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.
German states TV-channel "DW" for foreign public aired a report made by Héctor Carré which explores way beyond the depth of truth which commonly is presented. Medial faults, and relevancies of info quality shown and named to exceptional degree.
Besides, it is being blocked from here in Middle Eastern country -obviously 'for good reason'- ; hopefully though not at your place.
Besides giving you an idea of how much the country you are living in could either be a democracy or rather not.
-Well, as you might be knowing from my opinion expressed in previous discussions: There does not exist democracy in any country (for as far as my overlook over the globe might be covering the planet).
And there neither can be one in place, nor would it be of use if it formally existed, unless people were granted reliable and undistorted information in the educational and news system beforehand. (I´d say for at least 10 years if not for a whole generation, for emperor´s new clothes, like any established anticipation taking so long to get psychologically overcomed, in spite of whatever enlightening facts be presented to the contrary of accustomed distortion.)
However, we are having quite an opposite case to conscientiously established info instances. With agencies like Reuters largely distributing heavily tailored, skipping and distorted notes, which then a well-behaved and vastly concerted press scene adapts and embroiders at best.
Unless relevance of factual and sincere info system be understood by common sense, nothing can lead even remotely close to democracy and societal integrity. All you get is label and fig leaf. Under plutocracy and oligarchy anyway.
But you may want to hear about the post-truth era from the horses mouth.
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
IOW, a version that me cherishes with a tiny handful of memorized sayings in German language: "Millions of flies can´t be erring. Eat sh!t, people!" -
Besides, as paradise papers notes are being published on this very same day: First names as allegedly most scandalous in the list are being mentioned. Despite of a huge list, again as with the Panama one´s, no contains of really big names of the EU.
Something consistently and statistically rather impossible, and together with this threads background and the fact that the German newspaper who once again will be preselecting before release (the selection last time having taken one whole year long!) indicating why with given established press we won´t be seeing top western politicians revealed, and why such unique chance for finally ridding the shadow world / heading for authentic democracy will be lost grip.
In fact even of officially outlawed regimes and juntas rather just second row and entourage being exposed by filtering media.
Presumably, because of them outlaws having something to tell. (<- Situated in an open dictature, and knowing how diverse options of reporting on regime´s Achilles´ heel used to be refrained from by internationally concerted / muting media, circumstances made it rather obvious that even the officially most banned of outlaws are entertaining a private amnesty abroad. How ever could they, if not by sharing their tremendous prey with gentlemen who serve them safes in their South Seas and EU territories?)
After all, we´re talking about funds that would let the Forbes list pale. Way more than enough to feed hosts of glamorous mouths for good. And apparently there won´t be skipped on the opportunity.
Humble times and conditions of Noriega or Marcos alikes have passed long since. These days are way more refined.
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
quote:
and vastly concerted press scene
There's always been the issue of "sectorial bias" I suppose, which isn't so much due to the people who work in the news as it is simply to how the whole process of getting the news works. But honestly I think this point is moot now.
The problem today isn't the "concerted press scene", it's the slow death of the press altogether, little by little being replaced by "commentary". People have turned away from the press and now read these websites or listen to these internet shows that claim to be news but only do commentary. In the mix, the essence of journalism, the high standards of respect for factual veracity, have been lost. There's plenty of blame to go around but when everything is said and done, the press is dying because people simply do not value the news, at least not enough to pay for it. Subscriptions dropped, ad revenue dropped in turn, journalists struggled to do more with less, corners got cut, new management came in trying to revamp the whole thing, which often meant less investigation work and more sensationalism, then the audience starts saying the media is BS, politicians jump on the opportunity to kill off whatever power the press has left and here we are... And I have no patience for that kind of hypocrisy that you often hear from many people, the kind that will complain at how sensationalist the press has become and in the next breath will tell you that C-SPAN is just too boring. Next to that, I see journalists working on their own dime, living below the poverty line and still clinging to this ideal of "informing the people", no matter what the personal consequences. Becoming a journalist today is about as dumb as becoming a musician.
I long for the days when a "concerted press scene" was the problem. But whatever this is now, this fake news BS and all that, that's not on the press, it's on us.
