That is what CB left me with. The article (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/alphabet-google-committee-block-summon-1.6762908) gives us “A parliamentary committee is calling four of Google’s top executives to appear before it after the company began testing ways it could block news content from searches if Parliament passes the Online News Act.” And this MP Julian, perhaps MP Julian Assange? No, my bad. It was MP Peter Julian. You see, we do not get the proper setting. And it is not on Google. We are given “Google’s actions have been irresponsible. Google’s actions amount to censorship and Google’s actions are disrespectful of Canadians.” I do not think this is true and because some politicians are trying to remain as vague as possible, issues and question remain, but the people who are pushing this are the remnants of William Randolph Hearst and they all should become as obsolete and buried as Hearst is now.
They lost credibility and they lost integrity, but that is not how we need to proceed. You see the article gives us “All types of news content are being affected by the test, which will run for about five weeks, the company said. That includes content created by Canadian broadcasters and newspapers. An Australian law similar to C-18 took effect in March 2021 after talks with the big tech firms led to a brief shutdown of Facebook news feeds in the country. The law has largely worked, a government report said.” Well, not exactly, has it?
You see, we are given one line, but it is not one line, it is a document with many paragraphs, many facetted paragraphs. But the politicians do not want to go there, do they?
This is the first example. It comes from Twitter. The LA Times gives us the heads up, but it is not that, when we click on it it becomes a block. An advertisement block and the LA Times is not alone. So, did we accept that FREE advertisement by the LA Times? That is the question and it is not a simple one line answer.
The second example is Google search, I wanted something on Bundaberg (where the good rum comes from) and I looked at the news, the top part is what I saw and there is nothing wrong with reading about youthful enthusiasm in medicine, so I clicked on the article, but was I informed? No! I got an invitation to PAY for the article. Lets be clear, it might be OK for newspapers to allow this approach, but is it up to Google Search to cater to free advertisement? These two examples are the tip of a mountain a lot bigger than the ice-block that sank the Titanic, but the article as well as PM Julian are keeping us in the dark about it. There are others like the Guardian, the Dutch NOS, BBC, CBC and many others that do not use this approach, but for news outlets that cater to this approach we see a different catering and I think that Facebook and Google get to block these players. They newspapers are making claims of loss of revenue, but they advertise in this way, so is blocking all the question? I do not think so, but I am not on the board of directors of Google (even after I was able to hand them close to $20,000,000,000 in revenue). Ah well, another day, another dollar.
The block setting is not that simple and these politicians are nowhere neat ready to properly look at this. They want their cowboy story and Google is the nasty evil, but that is not true, it was never true. But then the politicians involved could never figure this out, but that is how I see it, and I accept that others have a different point of view. That is fair, I can only give you my point of view and perhaps it will stir questions, perhaps it will not.
This is how it started, but then I realised that there are two stories that are not told. The western media does not want you to know any of it. It makes them simple red light debutantes. Whoring for digital dollars and all at the expense of not informing you. So how are you feeling now?
The story that started this was given to us by Arab News (at https://www.arabnews.com/node/2258916/saudi-arabia) where we are given ‘Saudi project clears 882 Houthi mines in Yemen’ in addition we are given “Overseen by the King Salman Humanitarian Aid and Relief Center, special teams destroyed five anti-personnel, 195 anti-tank mines, 681 unexploded ordinances and one explosive device” as well as “A total of 388,433 mines have been cleared since the start of the project” but in all this did you consider the larger stage of the issue?
