Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of a kind you don´t get to see too often
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
  
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
 RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
Bad news for you, amigos. The 'conspiracy nut' seems to be increasingly spreading and even to be infecting states media.
Last night, same TV channel. A transmission named "The Divide - Vom Leben in ungleichen Gesellschaften, Teil 2" (meaning: About life in unequal societies, part II)
quote:
The Guardian review:
Katharine Round’s documentary The Divide is a short, sharp, shock of a film, based on Richard G Wilkinson and Kate Pickett’s book The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. It briefly argues that the boisterous egalitarianism of the 80s radical right and the big bang of Thatcherism and Reaganism created a monster in the present day: a super-rich, supra-managerial class whose earnings are so stratospheric, so out of proportion to anything their companies are achieving, so deeply barricaded in gated communities and offshore holdings, that their existence is almost beyond our ken. And they enjoy what Milton Friedman called socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor: their prestige is guaranteed by the state, whose grandest politicians yearn to enjoy corporate super-wealth in retirement. Meanwhile, the humbler strivers are stuck with zero-hours contracts and no job security. And it is the very spectacle of inequality that is toxic. Even the rich are unhappy on their solid-gold hamster wheel.
I was all the time watching like: "Hmm, quite the thing I was telling the unbelieving foro chaps. What would they be saying if they were seeing this? -That the media were going insane?"
The only thing not explicitly mentioned in the section of the documentary that I saw was private bribery. Naturally, for you can´t dig up current evidence that easily. Instead there was remarked roughly like: "The industries are giving large sums to politicians, so that they then can order tax reliefs and other tailored decisions from them." 
But rest assured, sobriety club de luxe! This won´t be meaning corruption, will it.
We can call it "positive motivation" or "inspiration", OK? That may not sound too upsetting.
Anyway, gradually awakening appears to come closer. I used to belong to a very minor part of common sense when pointing to escalating modern exploitation and caste society. This minority now appears to be growing day by day, though.
Even in USA where they had folks parroting slapsticks like: "Billionaires are good for society. They provide us with jobs". 
-
A minor side note: Recently zapped over a sequence on an US economy channel, when there was shown a questioning of a US senator, who had obviously enhanced the shoveling towards the rich. With the interrogator saying something to the extend of: "Now tell us why you have done this. And spare us any nonsense excuses. It is way too evident how the majority is becoming poorer from day to day by policies like yours, while the super rich are benefiting ever more."
With the senator bloke very offended replying something like: "I come from the poor people myself! ..."
He must be thinking that this ought to be an argument. But it should only impress under aged listeners. Because, as one may be noticing in life: Individuals who rose from poor to very rich tend to turn out most reckless, and most nasty in dealings with staff and pedestrians.
Quite the opposite from what you´d think when a kid.
As if upstarts were desperately trying to distance themselves from the sediment, and typically hating it for its reminder of origins.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 23 2017 6:16:34
 |
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Piwin
I honestly have no idea how to answer because I have no idea who or what you're addressing.
It feels like your looking right at me and saying "ah-HA! See! I told you so!", except none of the things you're talking about are what I took issue with. What's the point? ah-HA, money is sometimes exchanged between private businesses and politicians? ah-HA, there is such a thing as corruption in the world? ah-HA, the level of financial inequality in certain countries is flat-out ridiculous?
Well good luck finding any quote of mine where I take issue with any of those things...
I guess the obvious question now is just to ask you what happened with the media... Did they somehow manage with this one story to slip out from under the control of their corrupt owners? I mean, a TV channel aired it and newspapers did reviews on it (i.e. gave it free publicity) when supposedly journalists are the problem because they are too coy to go up against their corporate sponsors. What happened? I mean why on earth would you trust any TV station or newspaper now just because the message is one you agree with? If the hold of the powerful and the corrupt is as strong on these institutions as you say it is, then I honestly don't understand why on earth you'd ever refer to any of them as reliable sources of information... Seems like your sawing off the very branch you're sitting on... What am I missing?
I am talking to all of contemporaries, albeit thankful for your resistance as an opportunity to unroll tids and tads.
-
No worries about branches.
Revealing hints in the info world are there (after all it´s where I get them from). And in Germany e.g. there exist some good investigative serial TV transmissions. -Just as these days investigative work appears to be much stronger with teams and reports on TV channels than with the print media, like for instance with the very informative francophone TV5 Monde or the German 3Sat (which me can´t receive so far, unfortunately). However, these bits are medial stepchild.
They do hardly appear to the average consumer on main channels. There they -if at all- are vastly aired at impossible night times. Even mentioned serial TV formats which originally used to happen in the evening have been shifted into the delirium period. -After having been castrated from original 45 min. to 30 long ago already.
And I don´t know whether the trend of past ~ 22 years having occurred on other national channels too (though guessing so for some reason), but the prime time from afternoon to midnight has definitely become sheer disastrous on Germany´s major states channels. It is all trivial shallowness. Several cooking serials in a row, daily. Whodunnits galore one after the other, and lame sports reports. Let alone during periods of events, winter / summer games, Formula 1, soccer championships, Olympics etc. pp. Then the programs will be plastered with already lengthy sports blurb literally all day long.
Mind you, German major states TV channels are due to "Bildungsauftrag" (the obligation to educate), which however has practically been entirely scratched since over 2 decades, whilst documentaries and more so societal ones are being pushed to the rim.
If wanting to be informed you need to seek for the bits in the first place, -and to own programmable receivers at best. Otherwise for your common passive consumer: TV will be as stultifying like reformatting of a hard disk.
That, indeed, so I claim, is no coincidence at all.
The medial center of gravity and standard makes for a reason as to why common sense is so heavily lagging behind otherwise blatantly obvious occurrences, even still before species extinction and ecological collapse in aftermath of corruption. ... And thinks that money is s-o-m-e-t-i-m-e-s being exchanged between private businesses and politicians, hehe. 
Seriously, corruption is reverse "sporadic" to info about it on prime time. If inclined to use one´s medial time correspondingly, allocation of practical commonness and of exception becomes congruently obvious inevitably.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 23 2017 12:38:09
|
|
Piwin
Posts: 3559
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
|
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
It is all trivial shallowness
Morning programming is so much better! You haven't lived until you've seen French reruns of the Young and the Restless or Dallas   (which might explain why so many French people think Americans are all like J.R. Ewing!)
I'm surprised anyone still owns a television tbh. In France you have to pay a small tax each year if you own a television set. The tax was initially set up to pay for the health and retirement costs of WWI veterans (les "poilus"). They're all dead now, but apparently a tax is harder to kill off than a WWI veteran... 
quote:
That, indeed, so I claim, is no coincidence at all.
But who's claiming that it is a coincidence? I would claim that if what you or I would consider quality shows are put off the air or are rescheduled to less important slots, it's because of ratings, which yet again would put the final burden on us the consumers. If people aren't interested in quality news programs, then those programs get put off the prime time slots since they don't bring in many viewers. Less viewers, less ad revenue. For a public channel like the one you mentioned that has a "mission to educate", then yes this becomes an ethical problem, a difficult one to balance since they have to live up to their mission while at the same time ensuring financial viability. For private for-profit channels, not sure it's much of a problem. They're just following the ratings like they always have. And we can deplore the importance that money has in this business, but I'm not sure that's the same thing as going straight to "corruption". At least, that's not how I understand the word "corruption".
@estebanana
Is that the one where everything's an astronaut?
Blurb on Lascaux paintings? Astronauts.
Two temples lined up? Astronauts.
Someone invented something somewhere? Astronauts.
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 23 2017 13:28:38
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
quote:
For a public channel like the one you mentioned that has a "mission to educate", then yes this becomes an ethical problem, a difficult one to balance since they have to live up to their mission while at the same time ensuring financial viability.
The TV fees have always been collected very strictly. And since the time when it was thought that trials to enter people´s homes (and check for themselves whether really no device was owned) weren´t always successful (me had to keep a guy from forcing his way in twice), they decided to collect from every home and office regardless. That is €17,50 monthly and 210 per year. €8.1 billion last year / 675 mio per month; ad revenues not counted in yet.
They are literally seeking for opportunities to spend and wasting dough as much as can. Celebrities and producers tarifs are completely through the roof. If you can fetch whatever small service, you are made. Just graphics for a regular board, minor catering maybe, or let alone external production of above mentioned shows and serial whodunnits ... That is like a direct connection to a money printer. (And the suppliers are heavily rotating. It´s unfathomable what a constantly bloating resource of whodunnits there is!)
After all it is the affluence to racers who become billionaires, or to footballers who now are traded for hundreds of millions of bucks.
These channels do not need to skimp on the educative mission at all. No slightest of pecuniary reason.
Further, demand and offer in the media is a mutual marketing phenomenon. Just like with any brain shaping frequency, quantity will influence appreciation. So, the more trash you deliver, the more it will be preferred. The more demanding content you spread, the more entertaining use there will be.
From what I know there has occurred only little of exception to this rule. (Like a song that was pushed on great scale, yet wasn´t accepted. Very rare.) Anyway, basically program-makers do not only react, they do shape just as well. -Anyhow; not so relevant for a public broadcasting that doesn´t know where to throw its affluent budget.
A characteristic of corruption is when decisions are made with extraneous relevance. You know, like when something technically inferior is being chosen as best, despite of contrary evidence and such.
Near the Reichstag there live over 5000 lobbyists (actually last time I think it was already 6000, but as I´m not certain ...) all voluntarily stuffed with entry cards to the parliament, so that they may reach their clients anytime. The result is extraneous relevance all over the country with your occasional exception of a fig leaf when economics and publicity fit.
Days ago a paper stated that their Zimbabwe correspondent knew how all of Mugabe´s now upcoming entourage was corrupt. I tried to upload a comment to the extend of: "Good to know that such corruption gladly only occures in banana republics, and not at home where journalists just can´t figure out why German politicians refuse to bring a halt to anonymous money transfers."
I tried several times. They wouldn´t let the comment through.
Nasty Ruphus! 
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 23 2017 15:07:36
|
|
Piwin
Posts: 3559
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
|
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
Further, demand and offer in the media is a mutual marketing phenomenon. Just like with any brain shaping frequency, quantity will influence appreciation. So, the more trash you deliver, the more it will be preferred. The more demanding content you spread, the more entertaining use there will be
I tend to agree with you on this but I think we should not confuse what happens at a "global" level with what happens at the level of a single operator. There is a cost to providing content that is not in line with the rest, with what has become "preferred" by consumers. If a single channel did it and proposed "boring" documentaries instead of TV-reality or whatever, they would pay the price for it. If a large number of channels started proposing similar documentaries, then it'd be a different story. For each individual actor, it's a wager to be the first to put this type of content out there. If the others follow, then financially they'll be fine. If they don't, then they just might take a serious financial hit. And most businesses tend to be rather conservative when it comes to that kind of risk-taking.
It's because of that understanding of economics that many French-speaking countries have laws on all kinds of media laying out a minimum quota of content that has to be in French, from francophone origin, etc. Because if the industry as a whole turns too much towards English content, to the point where it shapes what consumers appreciate, then it has a snowball effect and no single actor would be able to provide content in French while still being economically viable. Laws like these probably seem unimaginable in the US, or in those countries that are in a position of cultural dominance. They make all the sense in the world in countries that are confronted with that cultural dominance and are just doing their best to stave it off. The power relationship is such that this idea that "you'll just be free to choose" makes no sense. We'll be pushed towards cultural assimilation is what. Anyways, I digress..
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 23 2017 18:34:16
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
That makes all sense to me, Piwin. From the post war supply through the allies (I remember well how we kids in late sixties appreciated the fantastic music on British and American radio channels, and the coziness with the blossoming American´s TV serials horse-, dog-, dolphin-, western- and magician series shot in great wheather and stunning landscapes weren´t too bad for resting a bit from the humble conditions at home either) that influenced the whole world (unfortunately, leading to copy cats instead of independent ethnic genres development into modernity) ... to the culturally sane measures taken in France when Anglicism were taking over and fast-food chains swamping the champs elysees and displacing local cuisine.
In regard of program director´s estimation of public preference, they can be quite erring. Back then for instance some idiots seemed to apply their own preference and would for instance allow only one single wildlife docu once per week (on Wednesday). But people always loved such footage and today great stations like National Geographic are pay channels.
Also do I have my doubts about explanatory accuracy of TV ratings. These days many households are of singles, and among them there again are many who keep the device running for backdrop to animate their flats atmosphere. (Though this point may be less significant, as even idle running TV devices might indicate channel preference to a degree.)
However, as we are evaluating whether Cesar´s purposeful "bread & games" anaesthesia could be in place or not, the German public channels with their original statute of education serve as perfect clue.
If I´m not mistaking these are not even under obligation to conduct with profit. And even if they were; they have long since way exceeded the lucrative benchmark. The collected fees alone are more than enough to operate in any way desired. You wouldn´t even need the additional ad revenues on top. There exists no formal nor economic cause for trash cluttering. To the opposite. They are actually ordered to educate.
Still, they are practicing the gross opposite with their main channels.
-
True, Arash, it has happened all too often. With Stalin, currently in the headlines: Mugabe, and even praised Mandela wasn´t really what he should have been.
However, apostates and betrayers more often than not have been hanger-ons from beginning. Individuals who actually never comprehended idea nor ideal, and who were engaged on behalf of personal career.
Just like Fisher. He was on trend and after popularity, but will be passing without ever having understood the actual movement´s background he found himself in.
Unlike others. The avantgarde. Critical of regime and ecological subsequences. They had to be weeded out.
The green -notwithstanding the radically unconstitutional action- were held from bodies and meetings until first engaged members of the party were defamed as "fundamentalists" (while the opportunists were called "realists", ... if that ain´t ironic ... ) for to then be steered out from the parliament. Only after that operation was the green party practically accepted as valid members of parliament.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 24 2017 8:04:30
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
Addendum
Wherever you live (though possibly least in Scandinavia) corruption is surrounding you. It is eating up major amount of your NGP and effecting people´s quality of life correspondingly.
See that same spot in the street where the asphalt is being broken up for the x-th time for some unclear work? See how public services are dwindling from year to year, official features switched into subject to charge, public institutions turned into due of making revenue, and that while tax and states income rising all the time?
You know why for instance becoming major of up from a mid-sized town makes for such an interesting position? Because usually afterwards you´ll be way better off than before.
Traditionally, first of all there be consultations of civil and structural engineering who will suggest renovations and projects, and how with larger ones invitation to bits may be unrolled for them to fetch the order, and how and what kind of favor shall be done to you personally in return. Then there will be companies who´ll layout to you how to enable their settling in your territory, and how to prepare substantial discount on communal estate and subsidies in hint of job creation, -independently from how things actually be developed. And you´ll be collecting a directory with valuable addresses that will be good to have.
That´s entry level before your rural or suburban kitchen window. The farther up local hierarchy, county level, country and federal state the more opulent details become. Starting with catering and class of restaurants for working lunches, over office budget and private services to ample proportions of secret gratitude (some in the Wild East become billionaires, many in the Legit West ought to be stowing tens and more of millions. -From the top of my head, I recall a German individual´s and a handful of buddies´ around him 600 mio DM of booty from just a single project. Still, the case faded under carpet), and ending with whereabouts of viable options after your resignation.
Special decisions and agendas of extraneous relevance, which cater to profiteering minority instead of to the people as alleged sovereign of state and tax expense, are in place all around you.
If merely the very minority of cases that do receive pointers and attention were reported on supraregionally, there would not be enough space to note them all. If only those of province level were published, there still would not be enough space for short report.
Is corruption adequately displayed and addressed in the media? Not even remotely. Is that caused by inner economical reasons of publishing?
Not at all.
People would consume whodunnits of life with greater interest than made up ones from entertainment sujet or celebrity reports. The daily Don Corleone in fact would shoot up numbers of medial audience.
Could there be paradigm at work, starting with first of all perspective-restricting news agencies down to publishers and editorial chiefs?
In respect of open dictatures, naturally so, self-evidently to everyone.
And in democracies that are being taken for such status?
To them it has been established the idea that proportional display of shadow economy will ignite turmoil and be leading to instable situation like in times of the late Zar, Weimar or recently in Ukraine. Unaware of the shadow world´s actual dimension of damage to community and world, before the threat of unrest in society corruption always appears as the smaller culprit to them, if at all. The more as everyone having been instructed and internalized that people´s power and revolution can exclusively result into fire, atrocity and dictatorship.
That seems to be the main reason for major media´s reduction of the elephant rear to homoeopathic measure. And why comments on the inevitable share of perfect operations with extraneous relevance, despite of blatant ongoings, are routingly referred to as failure.
All this again shapes public perception, in spite of immense elephant dung being dropped on front yards every single day in life.
In accordance to Mark Twain´s famous example, with the neighboring old lady known for her precise weather prediction. Twain´s manipulation of the editorial weather forecast made the lady follow and miss.
Past decades research on sensual deception has helped the developed hemisphere with noting our mind´s fragility. And yet are we being far away from estimating how anthropologically shaped ignorance makes us grotesquely overlooking empirics right before the eye in favor of common spoon-fed and adapted view.
Back to the life broadcast of a soccer match or another soap, while the earth quietly keeps crumbling away under "failure" ...
in an actually ever more precisely mastered arrangement of occurrence.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 26 2017 14:00:47
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
Yes, in Spain the EU draining through real estate subsidies was most blatant. Local mayors were so brazen and self-confident that they would brush off eventual journalists like flies. And indeed, even though in the aftermath some court cases were launched, no one was sentenced to even just hand back what they had creamed off. (I mean merely the bribe that had made such officials rich plus associates of construction magnats.) Like nearly always.
Worth noting how baggers of states budget are hardly ever made due to refund. And in those very few of such cases that I ever came to hear from, the committers were only sentenced to pay a literal fraction. (Like for instance 30 000 DM of several hundred thousand that the court was considering.)
Only small financial crime is really pursued. Big one is a whole other matter, and behind state draining well filled directories are rather likely anyway. Really helpful and about perfect even where tailored constitution allows governments to whistle back and brief public prosecutors. -Which is why big coups are hardly ever pursued to start with.
So little even, that Spain is already seeing the construction madness again, as you say. Similar to how rescued German banks were continuing unimpressed as if nothing had happened.
Their untouched pockets full with the private booty of their policies, and yet with the state refilling their bank´s cashboxes with tax payers´ hundreds of billions, they would resume biz just like before.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 27 2017 6:23:35
|
|
Piwin
Posts: 3559
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
|
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
Well, perhaps the situation in Spain can serve as a reminder of how important journalism can be when it is well done. After all, the Gürtel affair would never have seen the light without the work of journalists at El Pais. And there are many offshoots from that initial affair, which was already in itself a big deal. Barcenas put an end to whatever credibility the PP had left and PSOE has been dying a death by a thousand cuts, with smaller charges of corruption. Most of the legal proceedings are still on-going. It's a mess, in part because of how big the case is. It doesn't help that the judiciary itself seems to be split between an old guard loyal to politicians and a younger guard that seems willing to move faster on these cases. I'd also argue that, among the consequences of these initial revelations of corruption, there is the rise of Podemos and Ciudadanos, neither of which would have reached anywhere near to where they are today if it weren't for the appeal of their anti-corruption platform (at least, that's how I see it - others would say it had more to do with the economic crisis). There's still corruption of course, but my guess is that they're not feeling as comfortable as they used to.
To me, it's still too early to know whether the new kids in town are really going to change anything with regards to political corruption, though I'll admit I sincerely hope they will. In France, we could use a little Podemos-ish action to shake things up a bit. These latest elections were ludicrous. The left was completely out because of in-fighting and the honestly very disappointing presidency of Hollande. But man you want to speak about corruption, you should've seen the candidates on the right... Le Pen is under investigation for several affairs, and yet she was still running and people were willing to vote for her. Fillon is still being investigated but even when the affair came out he decided to still run, Juppé is a convicted felon, got up to 2-yeard jail for "abuse of public goods" but that didn't prevent people from voting for him. And Sarkozy has so many on-going investigations against him that I've lost count... But the law is slow, much slower than the political process. Which is why bills such as those proposed by Ciudadanos that "no politician can run for office if he is under investigation for corruption" make all the sense in the world to me. They can be presumed innocent as private citizens, but don't let them run for office, it just further erodes an already dismal trust of the people in their politicians.
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 27 2017 18:16:00
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
Fully agreed with your assessment.
It is inherent of people´s representative that integrity of such personality ought to be assured way beyond common privacy.
In fact it is already a scandalous misnomer that the aberration of thelike public position has been established as "career- / professional politician".
That is paradox to what a politician should be. Such task should not be "profession" to seek one´s career in. In the opposite. Prospects should be finding their way into political scenery through idealism on behalf of which engagement arises which again may be compensated with state salary. Not the other way around.
Anyway, authentic democracy would inalienably be needing strict ensuring of representative´s integrity, hence constant traceability of officials´ conduct. And any political applicant in actual agreement with the priority of integrity and transparency would be prepared to give up on common privacy for as long as publicly active.
However, practice people are getting to see instead is all secrecy and wheeling and dealing of their alleged representatives, or better to say "nomenclatura".
The actual condition of opacity just ought to serve corruption. Let alone the bold presentation of lobbyism around parliaments, which is not even considered stigma in these estranged times, but common condition and work routine.
Career politicians, discretion and lobbyism are peculiarities already openly countering democracy. Same with further countering arrangements like indirect "democracy". If it ain´t direct, it can´t be democracy anymore.
-
In comparison to Germany I always admire public´s maturity in France. While the elevated resistance during WWII may not have been as wide-spread among people as claimed and celebrated, the French are way more sensitive against dictation and autocracy than the Germans. They are much more sensible against elitist coups and much more ready to protest than Germans.
In countries like France or Italy at least peaks of corruption are being named as such. The Italians even traditionally naming their mafia as such. In Germany in spite of both phenomenon's rigid dominance since over 30 years the terms are basically nonexistent in respect of internal ongoing. (Just like "labor surplus value" and "usury / price gauging" are practically nonexistent internationally.)
As mentioned before: Even if politicians are vividly caught with attacheé cases full of bribe money, nothing will happen. It will routinely be turned into "party donation" and the bribed individual will resume untouched, climbing further up the career ladder. There basically is no way for internal corruption to become labeled as such, unless someone was outlawed by his own pals.
All this why symptoms of the undermined state are blatant.
Just look at yesterday´s final sequel of above mentioned glyphosat scandal. The SPD had agreed with the CDU that Germany shall once again abstain in the EU voting about this disastrous chemical that has already made Germany nearly bee / insect free. Still, the CDU guy Christian Schmidt went and voted pro glyphosat. SPD officials now showing stunned.
Obviously again: Extraneous relevance at work. There exists no pertinent background for such typically persistent advocacy / lobbying in advantage of industrial biz. And look at the explosive hurdle even taken for execution of the true reign´s order. As you know, there is much-noticed hassle currently, with stranded coalition negotiations and threatened new elections. The CDU imploringly wanting to coalise with the unwilling SPD, yet the Schmidt bloke dared to officially breach trust on behalf of this one pesticide among so many related products. The SPD is aghasted, and Monsanto got another 5 years.
Period. Case closed. Move on.
Now, the obviously mobbed-up fraction has prepared blurb according to which much more toxic solutions otherwise would have been engaged, which the press is gladly spreading. Further accommodating the press´ spreading of Schmidt´s motivation, which hence ought to be pressure from the farmers.
Anything far-fetched, only not the blatantly obvious.
After all, the host of industrial agents around the parliament are there for something.
Where on the other hand are the TV- and print media- daily news journalists who in such case prepared with debunking data would grill the extraneously operating official?
How come this concertized butt kissing in the mainstream media, with plain talking only present in sub organs late at night when majority sleeps?
Similar consistency with tampering poll institutions who reliably streamlined project before elections? Or with manipulated voting machines and elections that counter apparent mood in a country?
What I would like to message to fellow people is this:
If tricking oneself into believing that minorities´ total superiority was leaving you an end of societal authencity and people´s sovereignty ...
If thinking that nasty sold down the river reality is too much to fully bear, and if you can accept what´s being deprived of your rights and belonging, that is dandy.
Everyone has a right of personal choice as to how far wanting to know and to be aware of his world.
However, be aware of these times differing from anything of the past. There is no ecological leeway left over.
If interested in the leftover of habitat to be kept alive, you need to face the degree of authenticity and reason that is in place. And in respect of decisive administration and government agencies that is effectively zero. They are industry held and refuse to note (societal &) environmental reality.
If people will not be prepared to realize status quo, and will let governments go on as they do, the threshold of ecological breakdown will be surpassed sometime between next year and max three years ahead. It won´t be meaning that doomsday will be breaking out right then, but that there will be no U-turn possible before destroyal of the earth as lively habitat for advanced species as we know it. And it will not occur too far in the future either.
Even though comments on newspaper boards are being increasingly censored like back in the authoritarian times, I can see that even Germany´s rather phlegmatic public witnessing the social erosion, is progressively awakening. However, major media and institutions are reluctant to reflect that.
This is another aspect that needs to be taken into consideration while one tries to make up his mind before idle appearing scenery, and weigh whether it is time for change of perspective or not.
Whatever we may be prepared to realize, one thing can be told in advance.
Even if mankind managed to survive on a deserted planet (which it rather likely will not for long): Humankind cannot stay humane without fellow creatures at their side.
Without fellow creature man ought to turn into ogre.
You wouldn´t be wanting to live under such circumstances.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 28 2017 12:13:47
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
The unique solo of the German glyphosat minister has been confirmed as action against order of chancellor office. Yet, the man´s strong motivation for doing as he did can´t be presented in a plausible way (other than with a Monsanto offer worth all that to him; which as background won´t be considered or investigated though, naturally.)
Even though such can be had.
Yesterday, I saw an interview that showed how thelike could be looking like.
A Britisch journalist grilling a Simbabwe representative and Mugabe advocat.
"... who do you think you are fooling ..., ... abuse of the opposition ..., ... that was not a 'happening'. It was a mass murdering! ..., ... your staggering incompetence ..., ... lies!" and so forth.
Probably all adequate approach.
However, where did such blunt questioning occur before Mugabe´s toppling? Or anywhere else for that matter, let alone with officials and politicians of the western hemisphere?
Will we be seeing this journalist or his colleagues only just nearly as inquisitive with the established and mighty? Asking about common extraneous dealings with state´s and people´s social, economical matters and global regards of policy and ecology?
Will it be potential that our elite be scanned and estimated in ways only nearly as investigative like with outlawed figures of international scene? Will there be reports on the kind of elicited antechamber collection that has to precede any consultation with Putin (from what I recall $10 mio )? Will there be touch and estimations on gathered prey and bribe money (in respect of Putin: former estimation several billion dollars, recently claimed even $200 000 000 000) with western officials as well?
Will there be coming up questions on constant extraneous operation of states affairs and departments? Questions as to why there exist strict anti money laundry measures on little peoples´ cash transfers, whereas giant sums can seamlessly be sent around the globe to anywhere? Questions as to why tax offices can be anal, yet show unable of checking out combines´ declarations? - And about similar conditions with customs offices?
Questions as to why there is official´s resistance to put a break to anonymous money transfers and tax havens?
Questions as to how fencing fraternity and thelike affiliations manage to lead through up and coming political elite in university exams and doctoral degrees in spite of lacking qualification?
Questions about state robbery by privatization and state debts?
And so on and so forth.
If given anti-screening and rear-kissing shield will maintain the false "stability" which again everyone was indoctrinated to regard as essential for "democracy", the effects to follow will be far beyond any of the turmoil that current "wisdom" seeks to avoid.
Globally reigning plutocracy is THE threat to life on earth. Its predomination is more fatal even than open dictature would be, -for as long as the latter not be of a same ecologically irrational kind.
Only striving for true democracy, therefore aiming at sane policy, can save this habitat.
However, we have not even reached to understanding how democracy would even just basically be looking like. Majorly we have yet not even come to realize how democracy would not feature kings and monarchy. Whether monarchy in autocrat presentation or in actual function.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 30 2017 6:59:23
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.15625 secs.
|
Printable Version