_____________________________
"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."
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
In Germany the most of big papers are still doing rather good. Even journalists´ salaries seem rather well.
And if you havn´t noticed what concertated press landscape looks like, check out the German one. Editorials mysteriously selecting pretty much all the very same news agencie´s notes. Not to mention the obedient following of individual official parols and layouts. Even my formerly beloved SPIEGEL has been turned into a kind of adolescent´s yellow press.
And you havn´t seen Carré´s film yet, I guess. The societal and medial trends have been obvious enough since decades now. That very important docu is suited to wake up public who may not want to realize the whole of dumbfoundingly disillusioning times.
Money, my friend, makes the world go round. And it´s never been as big funds and round a world before.
Idealism and humanism are in the trash bin since quite a while.
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
No I haven't seen his documentary yet. I will when I get a chance (thanks by the way for the recommendation!). But I've witnessed this more or less first hand, and for quite a few years already. And I've seen the personal toll but there'd be too many anecdotes to tell.
Germany may have held on longer than other countries but the trend is the same. To put it in a nutshell, the number of employed journalists (those who make a decent income) plateaus then drops while the amount of freelance journalists skyrockets, and freelance journalists don't make good money at all, and their income is still in free fall. This is typical of what happens when an industry no longer has enough money to fund itself. You cut down on personnel costs. Freelancers are cheaper on the long run. And this report is from 15 years ago. Unless there's been some miracle in Germany, I suspect the situation is worse now.
_____________________________
"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."
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
The U-turn from a relatively independent and investigative press period back to an organ of the rulers in Germany set in over ~25 years ago, before the internets noticeable share. It was rather simultaneous with the reaching over of media moguls like Rupert Murdoch and conglomeration of media.
And when a German newspaper takes one year to first weed out Panama papers before selective publishing, would that be because of IT competitive effects, or rather as service to German and international establishment?
C´mon now, with today´s power of the pharaohs, why should they not mend leaks if they all too easily can? It ain´t really anything new, and is being reason why yet the most obviously operating routines and milking-offs from pharmaceutical dorado, over hegemony, nepotism and mafia to the taboo of a human right over labor´s surplus value keep staying out of common sense´s perception.
Even yet the inhumane fact of excessive social discrepancy, impossible to be made plausible to any mind with minimum understanding of deconstructivism and basics of ethics, can´t reach to the surface of public recognition.
This is modern enslaving of the world, while the crop with its astronomic cashing in and ever less leaving out of any options to further creaming off, including wars and genocides, with ogres of pathological greed not feeling like even just leaving per mils of their feasting for prevention of global extinction and ecological collapse.
How in the world can one still crutch along with vision of civil coincidences caused by mere technological issues, whilst all around strategic cruelty and barbarism are having a party?
Shaping of common sense and its realm of perception is just blatant in relation to todays informative age. Such mind control is neither accidental, nor based on any branches´ inner economics. It is result of calculated inhuman economics and misuse of resulting power as a whole. Also named plutocracy.
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
So I "watched" it. I put watched in quotes because I put it in the background while I was working (one of those days that just don't end...). If you'd told me they had Amy Goodman in there I would've clicked right away! Marry me Amy! (yeah, I really like her work). It was a nice summary and I 100% agree with his conclusions that people will have to support the news financially if they want to take back some semblance of control over it. Some things could have warranted a bit more coverage. Like when Chomsky says that the press makes money from ads, not from subscriptions. That's true on the surface, but it doesn't look into how subscriptions and ads are related. It's a pretty complex tri-partite relationship there, the most obvious aspect of which is quite simply that ad revenue is in part pegged on the amount of readers.
Anyways, whether you think there's an intentional take-over by powerful corporations and the like to shape public opinion, or whether you think it's just the result of a systemic issue, I think in this specific case the solution is the same. Like you said, money makes the world go round, so when it comes to news, best we, the people, be the ones footing the bill and controlling it then others. Though before that, there's a lot of people who have bought into the idea that the journalists themselves are the problem, so it's going to be hard for people to get back to that point where they realize that most of them, the vast majority of them, really are "on our side" and are on a mission to get the news out.
As for your example of the German newspaper and the Panama papers, I honestly don't know. Could be legal issues, could be conflicts of interest with sponsors, could be any amount of things. But I wasn't arguing that it was "IT competitive issues". I'm just saying that if people don't pay for the news, then we no longer have any weight in any of those discussions, no means to hold them accountable at all. I mean what can you (generic you) threaten them with? Withdrawing your subscription? Nope, you gave that power away the moment you decided you didn't want to pay for the news. But if you're their cash cow, then you have sway. And I honestly think journalists would prefer to have to be accountable to us and not accountable to big corporations but there's nothing they can do about that unless we decide to get back in the driver's seat.
_____________________________
"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."
Posts: 15242
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
Ruphus always pushing the dark elite evil conspiracy idea....the documentary clearly puts the blame on the people using social media. They share sh1t and always the same soda straw views and channels with zero fact checking and now journalists can't keep up with the fact checking. That's why I like that potholer54 video series on youtube, very simple fact checking and he takes the time to address the specific problems that people perpetuate on the internet....there is no dark conspiracy of controlling elite as far as the media stuff...it's simple ignorance IMO.
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
quote:
... there's a lot of people who have bought into the idea that the journalists themselves are the problem, ...
To my understanding they are (in alignment of owners). They are correspondingly selected as streamliners for apprenticeship. (no "troublemakers")
In the film somewhere thus something to the extent of "Many journalists take no pride in what they do" is being said.
German parliamentarians keep their selected groups of journalists around whom they take with themselves on trips abroad and whom they secretly brief in Reichstags rooms.
In Germany (and world-wide it seems) we are seeing a decline with average individual´s level of education and intellect since the Eighties. Still, I assume that there are applying enough smart talents for journalistic apprenticeship. However, they appear to not be really wanted. In respect of contemporary press work, superficiality, isolated perception, Johnny head-in-the-Air and label readers pretty obviously seem to fit the common riddle. Heads often times hardly even capable of eloquent style and grammar. (Indicating how attitude makes for the main criteria of selection.)
As well mentioned in the film: Subtle ways of steering editorial stuff. If they come along with investigative plots, they will be told that the topic wasn´t fitting / "not interesting enough". And if they won´t get the message turning up with thelike material repeatedly, they will be demonstrated why to "better not annoy the chief editor" for long.
And there is that prominent blind man´s bluff phenomenon that tends to persist so remarkably concerted throughout national and / or international scene.
Current example with both Panama and paradise papers: The focus in respect of offshore accounts being kept on tax flight. However, tax flight does by far not present the major issue and societal damage with the matter. That instead is the option of hiding away potentat´s prey and before all bribe money. For, corruption of states-, provincial- and municipal representatives making the base of disloyalty and sell-out of citizens ´rights and interests. Of which again pathing routes for industrials´ tax flight makes merely a part of the whole of betrayal and sanctimony.
Even though the concealed core and effectual priority of the matter being blatant enough to be obvious to any engaged 8th-grader: You show me one single of established press organs whose 'profundity' would be reaching to there.
I am still of the impression and long-time experience that the informative shallowness is a very specific and arranged phenomenon. In the same time, your economical hindsight within the metier is conclusive too. (Likely on a secondary note.)
And it is definitely worth to be brought to public attention. A premise like say: "One of the things you need to do in benefit of democratic spirit is to pay for print news".
The book market is being said to be recovering after the setback through internet. People returning to wanting to have paper in hand. Indeed, hopefully newspapers shall be seeing a similar trend.
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
PS: Anecdote from the eighties. I applied for a job with the German magazine "Der Schädelspalter". The chief editor then suggested that I write a music critique. So I bought Robert Plant´s very recent album of that time, wrote a review and sent it in.
Nothing happened, and the chief´s anteeroom would brush me off repeatedly. So, I showed up there.
Having not yet finished the salutation, the man disrupted me. "I know who you are". Then: "I read your text. It is too eloquent and too much like knocked out, to my taste."
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
So you put a tiger in a cage for a few years and then when it forgets how to hunt you blame it on the tiger and not on the person that put it in the cage? Seems short-sighted. What's the argument? If only the tiger had fought back harder it wouldn't be in a cage? And when it makes a remarkable catch (like the Panama papers that represented a half-decade's amount of work for the ICIJ), even that is not enough. The fact that it's stuck in a cage is a "secondary note". Do more with less!
The whole point of the documentary was to show how current working conditions do not allow journalists to do their job properly.
In the subset of journalists I know well, every year there is a least one that doesn't come back. For some it's quick: Rémi heard gunfire and rushed outside the building only to be greeted with a rocket headed straight at him. For others it's longer: Stanley had a good decade to watch how a stupid contaminated razorblade led to hep-C than developed into liver cancer that would eventually kill him off. For others it's in between: Miguel had a few hours in the car to try and convince his future executioners that the police was lying and that he was not snitching on the Mara Salvatrucha, that by killing him they'd be doing exactly what the police wanted. They made it quick. They'd come to like the man after all, but he had those few hours to see it coming and contemplate his own death.
Those who do come back have to hear voices in the public saying: "well they were looking for it, it's their fault, they knew the risks". Great time to be a journalist. Even when they get assassinated it's somehow their fault!
I've tried convincing them to stop, to do a month without the news just to show people what it's like to wallow in the dark, to have no other idea what's going on except what those in power want you to hear. To no avail. They think informing the people is worth dying for. I think it would be worth dying for if the people cared, if they wanted to be informed. But for a people who don't give a damn about being informed, I wouldn't even be willing to get a paper cut.
_____________________________
"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."
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
I do fully understand where you are coming from, however your last post is not congruent to what I am pointing at.
It should be overly clear that I am not complaining about the minority of journalists that you describe. To the opposite. Those ARE "taking pride in what they do".
What I am explicitly pointing at is a systematically broken in press scene. With journalists already as apprentices selected for streamlined superficial attitude and drinking of cool aid, educated in special schools of conservativism and opportunism like the Springer School in Germany (to which curiously there used to be merely one single public alternative in the whole country until only few years ago). Resulting into less and lesser educated, system submissive editorial staff.
And for the few that managed to slip through all that with yet enough brain to see the corruption, they will commonly only be allowed very moderate investigation, all within given projection of alleged democracy with 'mere peripheral misfits'. And if they dare to repeatedly try and pick themes and facts of further depth, they will be set back by chief editors, and more often than not end up as freelancers or even entirely banned from the branch.
Not enough, the relative freedom of press, confidentiality over source and witness protection (of the temporary 'free period') are being gradually withdrawn. (And when the first official breaking into editorial office and seizing of evidence re-occurred in Germany, the status quo of dictatorial trend in the metier proved by surprisingly little and timid protest of collegial offices. -Who years before would had ignited a nation-wide turmoil of releases.)
We are wanting the same thing, Piwin. Only that you don´t see beneficiary- and authority-controlled systematics of influencing. (Take a minute for above mentioned unisonous skip on offshore accounts as haven for bribe, or the taboo on pharma usury during nationwide discussion about desolate health insurance and staff salaries. <-Single exception: Out of all Trump´s hypocritical mentioning of it, only to have been and still be feeding the pharmaceutical corps since his presidency.)
Whilst without close watch of medial development and spin, ongoings should not be surprising to anybody who understands how money makes the world go round. Never in history has there been such an accumulation of money for an ever more tapering minority like today and more even tomorrow.
And what do you expect? Rulers over money to be leaving fate to random conditions of democracy and eventually educated folk and ants infantry? Whereas it can be controlled by a minute fraction of one´s power and means?
With all those distinct happenings going on, the ordinary psychological vigilantes of buffering by intelligent minds won´t cease amazing me.
What we are seeing is a T-rex, not a sausage dog. Its undaunted digging in your garden is already delivering fracking water in tapes, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, wars and grossly inhumane steady under your feet.
