Tag Archives: Rupert Murdoch

And so it begins

We all have sides, and we all have sides we tend to look less at. There is no exclusion, no even me. I try to always take the bigger picture in view, but at times I too fail to do that and today might be such a time. So if you have objections, you might be right. It all started a little over an hour ago when I took notice of ‘CNN denies Australians access to its Facebook pages, cites defamation risk’ (at https://www.reuters.com/technology/cnn-quits-facebook-australia-citing-defamation-risk-2021-09-29/), on one side I am in a state of ‘Who the fuck cares?’, on the other side I am wondering why someone would take the stage to this degree? You see, we take notice of “after a court ruled that publishers can be liable for defamation in public comment sections and the social media firm refused to help it disable comments in the country”, so what happens when the public comments commence in http://www.cnn.com? The newsagent does have a website and lets face it, social media is not a place for news, it is a place for flames to bolster engagement, as such the part of “the social media firm refused to help it disable comments in the country” makes perfect sense. News leads to flames, flames leads to engagement and engagement leads to additional advertisement revenue which is the bread and butter of Facebook. I for one do not consider Facebook any kind of place for news, and if there is any, it is not place to comment there, I have a blog that does that and if there is a real reason to directly offer issues, they have an editorial and they have an email address (which tends to lead to the circular archive system). Flames are not now and mostly not ever useful, it only propagates the limelight of ones own ego.

So as we take notice of “defamation lawyers accusing Australia of not keeping up with technological change and noting the contrast with the United States and Britain where laws largely protect publishers from any fallout from comments posted online”, my issue here is that the posters of comments are also absent of accountability and there is a problem there. With “Australia is currently reviewing its defamation laws but in the meantime, other global news organisations, especially those that feel they can easily live without an Australian Facebook audience” we do see a truth, there is no need for ANY newsagent to be on Facebook, but that stifles the revenue of Facebook, does it not? And it is true, the world does not need the 25,000,000 people in Australia. Facebook has close to 3,000,000,000 members (read; near active accounts), so 25 million are not much of a dent, but it is a beginning. There is an upside for all newspapers to move away from Facebook, there is a downside as well. You see one place to flame all is a setting that rarely ever will lead to anything positive, but the newsagents all tend to think that it leads to revenue and for a few at times it might but there is a reason why I check WWW.BBC.CO.UK, theguardian.com, www.ft.com, www.reuters.com, www.aljazeera.com on a nearly daily basis and there are a few more (ABC, SBS, Arab News), you see the papers are still in levels of problems, the papers have to deal with bias, political siding, stakeholders and a few more and as I see the same article on a few sites I get a better view of the issue (that is when they do not directly copy and paste from Reuters). But I digress, it is about CNN and here we see that Reuters have two more gems to offer. The first is “We are disappointed that Facebook, once again, has failed to ensure its platform is a place for credible journalism and productive dialogue around current events among its users,” this from my point of view two issues, one is that Facebook is not a place for credible journalism, no matter how you slice it. Too many are in a stage to get traction and visitor revenue through flaming and through the incitement of flaming. And the second part is ‘productive dialogue’, there is no way in my mind that ANYTHING on Facebook will lead to that unless it is a closed circle of personal friends and family. The second gem is “defamation lawyers accusing Australia of not keeping up with technological change and noting the contrast with the United States and Britain”. It is a gem because it raises a few issues. It is not about technological change, it is about accountability. And we see close to nothing on that front from either the USA or the UK for that matter. There is also a larger stage that adhering to this on a much larger stage is a problem. Even though I will oppose the news mummy (Rupert Murdoch) on nearly every front, because I believe that he lost the plot on news and he is too much about flames and revenue (which is not entirely wrong for him). In this, the danger of flames depending issues and people, the danger becomes the house catches fire and that is not a good thing (newspapers burn really well). 

Until there is a real stage where the people on social media get hauled towards accountability this stage will not change and Facebook does not want change. The newspapers are close to zero in their consideration. It is about engagement to sell advertisement and so far Facebook has the upper hand. This is not meant good or bad, it is their business model and it works for them, yet over the years we see media look at places like Facebook and they all wonder if they can tap into this, First Google search, now Facebook and soon they will move beyond Twitter. Where next? Who can tell. Yet the Murdochs and Murdoch wannabe’s will continue because their newspapers are founded on the need to entice the people to flame, they have been at it for a long time in many places. So when Australia held Facebook liable Facebook closed the tap and they are entitled doing so. As such it is not “Facebook, once again, has failed to ensure its platform is a place for credible journalism and productive dialogue”, it is “Posters need to be held accountable for what they post, including posters of comments” and the law in many many nations are not ready or prepared to do that. Too many places rely on flames of all kinds. It is time to recognise that part of the equation.

In this consider a UK setting. In the first we see a statement (wiki) “The Daily Mirror, founded in 1903, is a British national daily tabloid-sized newspaper that is considered to be engaged in tabloid-style journalism”, here we see two parts ‘newspaper’, as well as ‘engaged in tabloid-style journalism’. Yet in another source we see “largely sensationalist journalism (usually dramatised and sometimes unverifiable or even blatantly false)” and it is a stage we see far too often. So in addition we have an image.

With the text “Big Brother’s Grace and Mikey expecting fourth child and say people think they are mad”, so it is a story about people, a woman who willingly received a penis into her vagina with a long term gift (36 weeks later). Now, I am happy for her, but is it news? This is not royalty, or people with global impact. And this is on the FRONT PAGE of the Daily Mirror (website), this is news? And here the problem starts, we agree that CNN is real news but the ledge that separates them from a place like the Daily Mirror is too small, moreover on places like Facebook too many people cannot tell the difference. In all this the one element (not) overlooked is the need for (actual) Newspapers to find ways to grow revenue, I do not oppose that, the problem is that other ways need to be found and in This they will find a better venue talking to places like Google then Facebook and that is before we see a new social media side in Amazon, because that option is mere inches away. 

When the people start realising that Facebook lost the edge is had, when they realise that true social media comes from places like https://cocoon.com Facebook will get hit after hit and there the people will be able to set a stage for what some spokespeople call ‘productive dialogue’, Google might have shut down its plus side, but it opens the realm for Amazon 

So it begins and it did not start in Australia, it did not start in censorship it started with the realisation that there is nothing to be gotten from flaming, there almost never was and that realisation will cause the loss of revenue in plenty of places.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Politics