(Photo by Saleh Al-OBEIDI / AFP)
There are two sides. The one side is that Iran was instrumental in delivering over a million mines to Houthi terrorists. The second side is that Saudi Arabia is trying to clear Yemen from these horrific devices, there is of course the third side where we see that the large wining media solutions (The Times, The Guardian, NY Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe and LA Times) as far as I can tell never makes mention of ANY of it. Not the Iranian side of delivering mines. Not the Saudi side of stopping Yemeni casualties. Why is that? There is even an additional side, you see if these media jokes do not change their way, they will soon be less reliable than Arab News and Al Jazeera. And we can add Fox News to the list of useless sources. There is also an upside, these two sources can already be captured with their apps and give you the ACTUAL news regarding the middle east. The photo placed earlier was intentional. It came from Arab News but the source is the AFP, so why is this photo not all over the western news? Why are we kept in the dark on what Iran has been doing? You see Houthi terrorists do not have the means, the materials or the logistics to create a million mines. In the mean time we are given “In June 2022, the project’s contract was extended for another year at a cost of $33.29 million” whilst everyone is ignoring what Iran has been doing. We failed the Yemeni’s in many fronts. We are only partially able to stop weapon smuggle from Iran, We are unable to stop Houthi terrorists and the people doing something about it and that is merely the top of the list. And there is an overbearing other reason. With the claims out there made by 6,047 journalists in the US and over 320,000 journalists in the EU and I, a non-journalists am informing you? Where are these digital dollar seekers? Why is this Arab News not global news informing you on what Iran is part of? How about Houthi terrorists placing over a million mines? Who informed you? There is a decent chance that the western media did not, as far as I can tell, the only active western (French) player is the AFP at present.
It is time we ask the hard questions from the media and do it in the limelight, preferably asking the stakeholders for their assistance in all this, but that is my sense of humour in action.
Yup that happens, but the way it was done was rather surprising. You see, I wrote about this situation and I did it reflecting on my own experiences. I reckon one of the clearest moments was August 2021 when I wrote ‘As credibility moves to the arctic’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/08/26/as-credibility-moves-to-the-arctic/) and the most recent was ‘The part we seem to forget’ where I wrote “The media is the bitch of shareholders, stakeholders and advertisers”. This is a stage I have mentioned since 2012, so I have been aware of this stage for 10 years. When it upsets the advertisers it is trivialised (Sony, 2012) and they are not alone. When it is a larger issues the media gets to meet with stakeholders who provide a narrative and that is how it is set, there is more with shareholders, but that is for another day. And now the BBC gives us ‘BFM journalist Rachid M’Barki suspended in scandal linked to disinformation firm’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64677232) where we see “he admits to bypassing BFM’s editorial checks”, yes admitting to incompetence is the way to go, but here it is not enough. I reckon he stepped on the toes of the wrong stakeholder and he is hung out to dry. So when we are given “an investigation by Le Monde newspaper in conjunction with the campaigning organisation Forbidden Stories has revealed more details. According to the investigation, M’Barki ran reports on a variety of subjects – luxury yachts in Monaco, a Sudanese opposition leader, allegations of corruption in Qatar – that had all one thing in common: they were planted by an Israel-based outfit specialising in ‘news for hire’.” We have hundreds of news sources starting at Reuters, but these three gave enough to set the stage to an Israeli firm? I have questions and a lot of them. It is possible that a whole range over a time would give an optional narrative, yet the larger problem with the media is not merely copying one another, it is that there is no vetting of information and I am not talking about editorial checks. The need for news-by-wire is setting a stage where proper vetting of information is surpassed (as I personally see it). And this time around a man named Rachid M’Barki gets the joker served in a not so nice way, he is hung out to dry. Now it is simple to say that something is not possible. I say some things are too highly unlikely and there is a second stage, this is coming to the forefront all whilst these connected stakeholders are massively shy of the limelight. Their value is not being seen. This is why some people have lunch meetings with stakeholders and often in a neutral place. Please do not take my word for this, seek out your own evidence. I woke up when I saw Australian news ignore events surrounding Sony in 2012, a mere week before the PS4 was launched and they ALL ignored it, Sony advertisement money was too powerful, too incentive for words, as such the fact that 30 million gamers were exposed to changes was ignored by pretty much all of them. From that moment on I started to track certain events and the media did not disappoint, they dropped the ball time after time and I started to see patterns (as I would call them) digital patterns all about the money and infused by below quality reporting as I saw it. I made several mentions from 2012, but the load started to become heavy from 2019 onwards. And now the BBC gives us another wake up call, but it is one they might not want to make, because we are given the guilt of Rachid M’Barki butt that also opens up the an of worms that we get to see with most of the media and that includes BBC, the Guardian, NY Times and a few other players. As I personally see it, all media has its own stakeholders and we are denied the news, we are merely handed filtered information. Information filtered to the needs of share holders, stake holders and advertisers. That is how I personally see it.