And yes, that persistent dumping on golden toilets, diamonds, cynical "art" or space excursion to trump fellow billionaires´ rally is a pointed spit into struggling fellow humans´ and dwindling creatures face.
Glaring gutting, undermining and perversity conveyed to common sense as presentable and democratic. Conveyance enabled by what and whom? Established media. And not the kind of journalists you witnessed, but by the vast of a tamed branch.
Posts: 15242
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
Again ruphus pointing to a conspiracy that is simply not there. ANY journalist would love to bring down big daddy if he or she could be the next Woodward or bernstein. The issue is not greedy corrupt elite controlling the game, it's the PEOPLE with too much access to disperse nonsense via the internet.
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
That presents an approach of the the world by fancy, as defense of a clinched-to Disneyworld. Wiping off with thought-terminating cliché of conspiracy theory is too lame to suit your potential cognition, Ricardo. All those online trackers could tell you that my internet consumption is much too occupied with newspaper sites and this forum for to frequent any conspiracy theory sites.
Instead the over 40 years of my rather intensive observing of the world grounds on reputated press. Until the crumbling away of a certain political magazine, actually by daily reading in the world´s most knowledged and investigative journal. And my family too much came from international history and politics eye of the hurricane for to bring me up in ignorance, anyway.
The things I am pointing at pervade the news world all the time. They can´t be overlooked, unless one´s consumption being limited to the most superficial of sources. (Like for instance Spain´s largest newspaper, a soccer gazette, or media like Fox BC and thelike.) And the reports are being looked at, although not really by readers´majority (as I was informed by its advertising department, "Der Spiegel" for instance used to be read mainly by officials.) And of the few that read or watch the investigative parts of serious formats, a large part -as with much of inconveniences- will supersede contents that threaten intactness of their perceived civilization. Scary contexts and digits even though more or less attentively passing the stream of consciousness, getting filed only in temporary memory. Vanishing more or less instantly. Fast enough to not process the information.
A shunning routine of anthropological root, enhanced by matters of new age upbringing that defy shouldering negative input. An ordinary mechanism that reigns even over high intelligence.
It makes otherwise bright minds accept coordinated presentation no matter how inconsistent it be. A mental routine that after the fact gladly unhooks secret handings of cash-filled attaché cases as "party donation", of course not private bribe to the receiver. And if party treasurer can´t produce receipt, -accountary will have been sloppy.
If states´ projects routinely come in for several times market price, then it has been "failure", of course not perfect streaming to where the money ended up. If social and communal matters are prioring and groundworking to grand companies then this will be to benefit of the people, naturally.
Politics that tailor to the rich and powerful present an order of the citizens. And politics who cater to money aristocracy do this for matters of idealism, naturally.
And what would one want to know beyond function displayed on brass plates, anyhow. Any peeping out inconsistency will be random and peripheral anyway. The final truth being that uncle Tom and aunt Liberty are guarding us.
Sleepwalking mainstream on apparently safe path.
Ricardo, what is there to "evaluate" months and years long, before publishing Panama or paradise papers? And with 120 politicians remaining in the released paradise papers, would it be only natural to NOT mention eventuality of deposited bribe money? And coincidental that this 'natural' mental treatment is being unitary across international mainstream media?
Just natural how no news medium comes to a logically oh so remote consideration?
Are money laundry and tax flight the exclusive shady applications of offshore accounts?
Have you never heard of networks, cartels, mafia, bribe synonymous with "grease one's palms, buy, pay off, buy off, hush money, kickback, soap" in the political circus? Kinds of funds you wouldn´t ever expect to be stashed away in British and French colonies; in Luxembourg, GB, Ireland, Germany and what have you?
If not aware about international scene, would it surprise you a lot that even just your own country has a consistent history of hypocrisy, shadow world, nepotism and mafia? That the sudden monetary rise of the Clintons can´t have come about through fig leave foundations? That your otherwise bankrupt, current head in office reached to about a billion $ through local and foreign mafia and wheeling and dealing with unionists? (Of which many bought and rented up to whole floors in his tower. Some even right under his own floor. - Whereas unionists´ secret real estate fiddling being notorious traditionally. Me was kindly invited into a huge such place right next to Time Square myself, where I resided for months.)
Abstaining from "internet nonsense" to preserve a phantasmal official world, which sources do you consume to keep sleep in good condition?
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
PS: Usually I refrain from relating to the Holocaust. But here it does make sense to highlight the mechanism of psychological buffering.
Many of the deported on their ways to Auschwitz and other KZs had good reason to anticipate the crude mercilessness ahead (in fact the transports were preceded by rumors about genocide). Still, until the doors of the gas chambers were shut, would most believe to be in bathrooms of a work camp.
It definitely wouldn´t hurt if the solidness of unconscious blocking and self-betrayal as apparent self-defense was elaborated on within common sense.
PS II: There exist in-depth reports over press matters in USA, unrolling why Watergate was meant to stay an exception.
Posts: 15242
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
Even the "evil Fox News" covered it, so again I don't get the dark evil secret about trying to avoid paying as little tax as possible and what that has to do with journalism being dead due to pay offs.
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo
... again I don't get the dark evil secret about trying to avoid paying as little tax as possible ...
How could you, while firmly avoiding the larger siblings of tax flight? Tax flight, as the most harmless of applications with offshore accounts, is what public is supposed to focus on. And that´s what you do.
As mentioned before: Offshore accounts option of secretly handling bribe money is the precondition of arranged paths for tax flight and money laundry.
Without options of baksheesh a hiding of tax flight, of money laundry and the whole arsenal of undermining administration would be vastly prevented. Without secret hand money there would only remain trading of hardware / real estate, offices and posts etc. which would be much more obvious and traceable.
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
I guess the point of divergence is that I don't believe these journalists to be in the minority. Quite the opposite actually. The dividing line is not between those who want to do hard journalism and those who don't, it's between those hopeless romantics and the more practical minded who also take into account their own personal interests. There is a point where working conditions can get so bad, the personal cost so high, that it no longer makes any sense to blame those who step down or who choose to just go along with the situation. We've all known musicians who have dropped out in favor of easier careers because they wanted to provide a better life for their family. Do we blame them? I prefer to blame the current environment that has made making a decent living as a musician so difficult, and that starts with the end consumer not valuing music enough to pay for it. Of what you've described on your own conditions here on this forum, I also wouldn't blame you if you one day decided to pack up and leave whatever country it is you're living in. There too the context is the main culprit. When everything is said and done, I think it's that people are wired differently. I'm more of the hopeless romantic type, and I don't think I could do otherwise even if I tried. I don't blame, sometimes I even envy, those who are more practical minded. This is not to argue what anyone should or shouldn't do, rather it is to say that we shouldn't assign guilt on these individuals when the root problem lies elsewhere, especially not when we're sitting comfortably on the sidelines.
_____________________________
"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."
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
After reading Piwin´s post, I had almost finished preparing a summarizing comment with translated press quotes, to display how a formerly investigative and now submissive paper for an exception reported on the Monsanto instigation, when one of the f***** local power failures occured and wiped it all out.
So, I now sent the whole thing through google´s translator. Unfortunately resulting in more text for you, but worth it.
quote:
Has Monsanto manipulated authorities?
EU Member States are discussing the re-approval of the weed killer Glyphosate this Thursday. Almost daily, new oddities come to light.
Will the weed killer Glyphosate be allowed in Europe for another 10 years, for 5 or 3 years or not at all? On Thursday, the future of the agricultural chemical will be decided in Brussels, while in the United States thousands of plaintiffs in collective actions are seeking damages from the main producer, the agriculturist Monsanto. They claim that the Monsanto herbicide Roundup (active ingredient: glyphosate) has caused a form of lymphoma cancer in them or in relatives. The main arguments in court are the scientific assessment of the toxicity of glyphosate and whether or not Monsanto has had any influence on scientists and government agencies. Regardless of whether the Group was successful in this, it has tried, as numerous documents show. Perhaps the best prepared defensive battle in the history of Monsanto began a good two and a half years ago. In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified the plant poison glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans" in a controversial decision. Controversial, because in retrospect, negative statements regarding cancer risk ("non-carcinogenic") have been transformed into neutral or even positive ("carcinogenic"). And because the IARC contradicts not only the risk assessment of European authorities, but also from numerous other states such as Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Ironically, the world's most sprayed herbicide, which is in Monsanto's blockbuster Roundup as an active ingredient and without many farmers do not get along, so should be potentially harmful to health. But the US company was prepared for the vote of the IARC, which is part of the World Health Organization (WHO) - and fired back.
Did the EU authority decide without knowing the facts?
Monsanto's carefully planned defense strategy is slowly coming to light, paper for paper, e-mail for e-mail, memo for memo. The reason is the class action lawsuits in the US, which force Monsanto to publish more than a hundred internal documents. These "Monsanto Papers" paint the image of a corporation less concerned with facts and precaution, striving to harness scientists for its own purposes - securing the most important product. It does not matter if this product is harmful to your health.
New documents are now raising doubts about the behavior of the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa). The authority, based in Parma, Italy, is responsible, inter alia, for the risk assessment of chemicals to be authorized in the European Union (EU). Efsa has been criticized for years, because it always works together with scientists who were previously employed in the chemical or food industry or changed from the authority to one of the industry's biggest names. The glyphosate classification of Efsa as "unlikely to cause cancer" is a particular focus, as the EU must decide by 15 December this year whether European farmers should inject the herbicide into European fields for another ten years. The agency is less well-known to identify excessive risks for chemicals. In the case of glyphosate, it seems that she already liked her verdict before she knew all the facts.
"That's great"
In May 2015, the pesticide working group of the industrialized countries OECD met in Paris, including the employees of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Efsa. In an internal e-mail with the subject "Bilateral EPA EFSA Cooperation on Pesticides", EPO employee Michael Goodis wrote to Director Jess Rowland the day after the meeting that he had been contacted by Efsa on the subject of glyphosate: "You say it The IARC will not agree but rather our line. " Rowland, obviously enthusiastic, replied, "Tell 'em, that's just great." This is remarkable for two main reasons: At the time of this e-mail, the IARC had not yet published the reasons for its assessment and had not provided Efsa in advance. The EU authority has not yet assessed the IARC's assessment of the "probably carcinogenic" property of glyphosate. Did Efsa know from the outset that she would classify the pesticide as harmless, no matter what the scientists of the World Cancer Agency had found out?
The authority denies this vehemently: No one has contacted goodies. Although the Efsa was then already clear that their assessment would differ from that of the IARC - a predetermination had not been. In Europe, one can understand the answer, one is independent. Rowland's enthusiastic reaction is even stranger. An EPO Director who is pleased that a herbicide is not considered so dangerous? The US Environmental Protection Agency is known in Germany especially for having uncovered the exhaust gas manipulation of VW diesel cars and actually not very considerate to deal with corporate interests.
Testimony? Completely blackened
Apparently, Monsanto has also tried to exert influence on employees of the EPA. Whether the corporation was successful in this is unclear, the company denies any manipulation of the authority. Rowland himself is suspected of having cooperated with Monsanto. There are numerous indications in the Monsanto Papers, but there is no tangible evidence: Rowland's testimony in the legal proceedings against Monsanto is constantly blackened. To the e-mail of May 2015, the authority did not answer on request. Rowland has retired since last year.
I praised the author for release of a illuminating article of a kind rare like hens teeth these days. Yet, I had to wonder whether in todays German middle school there was tought no text analysis and semantic reconstruction anymore.
quote:
"Apparently, Monsanto has also tried to exert influence on employees of the EPA. Whether the corporation was successful in this is unclear."
"Unclear?" Even without decades of experience: What might be unclear? When wet, may you have seen water? When 3 taken from 5, should there still be 2 left over?
Our world is under quite dense alignment through a huge arsenal of means. Leaving over only little of fig leaf randomness and lesser even coincidence, let alone freedom to shape reasonable and fair benefit to the public.
Mankind, fellow species and environment are being fleeced, and a fraction of the astronomical excess again being used to bribe and establish for further fleecing. Capitalism and plutocracy having reached to near utmost of apparatus perfection and brain wash. Institutions labeled democratic in truth being tools and office of private order.
