Tag Archives: University of Technology Sydney

April 20, 2025 · 23:27

Rollback

That is the word of the day, I have always had that word in my vocabulary. The setting that any solution o programmed in Clipper had the setting for a rollback. This is how I grew up (growing up in the Clipper age was a little weird). You see, I had two settings. The first was the data didn’t change and as I was a ‘little’ verbose with my data creation there was the option of registering a data version, so that was the setting. We needed a rollback in several situations and that is where the setting ends. You see, today I got to see a few news lines. 

First there was Reuters (at https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/boeing-jet-returns-us-china-victim-trumps-tariff-war-2025-04-20/) giving us ‘Boeing jet returns to US from China, a victim of Trump’s tariff war’, now that is a scrumptious hotdog to say the least. At almost $100 million, according to one source, that is a delicious snack to say the least and as we are told. China send it back. The tariff could cripple Xiamen Airlines as the tariff is 125%, and even as Reuters give us that the plane is a mere $55 million, we can say that the price difference is a little too much to be acceptable, the larger setting is that several players are trying to dam in the losses that are projected to become American losses. 

Most of us will have seen the trade agreements that China made with Mexico, so there is that. Then there is the setting we see at where Business Insider gives us the setting that ‘Some Canadian Stores Are Labeling US Imports With a T for ‘Tariffs’’ (business insider put it behind a paywall, so that’s all you get. And only three days ago I saw the headline ‘China’s Strategic Pivot from US to Canadian Oil Imports’ (at https://discoveryalert.com.au/news/chinas-pivot-canadian-oil-imports-2025/) I cannot vouch for this source, yet in that setting we are given “Data reveals Chinese refiners have slashed US crude purchases by approximately 90% between 2023 and 2025, redirecting roughly 1.2 million barrels per day (bpd) toward alternative suppliers, with Canada capturing a substantial portion of this market share.” So the first step to a change has been given and I foresaw these changes even as I never knew about the oil. So as I see it, these changes show billions upon billions in losses for America whilst we see damage to their export, their revenue making defense industry, their tourism and we can go on a little longer. Wouldn’t it have been great if America had a rollback setting for their elections? 

So as Goldman Sachs gives us “The decline in the world’s reserve asset during an episode of elevated volatility comes as investors are increasingly focused on the US’s growing debt burden and other countries are also increasing their borrowing. “Markets are dealing with a lot of competing factors right now — fairly significant drivers where it’s hard to trade all of them at once,” says William Marshall, head of US rates strategy in Goldman Sachs Research.” Really? Only now do we see “investors are increasingly focused on the US’s growing debt burden”, that’s about 4 years too late, but whatever. I saw (and reported on this danger for a few years at least). If the EU, Japan and China dump their bonds (that will be an expensive exercise) the value of the Dollar doesn’t just drop, it ends up having getting a CCC− grade (to give a mere view on the matter). At that point the imminent suicide risk will spike all over Wall Street (a clear but reliable speculation).

I reckon that the one dropping them first gets the best value for it, but after that it will be a quick fall to the luxury value of zero. But it is not just America, the bonds of the EU and Japan will face a similar risk, America is merely the highest as someone thought it was a great idea to introduce the tariff game to their economy. Global News told their Canadians ‘Avoid U.S. travel if possible, Canadian academics are being urged’ with others following in similar settings. The Detroit News gives us ‘Avoid U.S. or take burner phones, Canada executives tell staff’ and there are more sources that give us that, with the added “Arrivals of noncitizens to the United States by plane declined by nearly 900,000 people, almost 10%, in March from a year earlier, according to data from the U.S. International Trade Administration. Travelers are reacting to President Donald Trump’s trade war and to stories of harsh detentions at U.S. airports. Border figures show 4,970,360 came to the U.S. from Canada in March 2024. That number dropped to 4,105,516 travelers a year later. More visitors reportedly traveled from Canada to the U.S. in March 2022 under pandemic-related travel restrictions than they did last month.” I think that Canada is the most likely of number drops, but I reckon that it is not the only one. So as I see it, the danger is not only to Tourism, but business travel too and in that case, hotels in all the major cities in the United States will report on losses of 10% or more, so what does that mean for the value of Marriott International, who operates 9,361 hotels worldwide as of 2024. In addition there is Hilton who operates over 8,400 hotels worldwide. I have no idea how many they operate in the USA, but these are merely the two larger players, especially in the business travel setting. So how many businesses are under the hammer because of this situation? And now as Canada is growing closer to the Commonwealth and they will protect their bigger brother (Canada is 9.985 million km² and the UK a mere 243,610 km²) OK, Australia is 7.688 million km², away highly smaller brother than the United Kingdom. But that setting now gives us that these business meetings are likely to be held in the United Kingdom or Australia. Hilton and the Marriott will still get their coins, but the underlying issues will hurt America to a much larger degree. And as this escalates over the next month or so, the damage to America will increase. Additional damage as China and India rolls in as expecting ‘saviors’ to Saudi Arabia and the UAE will change global politics and global economics to a much larger degree. India will get new options to get additional Pharmaceutical products sold to Saudi Arabia and that is another slice of a billion dollars. Then we get the UK, Australia and Japan hammering on improving their slice of Optical, photo, technical, medical apparatus, as such the American slice of $1.39B will decrees a lot more. All this started with tariffs and basically this setting was staged by President Trump. I merely wonder what got into him to drive America to the edge of insanity (and bankruptcy). What a miss that politics don’t have rollbacks and I reckon that the lawmakers in America will push for a larger change of settings, because I am certain that the Republicans are desperate to see this damage undone and it is me personal believe that they will accept any other politician, even a democrat to undo the damage they are seeing right now.

A mere 21 hours ago we got (at https://jakartaglobe.id/business/indonesia-seeks-stronger-trade-ties-with-eu-australia-to-offset-potential-us-export-losses) that Indonesia Globe gives us ‘Indonesia Seeks Stronger Trade Ties with EU, Australia to Offset Potential US Export Losses’, which is fine by me as I love the Indonesian version of Bami Goreng with Saté Ajam with peanut sauce. The best dish I ever had, even now after a decade, the scent penetrates my nose, even as I haven’t had it in over a decade. So I am looking forward to stronger ties with Indonesia and I kinda miss the spices we had in Batavia (my weird sense of humor). But the stage is drawn as more countries seek replacement for America, their tariff becomes their setting for isolation and Australia will be happy to have ties with a country that has 281.2 million potential consumers. I already gave the premise to Saudi Arabia as they have access to something Indonesia desires. As such there are more players to take over the places that America is about to lose and lose more of them. Next in line are the international students who will seek safer places to be. In this Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia have good chances as they all have great places Oxford, and Cambridge might be the first you think of, but not everyone can afford these places. There is till the University College London, University of Melbourne, University of Sydney, University of New South Wales, University of Toronto, University of Manchester, University of Technology Sydney, University of Southampton. These are merely a Commonwealth grasp of those who are in the top 100 and I reckon that the losses for America start to add up now. And that was merely the Ivy League, America has more good universities and now that the international students will seek education elsewhere, the economic picture of America will deteriorate more and more. 

Wouldn’t it have been great to have some kind of political rollback in place? 
Have a great day and consider where you need to set your focus to next. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics, Tourism

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

April 18, 2025 · 17:18

A viewpoint is not a point of view

Yes, nice and confusing. But that is the meaning of this exercise. You see, I don’t agree on the point of view the law makes in this case. They have altered their point of view on the law in motion. In a setting that ran for over a decade. I don’t think they are to blame, there is no real guilt here (apparently), but the setting stands. In this I call to attention the BBC article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3674nl7g74o) stating ‘Google has illegal advertising monopoly, judge rules’ I do not agree and for this I call to attention two ‘pieces’ of evidence. The first is the actor Ryan Reynolds, a person I have called more than once the craziest marketeer on the planet. The second piece of evidence is a firm named CAASIE.co, an advertisement services firm apparently in Brisbane (I thought they were in New York). These two stand out, in a pool of millions. Set in a presence of “The US alone spent almost $481 billion on marketing in 2022, with digital marketing seeing significant growth. Australia’s marketing industry is also substantial, valued at over $20 billion.” With the added “While a precise count isn’t available, the scale of the industry suggests a large number of professionals are involved in marketing roles worldwide. The demand for marketing expertise is strong, and the industry is continuously evolving, particularly with the rise of digital marketing”. Don’t get me wrong, there are good marketing teams. The bigger brands have decent teams and at times places like Coca Cola and Heineken stand out. Yet in that setting of millions of people these two stand out. Why? Perhaps marketing is seen by some as the path you take when you can’t do anything else? Perhaps these men (women too) can talk their way into the panties of the youthful ladies and they thought, perhaps I can make money out of this venturous situation. And they went into marketing, mainly because ‘sex sells’. The truth couldn’t be farther (or is that further) removed from the truth. 

And there the problem starts. You see, Google isn’t monopolising things, they merely had the proper handle on things. The marketing bulk doesn’t know what it its doing and as ‘they’ see it Google is in the way. In the early days Google (read: Larry Page and Sergei Brin) figured out a few things. As Microsoft was talking dirty to the CFO’s in the land (in the late 80’s and beyond) these two youthful young sprouts figured out that the work was done by the m inions of these CFO’s, so as they catered to the bulk of the worker ants, Microsoft was wasting its time on expensive dinners and drink parties and they got all the CFO’s and CTO’s of the Fortune 500. But these people needed their worker ants and Google had created a search system that catered to THEIR needs. So whilst these youthful young sprouts were at Stanford University, their buddies all went for the knickers of the ladies. They created a page rank system, because they saw ahead that the web was going to be a mess, millions of voices create cacophony and they cut through the mess.

So ahead we go 20 years (take or leave a year) and Google figured out that their system is gold. So they venture forward and they create Google Ads (formerly Google Adwords) and that was in 2000. Again they hit gold, although it was a natural continuation from page rank and again Microsoft wants ink on the game, but wannabe’s and spin creators can merely make shallow creation and it is seen in their product. At present known as Microsoft Advertising, holds a market share of around 3-4% of the global search engine market. This is bad news for the marketing wannabe’s as they bought the shite that Microsoft is seemingly selling. Even I saw the bing hijacking of people seeking and as Microsoft is all playing innocent, they did (as I personally see it) enable the system to be abused. It matter not, Google created a firm product and now the marketing bitches (both male and female) decided to cry fowl (intended typo) So that I the setting.

Marketing today is people who talk a lot present a lot, but as I see it, they do not know what they are doing. Merely hoping that their revenue cup runneth over and it is based on decade old settings (which is what schools rely on). At UTS (University of Technology Sydney) we had one lecture on page rank and that opened my eyes (unlikely as much as it hit Sergei and Larry), but the setting was clear. Google created the largest setting by thinking of what to do, not to wine and dine the people with money and they followed Microsoft as they didn’t realise what they were up against. The internet of things is a massive beast with plenty of horns and these are the horns of plenty.

So now we get to the ‘court case’ that the BBC gives us. So as we are given “The US Department of Justice, along with 17 US states, sued Google, arguing the tech giant was illegally dominating the technology which determines which adverts should be placed online and where” and as I personally see it, they are catering to millions of people who do not know what they are doing and they think it is unfair that these people should miss out on a business they are unlikely to understand. You see, I name these two at the start as they have figured out a few things. Ryan Reynolds created billions from understanding the world and its business (Mint Mobile, Aviation Gin, and Wrexham AFC. He also co-founded Maximum Effort, a marketing agency and production company) he figured out a few things and that sprout is a mere 48 springs old. He saw the options and turned several products in a multi billion dollar empire by engaging with an audience and telling a story in a way they remembered. The other (the wannabe’s) can scoop up a mere $100,000 dollars at a time as I see it. Let’s not forget that this man started as an extra on the X-Files, now he surpassed the main cast of that series (including the director) in several ways.

Second we get CAASIE.co, they come with “buy outdoor ads globally – from your browser”, with the byline “Self-service. No contracts. No commitments” and consider this quote “In 2007, São Paulo, Brazil instituted a billboard ban because there were no viable regulations of the billboard industry.” For decades these billboards were out there and in 2020 (a mere 5 years ago) they decided to change the premise. So as we get “They are an advertising company specializing in Digital Out of Home (dOOH) advertising, programmatic advertising, and digital signage. Their headquarters are in Brisbane, Australia”, a setting that was clear for decades but no one considered what there was and these people did, so as they gain favor and altitude by being innovative the wannabe marketeers can (for all I care) go duck themselves. 

These two examples are a clear sign that the crying marketeers need to grow up, or as the Americans say “Go big or go home” and that is noticeable on the future of marketing as I see it. Now they are all about AI and creating hypes, but that doesn’t pay for the yacht (or for diner as I see it). 

So as I see “US district judge Leonie Brinkema said in the ruling Google had “willfully engaged in a series of anticompetitive acts” which enabled it to “acquire and maintain monopoly power” in the market.” Is wrong by at least half a continent (a mile seems so shallow), so as I see it, when did the law start catering to village idiots? The fact that there are thousands of voices doesn’t make this clever. Reynolds and CAASIE were clever, they were very clever and that is a setting that CAASIE can enjoy, you see when they get access to the stage where the Google Ads people use CAASIE as the global interface to get global visibility, CAASIE will grow a lot more and what will the marketeers do to get their slices of pie? Cry a little more? Since when did we cater to the stupid to give value to this world?

The is the setting I see and as I see it the larger folly of US district judge Leonie Brinkema, so their goes her “willfully engaged”, Google walked a path for decades and that thought paid off and as I see it, Google was not catering to CAASIE, CAASIE found its own niche of global needed marketing. These two settings (Reynolds and CAASIE) show that there was space and these are raking in the billions (CAASIE not yet) but they can get a lot more by expanding into the UAE and Saudi Arabia, optionally Bangladesh and Indonesia as well. A setting that will iterate in new areas and that was something that a player like Microsoft never understood. My evidence in that statement is the fact that they lost marketshare 6 times over.

So the viewpoints of Google, Ryan Reynolds and CAASIE are not points of view, they are intentional strides in the Internet of Things and their views of how to make money. A lesson a lot of marketeers never learned in the first place. Although they got their collection of panties n their trophy cabinet, something I never ever had, but I decided to remain innovatively engaged. So as I had the ball several times from DARPA, Ubisoft and Microsoft (optionally Amazon and Apple as well) I can relax to see these departments of Justice (globally) fumble their balls and as things go from bad to worse I can giggle (not Google) from the sidelines. How the stage is the play of things, something Shakespeare figured out in 1623.

Have a great day whilst you ponder the wisdoms I left here with two hidden snags, the clever people out there can work out what I left for others to find. Have a great one.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Science

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

January 17, 2024 · 21:58

Added views

I saw an article in the Khaleej Times and suddenly remembered a story I wrote on January 10th called ‘The other way contemplation’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2024/01/10/the-other-way-contemplation/) where I inferred that changes would be required. Now in the KT we see ‘Dubai: Emirates to hire 5,000 cabin crew; eligibility criteria revealed’ (at https://www.khaleejtimes.com/jobs/dubai-emirates-to-hire-5000-cabin-crew-eligibility-criteria-revealed) consider that they are hiring more staff than several airlines have as a total. We are also given “In 2023, Emirates hired a staggering 8,000 cabin crew and held recruitment events in 353 cities as the airline ramped up its services post the pandemic”, this isn’t like Emirates airlines is off to the races. This is more like a landslide victory and there are no competitors left. Now, I am happy for those people landing such a job (I am way too old) and that is fine. But me old noggin started to mull things over. You see to do this you need to have a very upgraded infrastructure. Staff care (customer care) resource deployment and so on. That list goes on for a little while and I am not implying that Emirates airlines isn’t ready for that. I am merely wondering that on a global scale Emirates airlines will have one hell of a cloud based system. It won’t work any other way. That gives me pause. You see several airports are massively under managed and decently outdated. And here we get places where Toronto Pearson International Airport is an obvious first mention. So how will Emirates airlines go about it? It could create new hubs on a global setting, but that too requires staff. IT and operational are the two obvious ones. I am not sure how Dubai manages their luggage, but that system in Toronto Pearson International Airport is nowhere near ready if last years stories are to be believed. You see, you can add 13,000 flight staff, but if the infrastructure fails the rest is pretty much a no go and no show. Now this is not on the Emirates airlines, but they will feel the impact of the short comings of others. So is that the golden opportunity for Emirates airlines? I don’t know. But in light of what I wrote then (January 10th) implies that such upgrades are required a lot sooner than I thought and it is required on a much larger scale than previously thought. So whilst we are given “The airline is looking for fresh graduates with internships or part-time jobs experience, those with a year or so of hospitality or customer service experience.” They might throw a few dozen university drives in the mix for IT and operational staff. Places like Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Delft University of Technology (TU Delft), Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Technology Sydney and the Technical University Berlin to name but a few. If these numbers that the KT gives us are correct, they will soon need 500-1000 IT and operational staff as well and I have no idea if they can get them all from the UAE. That is long before we see the essential need to stress test servers, cloud solutions, operational equipment (CCTV, Radio, Comsat) and various other equipment. And this is not merely Dubai, wherever they have seatings (Dulles, JFK, Schiphol, Le Gaulle) they will need to stress test the systems they use. For example, Dutch airline KLM has 24,789 as cabin crew and BA has 15,000 cabin crew. Now add 20% global staff members for Emirates airlines alone and you start seeing a still image, not a pattern, but a snapshot of what is required. Now consider that the worst (Toronto Pearson International Airport) has no way to the added pressures and I am merely looking at luggage and they are not alone (merely according to some sources the worst) now we have ourselves a clambake. We have 50 additional guests, but still the one BBQ and one cook. The BBQ in this is the infrastructure. It will not be able to cope. This is not in the near future, it is now. Toronto is merely one example. Last year we saw ‘EasyJet, British Airways and Ryanair amidst airlines getting most luggage complaints’ and that was only Heathrow. That list is starting to grow and buckle. Now none of this is on Emirates airlines, but there is a chance that they could drive the beginning of a new global operational player with systems as well. Now this is not a given and most airlines (airports too) will get hindered by pride stating that they are working on it. But I wonder if Emirates airlines might get another option to a lot more non-oil revenue. It is only a thought, but if you see what is coming and 2024 will see another 1,000,000 additional flights, I mentioned it on November 13th 2021 in ‘A COP26 truth’ 

(at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/11/13/a-cop26-truth/) so tell me, does anyone know how many systems were upgraded in the last 2 years? Enough upgrades to deal with 25,000 additional staff (global) and 3,000,000 additional flights? When you start grinding the numbers I see speculative gaps (I need actual data to be less speculating) and they airports are sitting on them spouting party lines. If Toronto is anything to go by, the problem will get a lot worse and Emirates airlines is optionally ready in Dubai, but are the other airports? I somehow doubt it. And that might be the next lucrative solution for Emirates airlines on the next cycle of events. Them as well as the KSA have a new option, one that they might not have considered. A new system but edged on global deployment.

Just a thought, enjoy your day today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT

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

July 24, 2018 · 12:35

The wrong side of news

We all have those moments where we get stopped by news. Not because it was shocking, or because it was some breaking event, we all have those moments. Yet, how often did news stop you because it raised a few too many red flags?

That was the case with me this morning when I saw ‘News Corp wants limits on ABC to prevent ‘advantaged’ competition‘. The article (at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jul/23/news-corp-wants-limits-on-abc-to-prevent-advantaged-competition) might be fair enough. Yet when we get treated to the story that is (at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2018/jul/16/news-corps-promotion-of-lauren-southern-is-disturbing), merely a week ago, giving us ‘News Corp Australia’s promotion of Lauren Southern is disturbing‘ with the quote: “Her speaking engagements with rightwing YouTuber Stefan Molyneux will go ahead, as will the top-dollar dinner engagements with those willing to shell out $750. But if the notion that she might be prevented from entering Australia was credible, it’s because Southern has been banned from entering a country before“, what is an issue is that News Corp seems to be about creating visibility, but what part of all this was the news? It might be relevant, it might even fit, but all these resource draining tantrums that we get with “A temporary setback was re-purposed as precious publicity, and News Corp papers continued to unfurl the red carpet ahead of her visit“, seems to indicate that as a ‘commercial provider‘ they seem to be wasting loads of energy and resources. All these events are on their turf, so when I see “Rupert Murdoch’s Australian arm has told a government inquiry the internet has transformed the ABC and SBS into “news publishers” who have the advantage of being taxpayer-funded, while denying commercial competitors revenue” as ABC (and SBS), whilst the question on News Corp, whether it should exist at all is on the mind of many people. It’s like watching a butter salesman stating that a Brioche with margarine just tastes better. I am asking whether the limelight seeking News Corp, by their own actions (against ABC, SBS and Facebook) made their own existence debatable. As that comes into focus and people are more and more shying away from anything News Corp brings, they are now in a silly position. They painted themselves into a corner and now that they are in that corner being immobile for the time being, they are telling all the painters to stop, so that those painters will not get an actual lead on the amount of painting done.