Yup, that is as good as it gets. You see, we have heard all the airlines whine about losses and loss of revenue, all whilst they added over 41,000 daily flights over the last 15 years. So whilst we see the stupid people (the Guardian journalists) have a go at people with a private jet, they are merely losing the plot by actually looking into airlines. So it was an interesting sight to see ‘Air Arabia delivers record 2022 net profit of $327 mln, up 70 pct’ (at https://ara.tv/y756m). This led me to the thought what if all those airlines are working with the wrong business model? Alarabiya News gives us “Air Arabia, the first and largest low-cost carrier (LCC) operator in the Middle East and North Africa, announced historic financial results for the full year ending December 31, 2022, almost doubling the profit and passengers’ numbers of the previous year, as the airline continued with its growth plans, delivering remarkable financial and operational performance”, when I see ‘low-cost carrier (LCC)’ on that side and we get “the Japanese domestic operator was Y3.4 billion ($25.8 million) in the black for the nine months to 31 December 2022”, I do understand that this is domestic, but at a mere 7% of what Air Arabia is doing. Now, don’t get me wrong. I do get that I am (to some extent) comparing apples to oranges, but I bet you dollars for donuts that some of these airlines need a business overhaul. As I see it, the 90’s model of just adding flights does doesn’t do it. And the environment is getting hurt in the process which the Guardian wasn’t properly reporting on, but that is my personal view.
So what can be done? What must be done? We see very little but the numbers are out in force and I wonder who is looking at the options there. Perhaps it is all ‘saved’ by accountant abracadabra, who can tell and that is the problem, no one is actually looking into it and now I have questions. Perhaps my questions aren’t entirely up to the mark and there are factors that matter, but that still warrants my view of their business plan overhaul. So to speak, when the accountants tell them to put their profits in the upright position someone better listen, because as I see it Air Arabia is showing them how (at present) it could be done. As I see it, they have 327 million identifiers that they are on the right flight trajectory. Even more so when we see that their profits are reported to be 70% up, that is not some trivial matter. That is something airlines need to take a closer look at and If I am the first one to mention it, you get to wonder why others are asleep at the wheel, because as I personally see it, that is what it amounts to.
Yes, it is me on THAT horse again, and with the media giving their digital dollars preference towards Andrew Tate, it seems that I need to go on another headhunt. Yet first I need to give you the real part that was as far as I could tell ONLY given to you by News dot com dot au weirdly enough. Here (at https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/being-a-controversial-figure-is-not-a-crime-andrew-tates-lawyer-defends-jailed-influencer/news-story/f361ecc354b8de15a09f37bc54e22f74) we are given “Tina Glandian, defending the pair, said they should be presumed innocent until proven guilty as no charges have been laid. She said on Piers Morgan Uncensored the brothers have been subject to “huge injustice” after their arrest on December 29.” So, for over two months a person was held in prison without being charged. Where is that sanctimonious court in Strasbourg now? This is a simple fishing expedition and there is now the optional chance that the Romanian law is aiding organised crime. You see, I reckon that they are all furious that some kickboxer got his foot in the legal stages of whatever business they are in and they ended with $700,000,000. That is a real setting and I am persuaded to think that this is not cool and not clean. I get that a person is held for a week until charges come, yet in this case it has been over two months and three more weeks to go and there are no charges at present. Why is that?
Then we see the mention of “falsely claiming to want a relationship”, yes that is claimed but that setting also fits over a billion teenage boys hoping to put their erection in a vagina. How many of those were arrested? Then we get “Romanian prosecutors launched their investigation last March after one of the brothers allegedly raped a trafficked woman”, so they are not arrested for trafficking this woman, but ‘merely’ for allegedly raping her. This is a classic he said, she said issue in court. It does not mean that this did o did not happen, but the stage is that they have been in jail without charge and that is the ballgame. A ballgame that is set up but for the benefit of who?
Then we get to the BBC article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64523028) which is more blahblahblah with mentions of the early years and how they made millions in 7 years. We are also given “Talisman Enterprises makes its money from web portals, according to official Romanian records. It hasn’t posted a profit since 2017”, OK. That sounds nice, but didn’t Donald Trump do the exact same thing in the US? How long has he been in prison? I reckon that the answer is 0 seconds, making this setting even less just and even less acceptable, but Strasbourg is not making a noise, why not?
And then there is the Guardian, they really made a mess this time around. The article (at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/feb/02/andrew-tate-twisted-ideology-infiltrated-british-schools) giving us ‘how Andrew Tate’s twisted ideology infiltrated British schools’ where we see “Children are not only mainlining Tate’s toxic social media content, which has resulted in him being banned from most major platforms; they are also tracking his progress through the Romanian criminal justice system, where he and his brother, Tristan, have been remanded in custody until 27 February while investigations continue. An appeal against their detention was rejected yesterday. They deny all the allegations”, and here I get to be a little insulting. So Sally Weale, where were your tits when it came to Elizabeth Holmes? Where were you when she was found guilty on four counts of defrauding investors – three counts of wire fraud, and one of conspiracy to commit wire fraud? Where was the Guardian interviewing the Whistleblower Tyler Shultz? Thanks to him this was stopped, but not before six hundred million ended up being lost. So where is the indignation there? Where is the indignation regarding Sam Bankman-Fried? OK, he is still being investigated, but there is a clear issue with someone finding $5,000,000,000 that they allegedly lost. I checked my sofa at least 20 times. Not a billion. Hell, I would be over the moon with 100 million or massively happy with a mere 25 million, but no way Jose, the sofa did not hide any green papers. Nor did my desk for that matter. So what do you think happens when you misplace billions? In all this Andrew Tate hasn’t even been charged yet. One is convicted and her subtle side-road of getting a one way ticket to Mexico was largely ignored by the media. Not enough digital dollars there? And the amount of silence we see around Sam Bankman-Fried is even less acceptable. But the Tate’s, no, they represent digital dollars for too many media outlets and that comes first, the hard truth or the actual and factual news be damned.
I have several issues and the media remains number one, the fact that the Guardian is seemingly digital dollar driven is becoming an increasing disappointment on several levels, but that is me and perhaps I am wrong. You go seek the factual news and you tell me.
Growth, we all seek it, in mind, in business, and in setting and there is a stage that is evolving at present. The Guardian reported early this morning ‘Record warm winter in parts of Europe forces closure of ski slopes’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/04/warmest-january-ever-forces-ski-slopes-across-europe-to-close). Now there is the expression that one swallow is no identification of Summer. Yet there is no guarantee that next year will be better. Consider the stages France, Switzerland, Austria and Italy. That is a stage that gives them a pool over well over 2 million people who do want snow, who want to taste the slopes. They will soon need to seek or at least consider other venues. In the Northern Hemisphere that gives them Norway, Canada and China. Finland has a lack of mountains, as does Sweden. Norway can grow as can Canada. I reckon that there are too many anti-China sentiments at present. Norway and Canada have good vibes on the slopes and I reckon it is time for them to consider new settings. Some places in Norway can grow, but they will need at least one more place for now, as does Canada. Yes Whistler is a great destination, but it is overcrowded. The 2022/2023 movies are mostly ab out the horrendous waiting times, the amount of people trying to get up. Whistler is full and Canada either creates an additional place where the people now going to Whistler can g, or bleed tourists to other nations. I reckon that they will see that another Canadian field (most likely in British Columbia) makes sense. There have been abandoned places (near Calgary) that offer a good setting, yet that stage need work as well as anything new. Every field will grow, but only if all the amenities are there. The same for Norway, who is seen as an excellent place to visit, but the call of Whistler is strong. So, as I see it They both have good chances, but the one with a better option and a cheaper one (Whistler is really expensive) will get that cluster of people. So there is risk. If a strong winter gets back in the next year, their issues are saved (France, Switzerland, Austria and Italy), if not the early bird will get the collection of worms and it will be a lot more than mere thousands. Thi will affect plane travel as well as accomodations. There is of course a lot more and even as I cannot give you all the answers, there is clear place to grow, not merely to get the overrun to Whistler, the failing of places we never expected to fail will call for more answers, some we might never get. But the overwhelming stage is that snow is lacking in places where it should not and the places that could benefit might never have seen this coming.
That is not on them, but next year will be and there they need to find ways to either take the risk that they miss out, or see what they could get because a group of millions of tourists in this day and age is a strong call. Personally I have no interest, but there is a second stage, one that is not a given. We can get that Paris and Milan–Cortina d’Ampezzo are places currently set for the Olympics. I hope it goes well, but if this bad winter stage continues, someone has to step in. Who? That is anybodies guess. But there is room to grow for several reasons and several places will have the option to grow, will they take it? I cannot tell, but even if there is added revenue, it comes with a decent amount of risk. No one denies that, but no one saw the really bad snow weather of this season come, especially when places like Canada is drowning in the stuff.
Yes, we always have that, one more question, one question to start with, the list goes on. I am no different, but I tend to base it on facts that I am exposed to. And the Guardian gave me (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/jan/01/russia-ukraine-war-live-zelenskiy-vows-to-keep-up-fight-amid-new-wave-of-russian-missile-attacks) ‘Russian claims its missile attacks are targeting drone production while Zelenskiy vows to keep up fight’. And here I merely saw this as another article. But after a few moments a few thoughts came up in my mind and they led to questions. So lets take you through these motions.
Russia claimed its strikes against Ukraine on New Year’s Eve, including the launch of more than 20 cruise missiles, killing at least three people, were targeting its neighbour’s drone production.
So lets just say (a far stretch) that this is what they are trying to do. Consider that more than 20 missiles is at a price of $1.5 million dollars, making this a $30 million dollar strike. They got nothing, merely the death of 3 people (not saying that is a good thing), but the math then gets us that Ukrainians die at $10 million per casualty, implying that with a population of around 44 million, the cost of killing the Ukrainian population will set the Russians back by about 440,000,000,000,000. Which amounts to 440,000 billion dollar, which is about 150 times more than the Russian state can cough up. So they will be broke long before they made a dent in their ‘Wishlist’.
If we reject that (fair enough) the fact that over 20 missiles did not do the job, implies two possibilities.
In the first, the missiles are so inaccurate, they will hit everything except for what they aim for, a laughable situation.
In the second, it is not an accuracy issue, it implies that the GRU and/or FSB cannot correctly verify and correctly capture intelligence.
Either is reason for the Ukrainian Paddington bear (Zelenskyy) to slap the Russian bear silly (again and again).
And there is cause for wondering why the media is not seeing that bigger picture. But I am all about humour and there is a lot to be gotten here. You see, a year ago (December 14th 2021) I wrote a solution to meltdown Iranian nuclear reactors. I gave it to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (via email) as I felt it was important for someone to stand by them and let Iran know that they have a bigger problem than they think they have. And as their reactors are based on Russian design, the idea came that if it works on one (there are a few little issues with my solution) it will also work on the other. And as Russia is about to recruit even more people, they might be better off sending them to guard the 38 reactors they have (just a thought). They have been making threats about using nuclear power. My solution is less complex. I just put the solution online and let anyone hating the Russians enough to take a stab at it, solves everything (as I personally see it).
That would of course invite one more question and that is fine. But the inactions of certain governments are no longer acceptable to me and these pro-Russian wankers in the Netherlands (Thierry baudet), the UK (Tommy Robinson) and a few more are getting under my skin too, I reckon one massive setback for Russia will set these roaches back to wherever they usually hide.
So what is easier than to hand a solution to the internet and let the Russians go nuts trying to monitor Georgians, Chechnya’s and a few more Russian speaking people who have had enough and see this as a solution and there are a fair amount of Russians there as well, the moment they get to even one reactor Russia will have no other option but to pull back or hand a nuclear offensive and with their current hardware settings, there is a chance over 30% will not function, as such whatever hits Russia will end Russia. A simple solution, not?
Lets be clear, this is not a good solution, I know this, but at some point people have had enough of the lies and acts of terror that come FROM Russia. And Russia needs to wake up to the consideration that people have had enough of them and that TV show on ‘expansionism’ will have far reaching issues. Is my solution good? Of course it is not, but there are too many flaccid politicians not doing enough to stop Russia, so I decided as a near retirement citizen to up the game a little. Or as the Cheshire Cat stated “When is a croquet mallet like a billy club? I’ll tell you: Whenever you want it to be!” A more academic version is “If the results do not match the hypothesis, change the question to make it match”, a favourite stage in Market Research storytellers. And there we have the setting and it will lead to more questions. Hopefully in Russia someone will ask “Is the mess President Putin hands to us worth the mess we are about to receive?”, well that is up to them, we can only show them where that window is and let them decide to use it as a point of entry towards another solutions.
If that one question got them there, I actually end up doing more than a dozen flaccid politicians, not bad for a storyteller and inventor on minimum wage. How much do each of these flaccid politicians get?
The Guardian gives us (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/22/fears-over-oil-producers-influence-with-uae-as-next-host-of-cop-climate-talks) ‘Fears over oil producers’ influence with UAE as next host of Cop climate talks’ There we are given from the top “More than 630 fossil fuel lobbyists attended Cop27, and the Emirates, where Cop28 will be held, is a major oil and gas exporter” with the added “Fears are growing among climate experts and campaigners over the influence of fossil fuel producers on global climate talks, as a key Gulf petro-state gears up to take control of the negotiations.” But the stage is incomplete. To understand that I need to take you to the past, 4 weeks in the past. There we see the IMARC. It is not as big, no real ‘top celebrities’, a few ministers (as far as I know).
I tried to attend and I had the invitation. But the doors remained closed. The invitation was not enough, I needed some QR code, and a signed letter of invitation with my identity details. So I had an invitation and could not get in. This happens, no biggie. I had no essential requirement to be there, curiosity was the largest contributor for me going there. But consider the COP27, with all those dignitaries. It would have massive protection and protocols in place. As such the article gives us all kinds of details, but the one part we do not see anywhere is where they got “630 fossil fuel lobbyists attended Cop27”, not merely who they are, but how they got an invitation that got them there? Interesting how such a stage was overlooked. Or the simple setting of nationality of these 630 people. How many were Americans? None of that. And this is not the first time the Guardian pulls such a stunt. And we are given “The Guardian approached the UAE multiple times at Cop27 without response. UAE had a large pavilion at Cop27, and a delegation of about 1,000 members, which was twice as many as the next biggest delegation, that of Brazil.” So why approach the UAE? Why approach them a year in advance before anything is set up? We do not get that, merely emotional paragraphs and no explanation of where these 630 people were from, how that list was obtained and other such matters. Perhaps the Guardian has forgotten how to vet information? How to make top-line summaries and that list goes on, but there they are these 630 lobbyists, and not a nationality in sight. Why is that?
Oh and in comparison, how large were the delegations from Saudi Arabia and the US? It seems that some comparison would be essential, but we weren’t given that either, were we? So was this article a simple BS exercise with the eight of nothing? The use of less than that? I can’t tell, to do that we need actual verifiable data and we aren’t given any, are we?
We all have such moment, we are given some parts when things go wrong, this happens, but to the degree we see at present, does it make sense? I think that it is clear that there is almost no one left on the planet who has not heard the name ‘Sam Bankman-Fried’, the media has been bringing it like Jesus of Nazareth was the second coming of this individual. It was only three weeks ago when we were given ‘FTX TO LAUNCH ITS OWN STABLECOIN SOON, SAYS SAM BANKMAN-FRIED’, there we see “The fresh capital injection, which is still subject to negotiations, would keep the crypto conglomerate at the same valuation it had landed after a $400 million funding round back in January. At the time, the cryptocurrency exchange founded by Sam Bankman-Fried was valued at $32 billion. According to leaked financial documents, global trading revenue generated by FTX hit $1.02 billion in 2021, having increased more than 10 times from the $89 million recorded in 2020. Additionally, FTX’s operating income swallowed $272 million throughout last year’s bull run from $14 million a year earlier. FTX saw net income of $388 million last year, up from just $17 million in 2020” and there has been too few questions, no one was looking into matters. Just like the issues surrounding Jack Dorsey. The media had forsaken its duties. It’s like all the paparazzi’ were heralding a 42nd crack maiden as she was giving out free blowjobs to anyone coming along. They had no problems slapping Elon Musk, because he was too arrogant, he was evil. The media had forsaken its duties to the largest degree. To properly inform us and it was at that point when someone informed me of a Dilbert comic. I know off Dilbert, but I do not religiously follow him. I have a book with Dilberts, but that book is at least 20 years old. So I had to look him up and I placed him below.
So here we see what I have been telling you for years, but the person was onto something. If we are to accept the wisdom of Scott Adams, the ‘We’ in the second image represents governments, corporations as well as media interests? It is the last one that was a little forgotten. Not by me, but I was equally not s inclusive as I had needed to be.
This part becomes clear when we see the Australian Financial Review (at https://www.afr.com/technology/ftx-came-dangerously-close-to-upending-futures-markets-20221117-p5bz5m), there we see ‘FTX came dangerously close to upending futures markets’ with the added “FTX’s ambitions were grandiose: It wanted to carry out every aspect of customers’ crypto derivatives needs on its own, using algorithms rather than brokers to help clear trades”, you think this is it, but it isn’t even close. Yet it lifted the veil and gives us the question “Why was the media asleep?” Things of these nature get noticed and the media was not asking questions. It goes from bad to worse when we see the Guardian giving us ‘Why were so many smart people so dumb about FTX? Did they seriously just like Sam Bankman-Fried’s ‘vibe’?’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/commentisfree/2022/nov/15/why-were-so-many-smart-people-so-dumb-about-ftx-did-they-seriously-just-like-sam-bankman-frieds-vibe-), it is actually a much better question than you think it is. The ‘vibe’ part is indicative and subjective, but the setting of smart people being dumb is central. The media is allegedly supposed to be smart and they never saw it, they never investigated. Was it them or their shareholders, their stake holders and their advertisers that could not stand the sight of critical questions? The fact that I found 6 billion that Google and Amazon overlooked implies they are merely reckless, shortsighted and only optionally stupid. But tell me what company goes around ignoring 6 billion in revenue whilst they are getting ready for recession dropping employees left, right and centre? Then we see the subjective part “The collapse of the cryptocurrency exchange will cost investors billions. But why would anyone give money to a man who plays video games in important meetings?” There is a dangerous stage here. They are not wrong, but it also implies that the important meetings are egocentric. I found 6 billion through video games, in addition, I knew WHERE to look. It implies that these so called important meetings are important to some and not others. Are they therefor important? And we get more information when we see “It seems, however, that FTX was doing some very dubious things: namely, furtively shifting customer funds to Alameda Research, a firm also operated by Bankman-Fried, which then gambled them away on risky trades. Instead of becoming the world’s first trillionaire, SBF saw his net worth plummet from $16.2bn to about $3 overnight. Former US Treasury secretary Larry Summers has likened FTX’s collapse to the Enron scandal, saying that from the reports, there were “whiffs of fraud” about it.” And the information we get is not about SBF or FTX, it is that the media fucked up, it massively fucked up. Who in the media started to look into Alameda Research? How much of the $6.2 billion was lost by the time someone woke up? All questions that the media will not look into or shed light on. Too many got burned by Leveson and when we illuminate that the media has more priority towards digital dollars than to inform the people on events, it is at that point that the people will demand investigation of the media and that scares them. Like fucked up Chihuahua’s they will cry the freedom of the press and the fact that they can police themselves, yet there are enough indications that there is no freedom of the press, there has not been for quite some time and the final push is seen through the BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63662396) where we see ‘New FTX boss condemns crypto exchange’s failure’, a stage that happened 13 hours ago where we are given “The firm filed for bankruptcy in the US last week and, in court filings, Mr Ray said he had never “seen such a complete failure of corporate controls”. Mr Ray, who replaced Sam Bankman-Fried, also criticised a “complete absence of trustworthy financial information”.” In a stage that is a mere three weeks old we see someone from second coming to financial terrorist getting nailed to a cross. And when we realise that this is a stage that was 3 years in the making and the media ignored too many signals and it is time to demand answers. So called idiots making environment claims a mere two days go with “30 newspapers and media organisations in more than 20 countries have taken a common view”, how about you do your fucking jobs and report the news, the actual news, not filtered information!
That setting has been clearly out in the open, but the media does not investigate itself and we are now at a point where the people ned to hold the media to account. When we are given by the BBC “Mr Ray also criticised what he said were “erratic and misleading” public statements by his predecessor. Mr Ray said that FTX had concentrated control in the hands of a “very small group of inexperienced, unsophisticated and potentially compromised individuals”, and that it did not maintain centralised control of its cash. Instead, he said, there was an “absence of an accurate list of bank accounts and account signatories”. So far he said it had been possible to locate “only a fraction of the digital assets” held by the firm.” All this whilst the media was praising some crypto brat like he was evangelising the new economy, and there were no checks, no balances and the media was nowhere to be found. A place like FTX made over a million victims, lost over $16,000,000,000 and the media was nowhere to be found, oh yes, when the carcass was out in the open for everyone to take a bite from, but such numbers aren’t created in a day, there was a long stage of planning and the media was nowhere to be found. Why not?
In light of all the stupidity I see there is now a decent stage where people should consider handing their IP over to China and hope for the best, because our system made a righteous mess of it all and that kind of damage does not happen overnight, it requires the media to forsake its duty to a massive amount. And this is not one media, it is the bulk of them. And my view? When the BBC reports “Meanwhile, Mr Bankman-Fried has told the Vox news website that he regretted filing for bankruptcy.” Vox? And the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Times, the Guardian and others aren’t wondering why the Vox got that little part and none of the others are all over the Crypto Brat? Makes you wonder what else they aren’t looking at, not?
To understand this we take a quote, like “That’s why today more than 30 newspapers and media organisations in more than 20 countries have taken a common view about what needs to be done. Time is running out”, and why does this get to me?
I wrote on August 26th ‘As credibility moves to the arctic’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/08/26/as-credibility-moves-to-the-arctic/) where I confront Matt McGrath with a few items. Then there was July 31st 2021 where I gave the readers ‘Place with a view’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/07/31/place-with-a-view/) and not to forget ‘Uniform Nameless Entitlement Perforation’ on December 10th 2020 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/12/10/uniform-nameless-entitlement-perforation/) which has the ACTUAL EEA report as well. A report that to the best of my knowledge was never seen on the BBC site and not on the Guardian site either. No Matt McGrath was all about the rich people and their jets, whilst over the last 15 years over 41,000 flights a day were added. I feel absolute certain that at least a third could be scrapped. There is no need to have 15 flights a day between Amsterdam and Stockholm and that is merely one example. That is the first setting, the second was the EEA report, which gives us that 50% of ALL damage is done by merely 1% of the facilities. 50% of all damage comes from 147 facilities and as I can see it they ALL ignored that. Why is that? So please stop the hypocrite bullshit of “more than 30 newspapers and media organisations in more than 20 countries have taken a common view about what needs to be done”, you should have done your job for years but you would not, you have (as I personally see it) no credibility left.
As such the laughing suggestion “Impose climate tax on fossil fuel giants, media groups urge”, so how about you 30 do your fucking jobs for a change and have a hard look at these 147 facilities, or perhaps the list of airlines that added over 41,000 flights every day and dig into that part before you look at some ultra rich person with their fuel efficient jets that give a fraction of the carbon emissions that a normal jet gives.
And the masses, the flammable masses love the idea of taxing fossil fuel giants. So how about this. I am hereby requesting that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia reduces delivery of crude oil to the West (Europe and America) by 1 million barrels a day, how does that sound? I reckon the first hour idiots like ‘Just Stop Oil movement’ will love me, but that is the first hour. When the deal becomes as long as any of them are still alive, the limitation of oil remains their feelings will change very fast. We are our own worst enemy and the media has become the enemy of all. It is simple, the media are for the most are no longer bringing us the news. They are bringing filtered information, information that is approved by shareholders, stakeholders and the advertisers. So how does that grab you? There is a second solution, we release a biotoxin that removes 80%-90% of the human population, it actually solves everything, but certain greed driven people will think it is over the top.
Until real reporting is done by these 30 newspapers and media organisations in more than 20 countries, they should shut the fuck up (I apologise for my wording here). But there comes a time when Bullshit and Hypocrisy are just a little too much, especially when out of these 31 groups (me included) I am the only one handing the people the EEA report and looking into it. The media has done jack shit on that element. This editorial was a bit too much to me and it should be way too much to all of you.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 