The most powerful assistant to the misuse being exploited majority´s / common sense´s ordinary psychological evasion of negative conditions / the societal misery. In unnaturally weak psyche of contemporary state people feel that they can not allow sensation of conglomerate of misuse.
The people desperately clinching to preserved image of an basically intact and autonomous world. No matter to where yields of either perverse appropriation or atrocity pile up. A psychic state that renders even information as largely useless. Postponing rise and reasoning into times of no ecological return.
Sheer insanity, peaking with cored heads who stand 48 hours in trendy line to pick up a smart phone without slightest of rational background, while the prime of higher developed creature in oceans and remaining wilderness are starving and perishing in front of diamond-studded toilet brushes behind facades of polished granite.
"Where do you want to go today?" "To hell, please."
We as society are lobotomized. As we can´t make out most basic of proportionality and due anymore, no wonder societies´and earth´s desaster are going unchecked.
PS: No one of you answered to my above questions as to how you explain to yourself named concerted medial omissions.
PS II: One scientist described the situation in institutional labs and how you make sure to present examining results in ways wanted by corporations, if wanting to keep your job.
PS III: Someone who researched and criticized with disgust on the paradise papers was asked how he´d do if offered a considerable amount of baksheesh. Guess what he replied after pondering over it for a moment?
Posts: 15242
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
PS= huh???? What question and what omissions?? PS2= What scientist and what was his job? I say BS as if he was truly threatened he can sue as the science community totally is against this. PS3=What "someone" was that and how much was he offered as a bribe to not present what EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS THAT IS NOT SPECULATION THAT CONFORMS TO A CONSPIRACY NARRATIVE????
Monsanto= my mom always said to wash off my fruits and veggies....everything is GMO, etc. GMO is more the conspiracy drama anyway.
Time for me to go back to sleep to do my sheeeping zombie following for big brother, don't mind me. Yes yes lord Bono and Shakira I will obey.
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
quote:
No one of you answered to my above questions as to how you explain to yourself named concerted medial omissions.
"As for your example of the German newspaper and the Panama papers, I honestly don't know. Could be legal issues, could be conflicts of interest with sponsors, could be any amount of things."
As for the piece on Monsanto, I suppose what it brings out is the problems of lobbyism, and how it can create a disconnect between whether something is good or not and whether it is adopted by our representatives or not. It's a pretty confusing place where science and politics collide. If I remember correctly, the WHO put glyphosate in the same category of possible carcigenics as "sausage", which either means that I should be less worried about glyphosate than I currently am or that I should be more worried about sausages than I currently am. It's a tough one: on the one hand it makes sense that people who would be directly impacted by a political decision should be able to communicate with the decision-makers to voice their concerns; on the other hand it makes sense to want to avoid any undue influence there.
_____________________________
"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."
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Piwin)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Piwin If I remember correctly, the WHO put glyphosate in the same category of possible carcigenics as "sausage", which either means that I should be less worried about glyphosate than I currently am or that I should be more worried about sausages than I currently am.
Actually sausage (well, processed meats; sausage is not mentioned separately) is classified as category 1 ("carcinogenic to humans") whereas glyphosate is category 2A, a lesser category ("probably carcinogenic to humans"). Red meat is category 2A.
Anyway :-) IARC's classifications, which are preambled with definitions and explanations, are so easy to take out of context and make into BIG SCARY memes "DID YOU KNOW RED MEAT IS AS BAD FOR YOU AS DRINKING TOXIC WEED KILLER ROUNDUP???!!!" or "SAUSAGE is in the same category as FORMALDEHYDE!!!"
BTW solar radiation is in the same scary category 1, as are alcoholic beverages, as are plutonium and asbestos - which should be a clue for some people that the dosage matters.
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to kitarist)
quote:
which should be a clue for some people that the dosage matters.
Reminds me of that sketch of Laurie and Fry where the "doctor" is recommending smoking to his patient. - Yes, but too much is bad for you. - Well of course too much is bad for you. