It is a stage we all face. Should we consider that the media is corrupt, or contemplate it is? It is not out of the blue, the media did this to themselves. First hide behind ‘the people have a right to know’, then hide behind the ‘miscommunication of crimes’ (like the phone hacking scandal) and then the crocodile tears that they can manage themselves (the Leveson report) and even before the ink dries going back to their old habits (the MH370 suicide jab). The amount of examples is legion (and as I know the devil, he was never THAT outspoken).
So what got me here?
Well there are a few items, but the Guardian pushed me to that side again almost two days ago. The Guardian is not more of anything, it was merely that article that brought it to the surface and when you search, you will see what I mean (and you can seek out the other culprits), they too are legion.
As I said, it started yesterday with the article (at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/30/elizabeth-holmes-enters-prison-11-year-sentence) with the ‘capturing’ headline ‘‘People wanted to believe the fairytale’: the downfall of Elizabeth Holmes’. Well actually they didn’t. This is the story the media pushed. They wanted their media darling, they wanted the nicely scrubbed youngling. She didn’t finish (drop out) Stanford University at the age of 19. She had the Steve Jobs look and, Theranos was (at some point) valued at more than $9,000,000,000 and Holmes became the world’s youngest billionaire and the media wanted that, they wanted another Disney Story and nothing Frozen about her, was there?
So when we get “It began with a 2015 article by Carreyrou that revealed Theranos’s revolutionary technology wasn’t exactly what it seemed” we all feel sorry, we are all left in the dark, yet that too is was the cards the media wanted you to see, hiding behind ‘miscommunications’ and by leaving things unsaid. That setting is not unique. In Market research there is an expression, a running joke if you like. If you want a linear result merely plot two events and fit the story as such, these two point will for the most ALWAYS show linear result, the rest make it a liability. It is almost like the lawyer who will not ask a question that he does not know the answer to. It gets these persons where they want to go. In the case of Elizabeth Holmes (and Theranos) it is the same with the media.
In January 2022 NPR (one of the few sources) gave us “He blew the whistle on Theranos when he was just 22 years old. Now 31, he was ready for closure. “This story has been unfolding for pretty much my entire adult life,” said Shultz in a long-ranging interview with NPR from an in-law suite at his parents’ home in Silicon Valley’s Los Gatos.” I mentioned it in the smallest way with “Where was the Guardian interviewing the Whistleblower Tyler Shultz? Thanks to him this was stopped,” and I did so on February 6th with ‘That courtesan called media’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2023/02/06/that-courtesan-called-media/) the issue is that the media to the largest degree shunned him and Erik Cheung and I personally believe that the reasoning is self-centred and therefor corrupt. And corrupt is exactly the setting, look it up in the dictionary It will give you “having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain”. If they were not then between January 2022 and now we would have seen at least one article on Tyler Shultz. So count the articles they have Elisabeth Holmes, and count the articles that give us Tyler Shultz and it does not end there. NPR also gave us “Being a Theranos whistleblower would soon morph into a much bigger nightmare. Soon, he was dealing with private investigators Holmes hired to follow him. Lawyers tried to intimidate him. Holmes tried to destroy his life.” It showed Holmes to be a backstabbing little bitch, but that didn’t fit the Disney view that the media wanted, did it? And with “Shultz was on the government’s witness list. He was never called to testify. He isn’t sure why.” We get the larger question. The whistleblower was not asked to testify? It puzzles me, but there might be a legal reason, I honestly do not know the answer. What I do know is that the media with a few exceptions steered clear of him and they are all about the people have a right to know? You get a right to see the story the media spins, all with the approval of share holders, stake holders and advertisers. So is there a contemplation or consideration that the bulk of the media is corrupt? I believe there is and with Elizabeth Holmes we see another side of that media, one that needs to stop even if it means that the media loses their 0% VAT rights.
And the news goes on (and on and on). Vanity Fair gave us “business editor Ellen Pollock was put on the spot to defend a soft-focus profile of the disgraced Theranos founder, telling staff she didn’t “give a fuck” about the criticism.” The news and ‘soft focus’? WTF? So do we see the New York Times going soft on crimes and criminals? Perhaps there is more and when you consider that Holmes set the stage for “Many of the marquee names that made up the Theranos board — former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former Sen. Sam Nun and George Shultz” Tylers Grandfather and former United States Secretary of State no less. Holmes had them all under her spell which would apply to a false prophet, not a media darling and that is perhaps the biggest failing of all. If NPR (at https://www.npr.org/2022/01/05/1070474663/theranos-whistleblower-tyler-shultz-elizabeth-holmes-verdict-champagne) hadn’t given us the goods, we would all be in the dark. Perhaps there are more but I was unable to find them. Seek Google for “Elizabeth Holmes Tyler Shultz”, or just seek “Tyler Shultz” these two seeks should give you at least a little more on the media and their spin.
So whatever you do, consider at least that the media once again were trying to sell you a bag of goods, just like those researchers having two observations and making a linear claim. What did they all leave on the floor?
Enjoy the day.