One source gave me a partial interesting view. It is the setting of Sinclair broadcasting next to News Corp. This is seen in the Washington Post, where we get: “The Company is the largest owner of local television stations in the country, with 173 stations in 81 broadcast markets that stretch from coast to coast and just about everywhere in between, at a time when local news outpaces national news outlets both in overall viewership and trust. About 85 percent of Americans trust local news outlets, more than the 77 percent for family or friends, according to the Pew Research Center“. The article (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/style/wp/2018/04/02/get-to-know-sinclair-broadcast-group-the-conservative-local-news-giant-with-a-growing-reach) shows a very different setting. You see, when we see those two, we get the setting: “using local voices and optionally celebrities to push a national and even an international agenda, in this pushing any other media as an enemy creating market penetration that is set on the foundations of a political required brand or view“. When we see that places like the Sinclair Broadcast Group (headquartered in Hunt Valley, MD), we start seeing that there is a larger play, in this light we do not see ABC or SBS in an advantaged playing field, we see two players bringing newsworthy events that oppose the playing field that News Corp relies on. We see a setting of opposition in a place where News Corp can’t stomach any. Now we get a very different light and in all this we need to wonder what the hell anyone is doing allowing and paving the way for News Corp.

In addition we see the Washington Post also give us: “Interest in Sinclair picked up recently after reports exposed a seemingly Trump-friendly script the company ordered its anchors nationwide to read, lambasting “irresponsible, one-sided” and “fake” news stories. The one-minute-long script, which appeared to echo Trump’s efforts to attack the reporting he has disagreed with as “fake news,” brought to the fore long-standing critiques about what many view as the company’s rightward tilt. The fake stories promo, which was first reported by CNN in March, drew wide attention after Deadspin published a video Saturday that layered dozens of the company’s anchors around the country reading the script over one another, creating a visceral portrait of corporate message control“, now we have ourselves a party, because if that is the future of News that News Corp is bringing us, then we are a lot better off keeping ABC and SBS enshrined in the places they are now.

One source gave us regarding a similar setting: “It should feel familiar; our very own News Corp has employed these strategies“, from that point of view we need to become extra careful.

It was the Sydney Moring Herald that gave us (at https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/news-corp-s-war-on-facebook-is-a-decade-in-the-making-20180511-p4zet3.html) the article ‘News Corp’s war on Facebook is a decade in the making‘, yet it is the quote “The company has made it very clear it thinks Facebook and Google should pay publishers “carriage fees” for running their stories. This would be a similar economic construct to the American cable television industry, where distributors such as Comcast and Time Warner Cable pay programming suppliers such as Murdoch’s Fox and Disney to carry their channels” gives a different light. You see, Murdoch took a path (one that he is allowed to. Whenever you share a story (like a link) you get transferred. In this example Google search gave me: ‘Daily Telegraph editorial: It’s time to embrace our freedoms and fight …’, which comes with the quote: “DURING the 1960s and into the 1970s, when waves of post-war Baby Boomers came of age and began to exert their demographic influence”, it might have been an interesting read, yet when we go there, we get pushed to ‘myaccount.news.com.au’, asking to log in, or take a subscription, which is fair enough. But now, all those papers like the Daily Telegraph, the Courier Mail and others are no longer used. People link others to the Sydney Morning Herald, the Guardian, the Independent, and the Financial Times. Social media is about sharing and an interesting article remains interesting when you share it with a like-minded person. So now News Corp is getting less and less traction, as others get the limelight. That is the effect on users trying to keep friends alerted. that is very much also the path and the entire ‘the foundations of a political required brand or view‘ is all about emotion (well mostly), so now as people regard News Corp to be less and less relevant, as people are relying on ‘any other source‘, we see that the long game as spoken about in the SMH, as well as the setting that the Guardian gives us is becoming more and more unacceptable to the people. for a lack of a better view, Murdoch dug his own grave and even as the coffin he has for the plot will be massively comfortable, once we cover it with dirt at roughly 6 feet deep, he starts becoming a ‘forgotten item’ from the era of the Jurassic age where the loud voice carries weight. At 6 feet deep no one can hear you scream (I just had to add some Alien factor).

So as SBS and ABC are all about sharing news, it opposes the agenda and revenue of News Corp, so now they cry like (for a lack of a better term) ‘prissy little bitches’. When we look at the Parliament page (at https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201617/Publicbroadcasting), we see: “The ABC is to receive revenue of $3.1 billion in base operating funding over the three years to 2018–19“, as well as “Base funding for Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) is also included in the Portfolio Budget Statements. The broadcaster will receive $271.9 million in 2016–17, $269.8 million in 2017–18 and $272.4 million in 2018–19“, when we realise some sources giving us: “The company reported total revenue of US$8.14 billion (AU$10.35 billion) last year“, which seems to be in line of previous reporting, although there is a shift and that hurts News Corp, I think considering the waste of resources when we look at events like Lauren Southern, how much was the entire bill for News Corp?

I am not saying that they should not have done that, but this is about creating emotion, not about reporting news. News Corps creating news (through their promotions) and that makes it another matter entirely. In all this, when I see: “She believes Australia should close its borders and that there “are only two sexes — male and female”“, it is my personal view that there is one poster that does give us the actual goods. So, what do you think? Should we all revert to Aboriginalism? At that point I do wonder who would embrace Pauline Hanson as a sister (but that is merely my evil sense of humour). I would never attack freedom of speech and freedom of expression, she is allowed her views, yet from my point of view, she’s a Canadian, a British Columbian. Her views are extreme right (or is that extremely incorrect), but pushed through the internet, a libertarian with a populist focus. A 23 year old not hit with the ugly stick and those factors make her an internet personality. The issue I also see is that she is seen as a Journalist, yet she never graduated University (University of the Fraser Valley). I am a blogger and I refuse to call myself a Journalist, even as I have a Masters in IP Law as well as two other postgraduate degrees from the University of Technology Sydney, I never graduated in Journalism, so I refuse to call myself a Journalist, even as I have publications going back to 1988 in several magazines, being a reviewer of multimedia products does not make me a journalist, plain and simple.

In this case Lauren Southern matters. You see, when you consider her education, the fact that we see that in March 2017, Lauren Southern left Rebel Media to become an independent journalist (without a degree in journalism I might add), this whilst she still additionally gained access to White House press briefings, so how is that even possible? In addition, News Corp is promoting her events making the entire matter even more debatable. So in that setting, when I see the Guardian giving us: “The publisher of the Australian and Daily Telegraph wants the ABC to be barred from promoting its news stories online using Google ads“, I am of the mind that someone stupid enough to promote a non-Journalist and giving the limelight to “News Corp papers continued to unfurl the red carpet ahead of her visit“, they should realise that there are places where people (and actual Journalists) actually focus on the news, reporting on events not creating hypes through: “she chose Luton because it is the home of Tommy Robinson, the currently imprisoned founder of the English Defence League. In May, Robinson was sentenced to 13 months in prison for contempt of court after broadcasting details of a trial from outside Leeds crown court that risked causing it to collapse“.

News Corp is showing to be on the wrong side of the News, their approach on spreading news, I apologise! I meant spreading the subscription page is valid. They are allowed to do that and their tactic that they should be paid by places like Facebook is a fair choice to make, but they forget that actual reliable sources (BBC, the Guardian, SBS, ABC) are allowing such a path (without subscription), and when it comes to results, the people sharing stories want to share the story, not the subscription page. Add the entire Lauren Southern promotion and we don’t get news, we get the acceleration of emotional hype’s and we have had quite enough of that.

The question becomes, will political need buckle to their needs via News Corp, and once that is out and in the open, when we investigate those politicians who allowed for this, will we tolerate answers like ‘It was a complex setting‘ and ‘there appeared to have been a level of miscommunication‘, when those quotes are given, will we be able to demand their eviction from any political seat? I am asking these questions because all those shouting on how our privacy is gone and how we are all monitored whilst the political setting is in a stage where smothering real news is a reality that we are optionally allowing for. In that part we are actively allowing for media outlets to create fake news. When we are not allowed to see the whole story, when we merely see a carefully scripted partial side, are we not in the foundation where we are being fed fake news?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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