Pushing envelopes without a stamp

Yes, we all have moments where we are in a stage that is not quite the ‘Eureka!’ Point, but it pushes us, we feel that there is more and even if we do not see the complete road, we can see that there is are side streets that could be profitable for the soul (money is optional). I just had another of these moments. I was watching some ‘Harry Potter collector’ video on Youtube. It was a nice video and this one was about a Butter-beer place in New York. Something hit me, something was nagging in the back of my mind and it suddenly dawned on me. I set part of that route in ‘The other path’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/05/20/the-other-path/) a story I wrote on May 20th this year on new IP I was considering and exploring.  It was not complete and there were gaps, but the foundation was there, then the Butter-beer place showed up and I saw the Harry Potter newspapers on tables and my mind went into ‘wonder mode’. So what if places all over the world had a setting where the table was also the information provider? The table was not some monitor or TV, but in conjunction with the IP I created became an information provider that could be personalised in many ways. Setting aside languages, colouring and size, we had an information provider that could be nearly EVERYWHERE. And it would not be expensive. It would allow new channel creators, new information bases and whilst the ACCC is so much about their friends, their friends would be removed from the equation. I came up with the framework that makes a person like Rupert Murdoch obsolete. He became obsolete as his age surpassed the age of Egyptian mummies. Just like George Randolph Hearst became obsolete, time caught up, it is merely that simple. So now I am in a stage where I can give the bird to all the self inflated Rupert Murdoch wannabe’s on the planet and I gladly do, the bulletpoint managers who were clueless and I am setting the stage for all independent developers to become the next big thing.
All you need is in these two stories, if you are clever enough you could there without ever buying a stamp. If you are clever enough, you will be in a stage to get a great advantage, I leave it up to you and after a year someone big can buy you out for a lot of cash. I do not care, I have close to half a dozen other IP ready, there is only so many roads one person can walk at the same time and when the technology comes and some will realise that I wrote about it first, they will all want a piece of something that is public domain, the greedy never learn and now the innovative players will pass them by giving them the finger. Justice come in strides and exposes the wannabe’s as the losers they always were.

A stage found in a place that was open to the public, it tends to be that simple at times. 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Science

Falling short into an abyss

Yes, today is all about the Bogus Blablabla Congregation (BBC). And even as they give us ‘Martin Bashir: BBC fell short over Diana interview, report finds’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57189371), the stage is much worse and much more rotten then ever expected. Yes, more than expected, because of all the news agencies until yesterday the BBC had one that is one of the highest on the planet. We saw the veneer chip with their settings of Gaza, but now with the protective levels towards Martin Bashir, we can safely say that the BBC should now be regarded as just another exploitative media channel and that view will not improve for years to come. You see, as I personally see it the view of “Mr Bashir apologised for mocking up the documents, but said they had no bearing on Diana’s decision to be interviewed. Princess Diana’s interview with Martin Bashir for Panorama was a huge scoop for the BBC – in it, the princess famously said: “There were three of us in this marriage.”” But the stage is already rotten, the element of deception and basically forgery, not ‘mocking up’ shows Martin Bashir to be a shitty little cockroach, just like other reporters from places like the Sun, Daily Mail, or News of the world. The scoop was a stage of forgery where the person interviewed was pushed into a stage of defensive protection of her family and the shitty little roach knows this. So when we get to “Mr Bashir had later lied when he told BBC managers he had not shown the fake documents to anyone, and described significant parts of Mr Bashir’s account of the events of 1995 as “incredible, unreliable, and in some cases dishonest”, it shows the rotten core of the BBC that is largely absent of checks and balances. So when we get to ““The BBC should have made greater effort to get to the bottom of what happened at the time and been more transparent about what it knew. While the BBC cannot turn back the clock after a quarter of a century, we can make a full and unconditional apology. The BBC offers that today.” The chairman of the corporation, Richard Sharp, also said the BBC “unreservedly accepted” the report’s findings that there were “unacceptable failures”. “We take no comfort from the fact that these are historic,” he said.” We get to see a stage where people like Richard Sharp is just as much a roach as the other roaches. I get it, they want to limit the damage, but the BBC is showing itself to be just like all the other Murdoch wannabe’s. In what  Lord Dyson calls ‘woefully ineffective’ we see “In early 1996, the BBC carried out an internal inquiry that cleared Mr Bashir, Panorama and BBC News of wrongdoing” We get to see a setting where some at the BBC saw the issues in play and saw the shit storm that would hit if it got out and the only option was a delay and they were able to set a delay for a quarter of a century. So when we see “Last week he left the BBC, citing ongoing health issues. He had been the corporation’s religion correspondent and editor since 2016”, we see optionally one truth, because the British people are at present ready to Lynch his ass and hang him in a nice high tree overlooking some BBC building. An option that might actually happen, his deception will anger the people to no end, and the BBC is partly to blame. You see we see that part when we consider why a little journo roach like that would endure ‘Martin Bashir lost £ 125,000 when he hurriedly sold his London home to the boss of a lingerie company’, I personally believe that people in the BBC and other part of the UK government were eager to show him out any door possible and the anger of the British people would not have made that place a safe place to live. So as London News today (4 weeks ago) gave us “A BBC reporter moved in the midst of a ruckus over fraudulent tactics allegedly deceiving the princess. Two large removal vans appeared at his front door on Friday before the sale. It is not known that the two-story house is listed on the market, and neighbours seem to know little about the move, leading to speculation that it was a panic sale”, we see and accept a panic sale and that implies that someone gave him a tap on the shoulders, perhaps even Richard Sharp himself. A 25 year career based on a lie and he will most likely get away with it optionally crying that he is merely a victim of a media system. And the exploitation does not stop there, the BBC already has a way to bounce back with “A Panorama investigation into the interview delayed from last week” will most likely show Martin Bashir as the evil deceiver and the rest will be made to be naive and good of faith, or as I see it, a system without checks and balances, a shortcoming that was visible from the time when Guy Burgess was part of the BBC, as such how innocent is the BBC or Panorama? On a slightly different tone, if I put a .338 bullet in the head of Bill Gates, will that solve the issue of Bing hijacking 5 times an hour on my Google Chrome iPad? It is pissing me off and I am already vexed with the BBC as much as it is at present. 

Personally I also have an issue with “Lord Tony Hall – the director of news who carried out the 1996 investigation – said he accepts it “fell well short of what was required” and he was “wrong to give Martin Bashir the benefit of the doubt”” If it is truly short of what was required, Lord Tony Hall should be seen as incompetent, but the other media players are unlikely to push for that side, are they? And that shows just how screwed up the media has become, they are in a stage of keeping each others heads above water so that they can all enjoy more revenue. Did anyone consider the stage that some roach relying on a career based on a lie could end up with a £1.9m London house? Consider that and the information “Editor salaries at BBC can range from $76,291-$114,619” the income and house do not match up, even as we saw late last year “Martin Bashir was one of the greatest journalists in the world right now. He worked for the major part of his life”, it is my speculative view that someone was protecting Martin Bashir, consider the facts and you might get to that same conclusion especially when you realise that his wife was not the expected cause of such an expensive house. 

I personally reckon that looking into Lord Tony Hall will show a few more items in all this. The fact that it took me less than an hour to see certain matters, OK, merely AFTER some revelations were made might not matter. There are a few settings that were out in the open, the lack of checks and balances being one of them. I wonder who else thinks that the UK media is lacking a massive overhaul and in all this it merely shows that Lord Justice Leveson was more and more correct a decade ago, so how long until the people realise that the UK media (actually a global overhaul of media) is long overdue? Especially now that the BBC is shown to be coming out of some sewer reeking of shit and vile crap? 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Follow Dick the Butcher

Yup, this is one for the record books, and one for publications. First of all, people who follow me here know that I have to the largest part no real love for most of the media, I tend to flock to those giving us the clear views, and I make fun of (read: chastise) all the others. That is how it should be. Yet, I have stayed short of actual violence (as it tends to be counter productive). One of the good media outlets is the Dutch NOS, it is government run, but to the largest degree for well over half a century it gives the Dutch the real deal, it has no issues going after government issues with the subtlety of a mallet. They have done this for pretty much for the length of my life (before that I was enjoying the view from my dad’s left testicle, so I cannot vouch for the time before I was born). 

So as I have been taking in the news of the NOS having to hide their logo, NOS journo’s getting attacked, I was a little dismayed and I wondered, especially in light of the population requiring a really large decrease in numbers to sae nature, the idea formed ‘Lets kill all the stupid people’, it is based on an idea submitted by Dick the Butcher given to Henry VI, it must be true, because Shakespeare wrote about it.

I was for a little while wondering why I am the only one coming up with this brilliant idea, but I was wrong, I was not and a book was published on this concept. The book (see image above) gives us the stage we have today. I will not go into the book (copyright issues) but if you want to catch up, it can be found (at https://www.amazon.com.au/Saying-Stupid-People-Warning-Problem/dp/167518836X), and also because I have not read it yet. The cover was all explanatory to me.

I also found a T-Shirt, but that reflects on a virtual kill, so basically a non-kill and even as there is a second of relief, there is no legal issue, yet the fact I that there is a larger stage, whether these people are scared or frustrated, the stage to attack journalists or health care officials is a separate class of stupid. Now I have seen the ass kissing journalists out there and there is an inner need to become violent, take an image of Paul Dacre, who does not have the feeling to attach his picture to a dart board and have some fun? The same can be argued on a whole range of newspapers and publications, Yet when we go after people of the Washington Post, the NY Times, The Boston Globe, Dagens Nyheter, the NOS and a few others, we seemingly lost the plot. In part the politicians are to blame here, they wanted all the papers out there, they catered to Rupert Murdoch and his ‘assistants’ and the problem becomes slightly clearer, the people cannot tell the difference anymore, although in the UK the difference between the Daily Mirror and the Guardian is rather large, in the Netherlands it is a little harder, their journalists are for the most pretty high end, and we agree every basket has its rotten apples, but those tend to not be around in the Netherlands for too long. The Guardian gives us ‘Dutch state broadcaster pulls logo from vans after attacks’ with the added text “the national counter-terrorism agency warned of a heightened risk of far-right violence in the Netherlands”, for the most I have no issues with political differences, but this far-right violence is completely unheard of in the Netherlands. The stage as the Guardian gives us “almost daily, journalists and technicians on the road to report are confronted with verbal abuse, garbage is thrown, vans are blocked [and] people bang on their sides or urinate on them”, as such we see a shift and people wondered what got into me when I proposed a movie called ‘How to Kill a politician’ with a likeness towards Geert Wilders, when people ask me why, I can now point at the NOS situation saying, “Because of this!

A stage that is ignored for the longest time and consider that Geert Wilders is not even close to the worst. That part is seen in Foreign Policy (at https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/28/the-new-face-of-the-dutch-far-right-fvd-thierry-baudet-netherlands-pvv-geert-wilders/), where we see “On election night, Thierry Baudet, the leader of FvD, addressed his audience with a speech that was broadcast live to well over 1 million households by the Dutch national broadcasting organisation, NOS. Baudet did not, as is common, address the crowd in front of him and thank staff and volunteers. Instead, he spoke directly into the cameras. Baudet repeated his core political message of the last two years, conjuring a stark image of the near-total decline of the “boreal world”—a term popularised on the French far-right as an alternative to the discredited “Aryan”—imagining a white cultural and political space “from Gibraltar to Vladivostok.” A quaint word to the uninitiated, the term “boreal” has long been recognised as a deafening dog whistle to white supremacists.

For me it means to swallow for a second, I knew that neo nazi and white supremacy organisations were around, but the idea that they have Dutch origins is a little more than I am ready for, the Dutch are in a stage where they blamed the Germans the last to decades for something the Dutch themselves created. I would never have guessed that and it seems to me that these players fear the NOS the most, the NOS has never had any scruples holding politicians to the sunlight and let everyone see what they were looking at and for those people the NOS is scary, the NOS never hesitated to set light to the things not making sense. 

In the stage where nearly all politicians voiced negatively against the violence against the NOS, we see Thierry Baudet give us (at https://www.alkhaleejtoday.co/international/5101936/Distressed-reactions-after-decision-to-remove-NOS-logo-‘Terrible’.html) “according to him it is his job as a politician to express ‘cultural criticism’. “But the idea that that could be translated into threats in the physical sphere is of course terrible, absurd and abject and must be fought with the fiercest of terms,” he told Een Vandaag”, when we read this carefully we get to “the idea that ‘cultural criticism’ could be translated into threats in the physical sphere is of course terrible and absurd”, I am not so sure, it is his side that sets the stage of violence, and he is not calling optional transgressors to stop violence, he is giving the world a political statement declaring himself not responsible, they are not the same.

The problem is larger, it is not merely the stage of inactions and the stage of ultra right, the budgets have dwindled to zero pretty much all over the EU, setting a much larger stage where inaction is all that we see and as such the situation will get larger soon hereafter, how much worse it will get? There is absolutely no way to set any kind of expectations here, but as long as the far right keeps on getting away with it, they will continue. That is how things tend to go, hence the power of one book cover.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

One matter is not another

Yup it is that flaky, it all started with two events, I saw the first event, but I basically ignored it, it was more of old news and politicians getting in on the tailcoats of another is a setting we have seen too often. Then there was the other new news, the was based on the old, and I will start with that, it makes more sense that way.

I got the news (and I had seen it) Pikmin 3 is coming to the Nintendo Switch. I knew it but I had not made up my mind yet. A budget implies that I cannot go out and buy whatever tinker trait is out there. I am not in the worst setting, but blatantly buying a game is jut not on. What made it interesting is the Nintendo added a demo to their shop, so I went out and played the demo (twice) and I recaptured the feeling that the first Pikmin on Nintendo Gamecube left me, the endearing feeling of using the Pikmin and keeping them safe, it is a weird setting, the feeling that came to me almost 19 years ago (18 years and 49 weeks to be a little more precise). The game was a true original and never disappointed, a full blown homerun for Nintendo. I am not exaggerating when I say that Shigeru Miyamoto outdid himself with that one. There are times when we rejoice when something is knocking on our door and we see it is something we have seen before, this is quite the opposite to the first matter and is when we see ‘Australians sign Kevin Rudd’s call for inquiry into Murdoch influence’, you see, he is now in full show with a goatee, perhaps so that he looks as endearing as Rolf Harris once did. Oh, no, it is more of an actual beard, my bad.

Yes Kevin Rudd is calling for an investigation into Murdoch industries, something he never achieved when he was Prime Minister, did he? When we look back there was the Leveson inquiry that focussed on the UK and gave us a series of public hearings were held throughout 2011 and 2012. It resulted in the Leveson Report in November 2012. I remember it because I have it, all 2200 pages. In April 2012 we were given ‘Rupert Murdoch gives away more than planned at Leveson inquiry’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/apr/25/rupert-murdoch-planned-leveson-inquiry), so whilst Kevvie was Prime Minister, what did he call for? Nope, he left that apparently to get back into politics, now it is ‘‘A cancer’: Kevin Rudd calls for royal commission into ‘Murdoch monopoly’, so that took him 8 years to figure out? If it takes that long, he has no business been in politics in the first place. But I agree slapping around an 89 year old multibillionaire might optionally be entertaining, yet in this I find the sanctimonious actions of a former Prime Minister who did nothing when he was in office a bit much. And I am not alone here. When we see ‘Rudd has become Murdoch’s accuser, but once he was his cheerleader’, with the added “Under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, Murdoch took over the Herald and Weekly Times publishing company, which gave him control of newspapers accounting for about two-thirds of daily circulation”, so not only does Rupert Murdoch have the power he has now, but it was the Labor party the enabled it, can sarcasm be any prettier?  As such, when we get to “The Herald reported that “cabinet colleagues were appalled at Rudd’s flagrant courting of News’ favour”” we see the mess he made of it, and now he wants to get back into politics by opposing he former friends? Well, that is politics I reckon. And the result? Well, I have to agree with “But what could a royal commission achieve? It is impossible to see any legislation improving the situation. Journalists often justify their efforts to bring transparency as being in the public interest with the words of American Justice Louis Brandeis that sunlight is the best disinfectant” (source: Sydney Morning Herald), the Leveson inquiry showed us how useless this path is, the media will cry like prissy little bitches all claiming that they can do better and continue in the same way they did. We merely need to look at the headlines on MH-370 we were given in 2014, basically the ink of the Leveson report had not even dried at the point. Politics and media, it is a stage where one hand feeds the other, whilst the left and remains ignorant of the actions of the right hand, a stage that will not improve until the laws get adjusted FIRST, a stage that is never ever going to happen. So whatever Kevin Rudd has planned, voting for whomever is the other person remains the safer bet. He did this to himself, a sage that is fraught with danger, yet like the Pikmin, they are the consumers getting the idea of what is safe, but in this case it is not Captain Olimar guiding the consumers (Pikmin players will get this), it is Corporal KRudd the we must trust and he will guide the red Pikmins through the shallows and uses the Yellow ones for the Bulbears, in this I fear for the lives of consumers (sorry, I meant Pikmin), I am slightly surprised that he got 100,000 foolish enough to sign his so called ‘intent’ all whilst there is absolutely zero chance that is ends up amounting to anything at all.

I agree, that one matter is not the other, but both are pages we have seen before one leaves us happy and relaxed, the other does not, for those wondering, the political side is not the fuzzy one.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Media, Politics

Mere numbers

Yes we all have mere numbers, and it is nice that some are advocating the lack of numeric connections on the news. Consider that we are being confronted with a disease with an optional  death rate of 3.4%, however the news is being brought like that is not the death rate, it is the survival rate. From ‘Murder inquiries could be hit if coronavirus reduces police numbers‘, to ‘WHO says coronavirus death rate is 3.4% globally, higher than previously thought‘, in all this we see a massive level of overreaction by all (including media), why? Lets face it, it is a flu and 3.4% in fatalities is still lower then your chances to cross the road whilst the crossing light is red in Manhattan, Regent street London or Parramatta road in Sydney. The overreaction I see is just staggering, even now we see ‘Wall Street slides after Federal Reserve makes emergency US rate cut‘, all as we see the numbers that give us “Coronavirus Cases: 92,880 Deaths: 3,168” and this is all before you realise the slight side factor “Recovered: 48,589“, so as the amount of people are restoring it and as we see a level of fear mongering whilst the amount of people not alive is a mere 3.4%, in addition, as we see the small realisation that in a group of thirty including me, i would feel that I was the one not making it, that is until I realise that one of the other thirty is Rupert Murdoch, which would make him the unlucky fellow, age is apparently a factor, the young have a much better chance, so there you have it, playing Russian roulette with thirty others and one gun, making it one out of the thirty not making it, and when you realise that a pistol has 6 options, we see the overreaction. Age is a factor, making it a setting where the bulk of the people will end up having to pay their taxes. I did have fun last week, as i was in a train I stated on my mobile (with no one at the other end) “I’ve had the sniffles ever since I came back from China“, within a few minutes I was alone in that carriage, that will teach people lo listen to other people’s phone calls. Over reaction can work for you, I learned that a long time ago and I do have a flaky sense of humour to boot (every now and then I should just kick myself).

Even in the UK with now 51 cases, the UK still has no fatalities, we get it, it is a disease with an optional not happy ending, but we need to realise that so far the death toll is a mere 3.4%, some nations have a larger death population by drinking water. When you consider “Contaminated drinking water is estimated to cause 485 000 diarrhoeal deaths each year” and you consider that this flu virus has only taken the lives of 3,168 people, the overreaction by others is just a little too much. So as we are treated to adjustment in interest levels and we see US rate cuts all whilst the death toll in the US is so far 9 people, we see a massive overreaction, and it is time to call the media and governments to attention. In the US Heart disease will kill 165,000 people, cancer 152,000, no one cares, yet this flu that has killed 9 shows an overreaction that is uncanny, it is lower than diabetes, yet we overreact, all whilst sugar intake is off the charts.

Caution and the wind

We all need to take caution, I am not stating that this is the case, but the overaction seen all over the media is just stupid, a disease milked for circulation through the use of implied danger, not shown danger. The best headline is seen with ‘Corona Causes Stupidity To Go Viral‘ (at https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2020/03/01/corona-causes-stupidity-to-go-viral-n2562371), here we see “the United States has excellent care everywhere. While there is no “cure” for a virus, we have the ability to treat the symptoms more readily available than any other country in the world. And we also care to administer that care. Most of the rest of the world: not so much” for the most, the issue is spot on, even as we now see that the US has 9 fatalities, the media is all to happy about keeping people in the dark on the 3.4% fatality rate (at best), 

Still, we should not throw caution in the wind, yet between that status and the mediated one where we see “80pc of Scots could get disease“, all whilst no national numbers in any country show any numbers that could give rise to such a blatant form of miscommunication. I think that the danger of Scots becoming British nationalists is a lot higher, if you catch my drift.

Even if we for whatever reason ‘hide’ behind the numbers, we all take a position, the media as mostly fear mongering, the governments in easing whatever economic pressures there are and even me, as to the overreaction of so many others. A disease with a death rate of 3.4% gives a different optimistic side, my survival rate on most cardiac options I could get hit with is a lot lower than 96.6%, so I have a better chance to live longer if I get the Coronavirus, how sic is that?

China, South Korea, Italy and iran, all  have thousands of actual cases and there we see that ONLY China and Italy have a percentage of non-living that is at the 3.4%, South Korea has a fatality rate that is less than 1%, so 99% survives there, 32 deaths in 5,328 cases, as such Australia with one kill out of 39 is not in any danger of being an issue, especially as 21 cases have made a full recovery. Yet the media does not give us that part, does it? And when we see how it hits the places where poverty is a danger, is that because there are no cases in Monte Carlo? (fingers crossed), or perhaps it is because Saudi Arabia currently only has one case? 

No matter how we slice it, we need to sit down and take a sober look at the numbers, in the first it already is a pandemic, in the second we see the cold numbers give us that 96.6% will merely get sick and recover without dying of the disease. There were 4 flu viruses in the past, the avian version (1957) killed around 2 million, the manana virus (Spanish flu) killed 50,000,000. the other two killed a million each, this Coronavirus does not add up to anything serious, the numbers prove me right. There is a massive overreaction, especially when you consider serious diseases like Ebola, or HIV. Their death rates are indeed serious, this Corona event does not add up to much at all and it is time that we take that into consideration.

By the way what was the rate cut by the federal reserve when HIV became an issue? It seems to me that this is an event that the media, especially the financial writers seem to have forgotten (read: ignored). So whilst the media is giving us ‘Washington state residents frustrated over obstacles to get coronavirus tests‘, or even ‘WHO warns of protective gear shortage as global recession fears mount‘, in a case where we see proven that 96.6% will not endure any fatalities, the overreaction is clearly seen, yet the lack of governments making sure that all people realise that there is too much overreaction in the midst of a generic flu season is a little staggering. All whilst the headlines are spiked with phrases like “its battle against the deadly virus“, I personally believe that the fatality rate needs to be a lot larger than 3.4% before we have a viral publication of “the deadly virus“, at least that is my take on it, call me crazy, but a situation where a virus optionally kills 3,200 all whilst traffic kills 1,250,000 people annually is a stretch, especially when you realise that the virus could have been a mere complicating factor in several deaths, the elderly die for all kinds of non-natural causes, the virus is a given complication here, but there will be some debate whether the complications, or the virus was the killer remained to be seen and the elderly will get hit harder, no doubt about that.

When we consider the mere numbers, the ado about Corona becomes much about nothing, even if it does kill, 3,200 deaths does not amount to anything when we compare it to the lack of life through survival in Syria (Idlib, Aleppo) or all over Yemen, did you consider that?

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Science

What we do not get to read

 

Yes, we have all seen it, the bias in the media, the stage of reporting and more important not reporting, yet in all stages there was always the BBC. Now, for the most I am all about the BBC, I love that channel, whether it is one, two or BBC24, there is a place for all of them and as a conservative it is hard to judge as I went to the small island of Australia (extremely SSE of the UK) and there we do not have the BBC (weird, I know). Yet they are also online and I do see the BBC there regularly (mostly the news), so when the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/21/dominic-cummings-thinktank-called-for-end-of-bbc-in-current-form), where the Dominic Cummings thinktank announced that it was time that the UK ‘called for ‘end of BBC in current form’‘, and I got all huffy and puffy on that notice. When we look at some of this we see: 

  1. the undermining of the BBC’s credibility; 
  2. the creation of a Fox News equivalent / talk radio shows / bloggers etc to shift the centre of gravity; 
  3. the end of the ban on TV political advertising.”

Well let’s start with item one, anyone who is out there giving us that someone needs to be undermined has ulterior motives, I have never known that undermining is an acceptable fair strategy, more importantly, anyone making any claims towards undermining or optional smear campaigns need to become weary of the bringer of that message. 

The second part is even more hilarious, there is a Fox News equivalent, it is called Fox News, I reckon that the UK has plenty of issues, a lot of them in the direction of discrimination and adding to that with a flair of news worthiness is not the way to go, in light of the morning shows, there is a decent representation. As such, Fox would have a hard time getting a share, let alone someone who treats the news as something on the go, a voice to stage biased views is not the one to go with, especially when you require credibility. 

The third is everyone’s favourite thing to oppose, we are all stoned to death with political pushes from nearly EVERY station on the planet, the articles are often politically laced and less political BS is very much appreciated by most people

As politically I see it, there is a larger issue and as I see it this is about something else, even as we are told that it is about one thing, it is not. People like Dominic Cummings are about large corporations, this is as I see it a first stab at the monarchy, they will not claim it, the more likely they will massively deny it. You see, they are about the message, yet what that message is, is not debated, even as they hide behind “the “mortal enemy” of the Conservative party“, it is not what they are, as a conservative I never had issues with the BBC, if MP’s are not prepared that is THEIR mistake, when they are caught with their pants down THEY are at fault and both sides know that. 

The issue is that people need to be under an advertisement blanket 24:7 to become effective, that is the American way and what is the actual danger is that the Monarchy is a blight to large American corporations. Even as Brexit went wrong, the yanks think that blanket advertisement could have prevented this. There is a truth, it might have been, but at that point the people would have unknowingly taken the path of the wealthy industrialists, and glossy newspapers and some newspapers are all about that, are they not?

When we see “allow politicians to speak directly to the public in ad breaks during Coronation Street” we see the docile approach and when we are told “government ministers should avoid appearing on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme” we see a different level of subterfuge, lets face it, people can ALWAY decide not to appear anywhere, yet at times that leaves a larger question mark and in this it is not the BBC where that question mark is. If a politician is not prepared to answer hard questions, we need to see why not and it seems that BBC 4 Today asks the right questions, or so it seems.

And as we see: “The suggestions were made in a series of long blogposts in 2004 and 2005 by the New Frontiers Foundation, which was a short-lived free market thinktank that aimed to emulate rightwing US organisations such as the Heritage Foundation” we see a larger truth, this is about stating the right wing agenda, not the conservative agenda and you better believe that there is a difference. As such we see the steps of change, and you better believe that “decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee as a first step” is not a first step, it is an advanced step into the undermining of the BBC, I get it, most people do not want to pay it because there is a budget issue, we all see it and we all face it, yet there is a truth behind the existence of the BBC too, it is not shading or colouring, but the option to give a direct view of what is. So when we see “The prime minister first called the licence fee into question during the election campaign and Nicky Morgan, the culture secretary, has suggested a move to a Netflix-style subscription system could be considered for the BBC” you better believe that it is a direct assault on public broadcasting and its disappearance will have far reaching consequences. 

It is enahnced by Ben Bradshaw, a labour MP who gives us “they would like nothing more than to replace the BBC with a rightwing propaganda channel like Fox“, it is the stage for replacing information for advertisement and it would not change immediate, it would be a gradual chance and it can be that way because those who want propaganda have money, they have serious money and partially becasue both sids of the ile were cowards in the past. They refused to properly tax corporations who like the idea of £30 million, instead of the accounted part of £4,600,000,000 which ends up being a lot more than £30 million and there are 5 players already on that line, and more will want that situation but that is not possible in a monarchy and there is every chance, especially after the media debacle of HRH Prince Harry and his wife Meghan that too many people have had enough of that and as such these parties require a propaganda channel sooner rather than later, the BBC is too dangerous for them, as such they need that credibility gone. 

The second truth, the obvious one is also give to us by Ben Bradshaw “The BBC belongs to the British public, not the government, and the public value the public service ethos of the BBC, objective and accurate information and news and the broad range of much-loved radio and TV programmes and would not take kindly to them being sacrificed to Rupert Murdoch“, the immediate issues here are ‘the British public‘, the BBC to a larger degree works for them and as such political players cannot use that channel for ‘their’ message, the get asked serious questions and if they cannot answer, they are smeared with custard (pie in the face routine). In addition, any thinktank that is setting the stage where the people are sacrificed to Rupert Murdoch, or Roger Ailes. Now, they are both good at what they are involved in, yet the news is a larger stage. Even as we need to credit Ailes for a lot, his stage was set to “If you have two guys on a stage and one guy says, “I have a solution to the Middle East problem,” and the other guy falls in the orchestra pit, who do you think is going to be on the evening news?“, it is a fair assessment of our own needs, but at times we do not need a pretty picture, we need to get a real setting of where we are. And even if we do not like it, when it personally hits us we wanted and needed to know what was real and to a larger extent the solution that Cummings is attacking is a really bad thing. There is some level of acceptance as the US is a large place and WE do not watch the local news, but there tends to be local news, in the UK it is a much larger setting where that impact will hurt all the people in the UK. 

Now, I made an accusation earlier on and it is time to set the right frame there. When we consider the ludicrous attacks on the royal family, like the ones on HRH Prince Harry and is wife, most get a little angry, yet the larger population who was tainted by glossy news was not and that is the setting the UK is going to, as the real news is more and more presented in a breakfast and glossy way, we get mixed and opinionated news and it is not the same as actual (read: factual) news, but it is the first step in diminishing the monarchy. We seem to ignore (some successfully) on the news out there, when we look at late last year we see headlines like ‘Meghan Markle In New Documentary Said She Was Warned UK Tabloid Press Would “Destroy” Her Life But Was Unprepared For How Bad It Would Be‘, or perhaps even better Newsweek with ‘FOX NEWS HOST SAYS HE’S ‘SICK’ OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE: ‘BRITAIN SHOULD…BECOME A REAL REPUBLIC’‘ and there we see another example of what America needs, it does not need a monarchy where we look out for the wellbeing of EVERY citizen, it is about a republic where big business rules and the media (as I personally see it) as a well paid prostitute only adheres to their needs 

  1. their shareholders
  2. their stakeholders
  3. their advertisers
  4. their circulation

In this the British royal family does not add to the circulation and is an opponent to the first three who wants that juicy collection of consumers that add up to 55 million, they will not care about the well being of the 13 million they end up casually ignoring, and destroying what little degree of freedom they have in their life, they want a population with 100% enablers. That is the danger and it is time for the people in the UK to wake up to that danger, because the 55,000,000 will not care initially, but as they move from being a consumer/enabler, they will care a great deal as they become the target, and that will happen.

This is why I see the message from people like Dominic Cummings as a very dangerous one, and I feel it is important to speak out against such dangers. Yes, we all see the BBC, a lot of us see and hear the boring (and a real classic) music by Eric Spear of Coronation Street, and the Manchester setting, but the larger truth is that the people in the UK own the BBC, not the politicians. If there is one truth then it is the one where we need to remain aware that what is not owned by politicians could end up giving us the actual facts, not the ones that will make money for the rich industrialists, they have plenty of options, they merely want zero opposition so that they can wield us more comfortably.

As I see it, they need it all done, because too many people are shouting about tax changes, tax changes that properly tax large corporations to a fair degree. I have no problems with corporations having a profit, yet the stage where there is a tax bill of £30 million against £4,600,000,000 which leaves them with an optional 99.992% of their profits, it does not add up and that should not ever be allowed, more important, when that Cummings foundation gets their way, you will not even be informed on those events, unless the evidence gets spread to a much larger degree in a much wider setting, when that is no longer possible, we will be told and most will accept whatever the industrial driven media gives us and you better believe that this is not a good idea.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

This stupid Neanderthal

Yes, you read it right, as the worst possible grammar allows for we see the needed expression: ‘Me is havening to be the stupid man today‘ statement. It all started in the middle of the night when the Guardian brought us: ‘Saudi state part-owns Evening Standard and Independent, court told‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jul/23/evening-standard-and-independent-unable-to-rebut-concerns-over-saudi-ownership). It gets to be worse (and the actual trigger) with: “Government lawyer tells court part-sale of news outlets has ‘national security implications’“, the naive Neanderthal in me is wondering what kind of drugs David Scannell is on and if I could get some of those (it never hurts to ask). The media (specifically the newspapers) are about the truth and about giving us actual information. The fact that the government has never ever been able to get a handle on whatever Rupert Murdoch does, in that same air the issues with Paul Dacre (specifically on a missing airplane), makes me wonder how the implied gossip that several newspapers spread are national security.

We could go with the premise that with a part owned Saudi Newspapers, the readers will actually get exposed to the acts or Iran, and the facts that many newspapers decided not to give visibility on that (like the proxy war Iran is waging via Yemen). That is beside the point that David Scannell is claiming national security issues against a Russian citizen, is that not laughable too (a Paul Hogan comedy kind of humour)?

So when we get David Scannell stating: “What is of concern to Her Majesty’s government is that a foreign state could be acquiring a substantial stake in Lebedev Holdings [owner of the Evening Standard] and the Independent simultaneously“, whilst her majesties government is seemingly forgetting that the current owner is Russian (born 8 May 1980, In Moscow Russia). Perhaps David Scannell would prefer to consider journalistic integrity and hold the UK newspapers to a much higher standard? He (his bosses more precisely) could have done that a decade ago by removing 0% VAT rights from these glossy ‘news’ bringers, a solution that would fit the UK citizen and resident to the largest degree, but just like the facilitation to the FAANG group (and their less than 2% tax), big corporations are facilitated to the largest degree and a clever Saudi investor thought that this was a good return for their investment. Then there is the other part.

When we see: “The heavily lossmaking free London newspaper is edited by the former Conservative chancellor, George Osborne“, we could consider that this is about changing the hearts of readers, yet if the government legal team is so worried about ‘poor record on press freedom‘, has that legal team not considered that in the end, when the papers becomes even more loss making that the current owners back out and the government could take over at £0.01 per share? In addition, if there is enough evidence in the statement of: “Both the Independent and Evening Standard insist concerns about editorial independence are unfounded and they are not influenced by financial backers” then what is this actually about? It seems that there is a reduced to zero chance that there are actual national security implications, the fact that national security events were always embargoed and as such these two papers must adhere to this, foreign owned or not and in the end, in addition, the fact that we saw last May the quote “There is nothing new about concern over the impact the company, which controls 70% of the country’s newspaper circulation, might have on democratic debate” (source: the Guardian), that keeping more papers out of the fingers of Murdoch might be a Humanitarian good, is that not important too? In addition, there is a second consideration, if the digital worlds that these two newspapers have, setting a stage that this evolution is passed on to places like the Dallah al Baraka Group, Al Arabiya, Al Saudiya and Al Ekhbariya could set a long term prosperity to both Saudi Arabia as well as their European affiliation. This is a long term slow plan and when we consider that Neom City is still happening, having a city well over 20 times the size of New York, also implies that overall the media will grow as well; digital marketing as well as 5G information streams will evolve, and evolve faster. Part of my IP was designed to do just that, whilst promoting commerce on several levels. We see that the evolution cannot begin in Saudi Arabia, but over time evolving those and new stations will be in the interest of Saudi Arabia who is eager not to lose it all to the UAE (Dubai Media Incorporated) or Qatar (Al Jazeera) changing the game and the way they do business is an essential must in the long term and in the short term evolution is more and more pressing.

Homo sapiens

Evolution has stepped in and as the Homo sapiens we are now, life is not that simple, the interaction of the media is larger and more complex. Yet I still find the approach through David Scannell laughable. We want to muster muzzles and bits to state who is allowed to go where, yet the unbridled freedoms pushes through by places like Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google remain unhindered. Even in a stage where these groups pay less than 2% taxation in the end, the monster we know is still less acceptable than any optional new monster we do not know. The policymakers have been unable and unwilling to adjust laws ad legislation for almost two decades, the premise of iteration and Status Quo are found everywhere but were given on how the new owner (partial new owner) is setting the stage of national security. When we look at the fines we see in the direction of Facebook and Equifax are partial evidence that this ship has sailed years ago, the latest data breaches show that there is no stopping the flow of data and whilst we look towards North Korea who does not have the storage abilities, skills and bandwidth to do 10% of the issues that they are accused of, we see that the foundation of the current batch of National Security monitoring teams are seemingly in a stage that they have no clue where to look and what data to sift through (a common shortcoming).

So in all this we have larger issues and whilst we forgot about July 2015 ““source close to the family” (MH370 disaster)” with the additional “what is also important is that we saw an issue in 2014 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) decided to investigate a case whilst using only 1 of 83 plaintiffs” (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/07/31/that-joke-called-the-first-amendment/), it would be my personal recommendation that the government (as well as David Scannell have bigger fish to fry. We could start a new Leveson investigation and force harsher settings, but all kinds of chief editors will burst into tears in the House of Lords and as we know that those gentlemen are really unwilling to slap crying girls around, so we get nowhere ever and the option to remove the 0% VAT from some of these newspapers is not regarded as an option, so we are at a stalemate with no solution. But the call via National Security seemingly remains.

In the complete evolved view we see that there is political power into the ability to reach an entire nation through the newspapers and the media, yet in that light when we accept Gay Alcorn (the Guardian) who gave us: “There is nothing new about attacks on News Corp’s influence on policy and politics in Australia. There is nothing new about claims that Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers are not just right wing, but distort and manufacture news“, does it actually matter whether news is manufactured by NewsCorp (Australia) or the Independent (partial Saudi)? Is pushing this path not a race towards discrimination lacking all diplomacy and subtlety?

I am merely asking, because even as i really do not care who the owners are becoming, and the fact that the previous owner is Russian, is it not just all water under the bridge. To be slightly more precise a bridge called Facebook transporting terabytes of data per minute?

In the end, the legal battle is seemingly set to “The legal challenge was only against the decision to refer the Saudi investment to the Competition Commission on merger grounds“, whether valid or not (that is a legislation issue), the fact that the entire article has only one mention of the word ‘merger‘ in that entire article. Informing the public on the exact nature of the issue on the merger, would that not have been an essential first? If that is the case, how does National Security actually fit would be my question, but we really don’t see a clear answer on that either, do we?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Could I be wrong?

That is a question I always ask myself. You see, I never proclaim to know the facts (unless I was a direct witness). I have tried to use the better journalistic sources as often as possible and whenever I look at issues I try to look into different directions, and from different directions to get the better view. It is not a perfect solution, and I have never claimed that my version is the only option. So as I have written in regards to certain steps in the entire Novichok matter, the pushed actions by Natixis as well as settings into Tesco, The Geert Wilders case, the Yemeni conflict and other matters, I believe that I did a decent job, and one that was a lot better than any of the Rupert Murdoch gossip hounds could have ever hoped for.

So when I am confronted with: ‘Novichok poisonings: what is the GRU and how does it operate?‘, as well as: ‘PM points to Putin as Russian pair accused of Novichok poisonings‘ I wonder what is going on, because certain matters do not make sense.

This is the initial setting we need to contemplate when we look into the entire Novichok case. When I see the mere 4 hours old article with “In a special statement to a packed House of Commons, the prime minister, Theresa May, revealed the two suspects who flew into Britain to murder Sergei and Yulia Skripal in March with the military grade nerve agent were officers in the GRU, Russian military intelligence“, I wonder what drives this train wreck.

Consider that this is true; now consider that in the entire Skripal matter, no evidence was ever revealed on HOW they got infected. Then we get the setting that they SURVIVED that part matters when we consider the part ‘military grade nerve agent‘, all whilst the operation was a failure. Was it intended to fail? Were they ever on any CCTV in the surroundings of the Skripals? Then we get the mention “Photograph issued by the Metropolitan police of the Novichok poisoning suspects Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov“. So tell me, where was this picture taken and WHICH metropolitan police had issues it? And when we get “The GRU is a highly disciplined organisation with a well-established chain of command“, which is true, and no one opposes that, yet they could have been merely there as tourists (if it was actually them), that is wherever that shot was taken. You see, from the facts given, we can in equal measure consider the arrest and extradition of Major-general Charles Stickland for the alleged killing of a US Navy Seal in Djibouti. Let’s face it, when it comes to the training and ability to even wound a US Navy Seal, he might be one of the few persons with the skills to do that. How ridiculous does that sound? Well, in that same light, we need to see a lot more when it comes to the Novichok. I get it! We are not privy to national security investigations, that part is not in doubt. Yet the entire matter, the lack of evidence presented and the Media merely boastful setting the stage of events, whilst evidence is lacking is a much larger issue, it literally serves absolutely no one.

So when we are confronted with ‘The Salisbury attack has all the hallmarks of the audacious actions of Russia’s most secretive intelligence agency‘, my initial personal response towards the writer Shaun Walker would be ‘What a fucking idiot!‘ You see when you look at the two parts ‘all the hallmarks of the audacious actions‘ and ‘most secretive intelligence agency‘, we see hem cancel each other out. Audacious actions is in the light, most secretive is not. Oh, and before I forget, how successful was the operation? They are both still alive and let’s not forget that a 7.62mm bullet from a silenced Tokarev has no risks of biological agents and would NOT have failed. The article gives us historical anecdotes that are useless, especially as the first one was from BEFORE the Spetsnaz GRU was even created.

Then we get to the second part in this. With: “The GRU has been identified as the main culprit in hacking ahead of the 2016 US election. A recent indictment from the team of special investigator Robert Mueller named 12 apparent GRU officers over the alleged hacking and leaking of Democratic Party emails. Like the US operation, the Novichok poisoning fits an apparent pattern of GRU operations: ingenious and audacious, yet uncovered and publicised by the target countries“. Here again we see the issue of evidence. How was the GRU identified? I am not stating that the Russians were not part of it, but between political hacks (or is that hackers), optional Russian Cyber units and the GRU is quite the leap and what evidence has given that part? When we see ‘Robert Mueller named 12 apparent GRU officers‘, how did the identity of the members of ‘Russia’s most secretive intelligence agency’ even make it out to the open? Is that not a weird thing either? In that we get to the final art of the first article, and it is again given with “the Novichok poisoning fits an apparent pattern of GRU operations“, so is the GRU about failures? In that, how does the second attack fit, and there we get the different news articles where the victim is dying in one and to be released in the other (see Yesterday’s blog at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/09/05/the-target-is-killing-me/).

The Article Two fiasco

The second one was from Marc Bennetts in Moscow. This gives us “Vladimir Putin signed a presidential decree making information about freelance agents working for Russia’s foreign intelligence agencies a state secret, two days before Theresa May accused Russian secret service officers of carrying out the Skripal attack in Salisbury“, this gives us merely two elements, it is implied to be connected, yet through what evidence? Basically we see the non-denied truth that ‘information about freelance agents working for Russia’s foreign intelligence agencies a state secret‘. That might be the case and that is fine, but is it related to any of this?

Now we get to the beef of the matter. It is seen with “The Fotanka News Agency appeared to confirm claims by the Metropolitan police that the men had used their Russian passports before. The force said the pair travelled regularly to Europe between September 2016 and March 2018, with trips to Amsterdam, Geneva, Milan and, repeatedly, Paris. Petrov visited London between February 28 and March 5 2017, the news agency said, citing its own unnamed sources“, now add to this “They purchased return tickets from London to Moscow for both Sunday 4 March – the day Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were poisoned in Salisbury“. So these two experts fly into Salisbury with no preparations time, no options to set anything up, infect them with a Novichok and get out (all in 48 hours)? This would essentially need a second team prepping it all (if it were them), this implies a team of at least 5 people in total. I admit that when I see ‘for both Sunday 4 March‘, there is something we need to contemplate, yet from my point of view they could have been used for a mere embassy courier drop, or any dead drop. However using that for the Novichok is ludicrous, so much could go wrong that failure was almost a given. A flight with zero leeway, that is not the acts of a secretive agency that is merely an advertisement of something else, what else? I have no way to know that. Oh, and for all the travels. That might be perfectly valid and true, but do we have any intelligence on where they went (exactly that is), where they stayed and which CCTV’s showed them? London and Amsterdam have a sizable CCTV system, also where did they go in Geneva? When we combine it all, there is a chance that they were optionally state security, no one denies that it is a possibility, yet the other side is that they might be the couriers or the personal assistant of one of these Russian billionaires, and if that is anyone related to organised crime we see my initial setting where I never stated that it was not Russian, merely that it was not Russian state and that does fit the bill. When you want your essential secrets to be transported, will you turn to the Randstad employment agency, or to Russian State Security offering people like that, offering a cushy job with a nice income that guarantees a lovely golden pension parachute, who would ever resist that?

Let’s not forget, we still have no actual evidence that these two (Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov) were GRU. They might be FSB, SVR, or perhaps merely intelligent and optionally well trained Russian citizens, where is the evidence? In finality Marc Bennets adds the anecdote of Dmitry Gudkov, for whatever value that has.

So far all articles that merely set optional allegations lacking evidence, so far when it comes to the Novichok, there has been a lack of evidence and even less cohesive evidence. The small parts that might have been an optional were overturned with the easiest of searches by me; all lacking the proper setting. Now I want to get back to the initial part, because I was not ignoring “assistant commissioner Neil Basu, laid out a compelling trail showing how the suspects travelled from Moscow to London and then on to Salisbury“. You see, when we see compelling as ‘not able to be refuted‘, it does matter, yet why not a mere CCTV pic of the Train platform or Bus platform to Salisbury? That is the part that is so weird, when a picture gives 1000 words and you rely on the one that gives merely 50 words, questions need to be asked and in that part the entire Novichok case (both attacks) is all about questions and no actual answers, mere allegations and accusations. So now we get to the quote “Police produced CCTV footage of the Russian assassination team during their 50-hour visit to Britain, entering at Gatwick airport at 3pm on Friday 2 March, and smuggling in the Novichok“, so where was the Novichok? It is another accusation that is lacking evidence. Apart from the fact that a biological agent got past Gatwick Airport which gives us a whole range of other questions too, but that is for another day.

I will also get us to the setting of the CCTV images. There were a few and I never ignored them. So let’s take a look at the setting (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/05/novichok-poisoning-what-we-know-so-far)

Arrival Friday March 3rd 15:00

There is no mention what was done between arrival and the first image, that part is actually important too. You see, that part might have supported or even denied the defence of mere tourists.

Saturday, March 3rd 16:00 Image one

Sunday March 4th 11:58 Image two, different outfit from image one, different shoes too, different hats. So are these the same people? (I wonder), the walk implies that the legs are slimmer too (what diet is that, please gimme some of that.)

Sunday March 4th 13:05 Image three seems to be the same as image two, yet now one of them has a backpack. Jeans of one of them looks different, could merely be the contrast of the two cameras.

Sunday March 4th 13:08 seems to fit image three, yet from behind, we can agree that it is most likely the people from image three, yet how certain are we that these are indeed the ‘culprits’? You see, from my (optionally wrong) point of view. We might have clothes to travel within 48 hours, yet two coats and two pairs of shoes? Also, in the end the mention of: ‘CCTV footage of the Russian assassination team’? Is there clear evidence that they were an assassination team? Yet the article gives one part that is the heart of it. That was given with: ‘For six months since the incident in Salisbury, the government has faced criticism over the apparent lack of evidence linking the crime to Russia‘, which was my case all along. I would love to get my fingers on that presentation and go over it with a really fine comb. I wonder what else I can find when I get access to all the raw data and raw footage, and let’s remain fair here, if there was a clear case of guilty in that mix, I would be able to find that too.

I am still willing to consider that I have been wrong, but the lack of evidence gives me the edge and some of the evidence seen is a little off, giving me the edge of my conviction even more. Oh, and in all this, the second ‘attack’ is still an issue and the fact that the second attack was a lot more lethal than the first one, in the light of humidity being a factor in making the Novichok less efficient remains a factor too, especially when we consider the time passed and the Charity bin part is just too vague on a few sides, as well as the setting that no one else got caught with any issues, too many parts are off there too (but that could be my lack of knowledge on how the entire charity bin path goes).

If I had to speculate on this, I would give the comparison of a factory making Jigsaw puzzles. Two different puzzles of the same size gives us two different puzzles with the same cut of pieces and someone mixed parts up so that we get a partial part of puzzle one in puzzle two and vice versa, that does not give us two puzzles, but basically 4 puzzles with an incomplete and incorrect view. In data we get the comical setting that: ‘to get any linear correlation, merely plot two observations’, yes it is 100% linear, as well as 100% unreliable mind you. I personally feel that the issues are pushed in one direction not because the evidence is there, but because the presentation was orchestrated, optionally by a third party, so who was this 3rd party?

I never stated that I was not wrong, I could still be wrong, but the evidence looks too tainted to be accepted as such we are all (including me) set on the wrong foot, you merely have to Google ‘Charlie Rowley’ and look for the news in the last week to see that (also mentioned in my blog Yesterday, as in the link given earlier). In the end, we must not forget the official government news (at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-secretary-statement-on-the-opcw-report-into-amesbury), where we are given “The police continue their investigation into the poisonings in Amesbury and Salisbury and we await their further conclusions”, when we read that on 4 September 2018, whilst we were given “Two Russian nationals named and charged over the novichok poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury have been identified as officers from Russia’s military intelligence, Theresa May has said, saying the attack was clearly authorised by Moscow” the day after in the Guardian. So what evidence was added in those 24 hours?

The issue given in the government statement with: “The recklessness of the Russian state in bringing a nerve agent in to the UK, and total disregard for the safety of the public, is appalling and irresponsible. Our thoughts are with the family of Dawn Sturgess and with Charlie Rowley” is the one in question. You see, no one ever denied the fact that Novichok is of Russian origin, yet there have been several sources in the past that showed that somehow Novichok got to be out in the open and that gives us the part where: ‘The recklessness of the Russian state in bringing a nerve agent in to the UK’ is the debatable part, merely ‘the Russian state’ as the setting whilst there is more than one alternative part in that trajectory. The push of that path is giving so much doubt and so much consideration towards a botched investigation on several levels. Even if we accept the optional two names to be Intelligence officers’ aliases, and if I was the Russian Mafia, I would definitely use names that at the mere sight of them would be intentionally ignored by border officers at Moscow airport. The fact that this path was ignored FROM DAY ONE is just too big an issue, add to that the failures of the events and we get something quite debatable.

I am always happy to be wrong, yet the presentations we have seen so far makes it more likely then not that this is actually not the case in the end.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics, Science