit of a suicide bomber when the costs are there but until after it is too late, you cannot tell whether there was a stage to work with?

That is the setting we see when we look at the Washington Post, the article (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/hezbollah-leader-calls-on-saudi-arabia-to-end-war-in-yemen/2018/10/19/18ed9994-d3bd-11e8-a4db-184311d27129_story.html). Here we see ‘Hezbollah leader calls on Saudi Arabia to end war in Yemen‘. A terrorist organisation is involving itself in a war 2,000 kilometres away, oh no! It has been involved for a long time there, doing the bidding of Iran like the good little tool it is. So when I see: “The leader of Lebanon’s Hezbollah has called on Saudi Arabia to make a “courageous” decision and end the fighting in Yemen, saying the alleged killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Turkey has tarnished the kingdom’s image to an unprecedented degree” we see another tool trying to play the cards. From my (slightly overreacting) side it is more that Hezbollah had not value ever and the image of Saudi Arabia is not tarnished, after all the intentional misrepresentation by the press, I am willing to go with the fact that the value of a journalists life does not really matter, does it?

Haaretz shows us: ‘Western Intelligence Believes Iran Intensifying Advanced Weapons Shipments to Hezbollah‘ we see no reason to comply, we merely see motivation to keep hunting down the members of Hezbollah who are in the thick of it in Yemen; Hezbollah the eternal nagging baby with a weapon arsenal that the bulk of the press keeps on ignoring. The fact that they are part of the entire Yemen setting, whilst we see both “Iran has reportedly stepped up its shipments of advanced weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Fox News reported on Friday, citing American and Western intelligence sources” and “Iran sends Hezbollah GPS for accurate missiles“. There is (merely) one problem here. I am personally certain that Iran was knowingly staging a setting where these missiles can end up in Yemen being fired at Saudi Arabia by the tools that they enable. So their bitching with lines like “the Yemen disagreement has killed over 10,000 people and left Yemen with a non-functional infrastructure“, the fact that Hezbollah is eagerly trying to force an end also gives light to the face that Saudi Arabia is tactically in a much better position than they might have realised. Even as Hezbollah is still focussed on their never ending attempts to end the existence of Israel, the utter silence of western nations and their press is just beyond deafening. Yes, scream and shout for one dead journalist, the setting of tens of thousands dead in Yemen, something that both Iran and Hezbollah facilitated for is kept quiet.

All this, whilst we see (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/eu-asia-leaders-underline-support-for-iran-nuclear-deal/2018/10/19/11e2847a-d39f-11e8-a4db-184311d27129_story.html), the stage of ‘EU, Asia leaders underline support for Iran nuclear deal‘, of course the proxy war that Iran is in with Saudi Arabia is completely ignored. It seems to me that the two standards are just beyond acceptable. Even as we see from several sources that Iran is at the heart of destabilisation, they are still a party to talk to, unlike Saudi Arabia who gets shunned in all this.

How does the double standard go over with you people?

The utter silence in most media on the actions of Hezbollah, the setting of Iran fighting its proxy war via Yemen, which is directly the cause of thousands of deaths, is beyond acceptance. All of that remains in the shadows, but one mere journalist has been the cause of so much visibility that has not been seen for the longest of times. A person that is (because of his writing in the Washington Post) is not without value, yet the stage of “Iran is stepping up its efforts to deliver sophisticated weaponry, including GPS systems meant to turn unguided rockets into high-precision missiles, to Hezbollah in Lebanon“, not merely for the use on Israel, but its shipments to Yemen for the same reason to be fired on Saudi Arabia has received almost zero visibility, one journalist is not as precious as 10,000 children, come to think of it, two journalists is hardly the value of one victim (in most cases) as I personally see it nowadays.

That devaluation is the direct consequence of catering to the need of certain elements instead of catering to the news. that is merely my point of view, yet as seen in many memes all over Facebook and other places, the stage where we see the journalistic value fall in the eyes of most people is there and it is growing.

So not only are we confronted with: “the Lebanese authorities are covering up illicit activities by Iran and Hezbollah“, we are also facing the media who en large are willing to not look at that matter, whilst you mull over those pieces and wonder where the audio recording has gotten to, the one that CNN reported on. I wonder if anyone will look at the stage of Turkey being a cheap tool facilitating for Iran that too is left in the unwritten spaces of journalism at present. So even as the stories are now in another stage. A stage we see with: “Khashoggi killing was ‘grave mistake’, says Saudi Arabia. Saudi minister says individuals exceeded authority and crown prince was not aware“, we are aware that we are not getting the whole story, or we can assume that more happened, but in light of the dozens of unsubstantiated accusations and what I would call intentional BS by the circulation and click driven media, this version seems much more acceptable to most, and even as my view and exposure to Jamal Khashoggi (when he was alive) was limited, I believe that he was a proper journalist with actual value (that in opposition to most people in places like the Daily Mail). That makes his loss a sad state of affairs, something the fore mentioned newspaper will not receive on stating the loss of their co-workers in this day and age. And whilst we are on this subject, who of you have actually read the writings of Jamal Khashoggi when he was alive?

What matter is that the devaluation of journalists by the population has been to the largest degree done by their own actions!

There are additional questions that should be asked in all honesty. Even as we see statements by Saudi Arabia foreign minister Adel Ahmed Al-Jubeir, we need to ask more than the progress that Saudi Arabia is making with Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland. We need to look beyond the statement “This was an operation where individuals ended up exceeding the authorities and responsibilities they had. They made the mistake when they killed Jamal Khashoggi in the consulate and they tried to cover up for it“, apart from the fact that this is a lot more feasible than any BS loaded nonsense that we saw from unnamed Turkish sources, we need to wonder what is the more accurate setting, in this we have seen no real questions regarding Saudi Arabia’s Consul General to Turkey Mohammad al-Otaibi, who left on a commercial flight merely hours before his residence was searched. There is every acceptance that his trip to Saudi Arabia should be the cause of additional questions, yet the media has not really done any of that, have they?

the Evening Standard (at https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/jamal-khashoggi-case-donald-trump-not-satisfied-with-saudi-account-of-journalists-death-a3967351.html) gave us the quote “Mohammad al-Otaibi fled Turkey after the alleged killing emerged and will face an investigation, according to an official government statement“, yet did he ‘flee’, or was he officially ‘recalled’, the fact that we saw very little on this one part by the media is additional cause for concern on whether the media has any interest in properly covering the events (apart from the few true news dedicated newspapers that is).

Oh, and if you wonder how there is no issue in Yemen, consider the news from Al Arabiya where we see: “2,000 primary and secondary schools were damaged or used by Houthi militias as barracks, and about 67 percent of schools did not pay their staff salaries for almost two years. He pointed out that more than one million children are unable to attend school because of the war staged by the Houthi militias, and that 2 million children do not have access to a formal education system“, in this we are seemingly forgetting that this is not merely the stage, only an hour ago did we see “The deputy minister of education in the coup-government of the Houthi pro-Iranian militias, Dr. Abdullah al-Hamdi, said that he broke with the militias, calling to rise up against these rejected militias from 90% of the Yemeni people who are suffering from hunger, death and poverty due to the militias. Hamdi revealed in a television interview on Sunday that these militias import Iranian ideology and their destructive project to enslave the Yemeni people, exploiting them to terrorize and control the society“. I accept that there is only one source and that is not enough, yet the rest of the media is all about painting Saudi Arabia yellow, and ignoring that Saudi Arabia has been under attack by Iran, via Hezbollah and Houthi forces who are directly responsible for the hardship on well over a million children, is it not interesting how the media ignores that part? That part is optionally in part seen (at https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/houthi-forces-use-attack-drones-armed-with-ballistic-missiles-in-western-yemen/). I used that term as the amount of sources make it questionable, yet the western media is steering clear of this part, so there is no way to tell on how reliable it is, especially in light of their ‘unnamed sources’ usage regarding the audio recording regarding ‘torture’ of a now dead journalist. As we see “Houthi forces use attack drones armed with ballistic missiles in western Yemen“, as well as more than one source was informing us on Hezbollah receiving GPS upgrades for their missiles, we now have a much larger stage and the silence of the media is close to deafening.

So when we contemplate the accuracy of “Houthi forces have begun using armed drones with ballistic missiles recently in a bid to increase their damage on the Gulf-backed troops in Yemen and Saudi Arabia“, as soon as one missile does hit an important target, the entire Yemen issue will evolve in a full scale war and whilst the politicians are all about keeping a dialogue with Iran, whatever puppets they become will hit back at them and it will hit back hard.

We cannot continue this one sided setting, whilst trying to keep a backdoor open to do business with both elements in this proxy war, let’s not forget that once Saudi Arabia decides on acting against their misrepresentations, the cost will be one that we have not bargained for. In the end, what happens when 10% of the oil meant for Europe and the US goes to China? How will winter heating impact, merely because we allow the media to lie to us and to hide behind ‘unnamed sources’? How unfair will we label operational choices, whilst the Leveson inquiry showed just how unethical the media has become?

When business operations could be used to tell people that some actions are no longer tolerated, how hard will you shout because you are not feeling the heat against the winter cold, as you can no longer afford to do so? At that point you will wish that the 0% taxation has been removed from some media outlets, which was not the worst idea to begin with.

We are in a setting where we blindly voice the freedom of the press, whilst ignoring that there needs to be accountability of their publications to some degree. That one-sided lack will matter more and more soon enough and when there is a second Leveson, in spite of “Culture Minister Matt Hancock hails a ‘great day for a free and fair press’” whilst voting the second Leveson inquiry down, when the invoice is due from the unacceptable actions by the media, remember that this will be all on the voters, all those voters now screaming like little bitches on another Brexit referendum as they have been played by the media, at that point, when there is a boiling point I doubt that IPSO is going to be any solace in any of this. The fact that Matt Hancock gives us ‘free and fair press‘, in light of all the missed parts that the media was seemingly happy to overlook should entice howls of deriving laughter for a long time to come.

I personally see all this as a seesaw with ‘the cost of doing business‘ on one side and the ‘cost of being in business‘ on the other side, the partial feeling that I have is that on the seesaw axial is the media trying to stage an up down relationship with both parties to prolong the news, not merely (what they refer to as) ‘reporting one the news’ but setting a stage of circulation and prolongation of emotional entitlements towards the readers, none of that is set to the stage of ‘reporting the news’. We have always accepted that there is a cost of doing business, most of us see it in their own work sphere to some degree, yet to set a stage of offsetting that balance against the cost of being in business is pretty novel in the news, it holds a certain value when you are in an actual business, yet it should not be allowed in the media or reporting, even as we understand that a newspapers is run as a business, it benefited a 0% VAT as to set the stage of lessened operating costs, that advantage should be withdrawn to those who are in that stage of the two settings opposing one another, when that becomes an adamant factor the media should no longer be allowed the 0% VAT, and as they are staging themselves as commercial entities, they will learn the hard way that giving a true representation of the actual facts becomes more and more pressing towards properly informing their audience on what is actually going on, the whole picture, not merely hiding behind an ‘unnamed source’ for a mere 295 words of gossip.

the hundreds of Jamal Khashoggi articles in the last 24 hours alone, whilst we have not seen that many articles, not even a mere 10% of articles reporting on the entire proxy war that Iran is waging against Saudi Arabia that in conjunction with their puppet and tool Hezbollah, or certain Turkish ‘revelations’ that are still at this point unsupported by actual evidence.

When the cost of being in business approaches zero, the level of accountability by those using those methods becomes questionable on several sides. So exactly when were we offered a ‘free and fair press‘ by most media outlets? Is ‘free and fair press‘ not dependent on a complete picture, not a mere cropped version of a partial view of a specific niche view?

To give that a slightly more entertaining view, consider what the Daily Mail and the Guardian would give us in the setting from a full picture that was merely the stage of a simple social media setting. We might giggle at the Austin Powers setting, yet when this is done on all news in a stage where thousands of children are set in a stage of near death (actually many of them are already dead), is it still entertaining at that point?

The Daily Mail might give us:

the Guardian view

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics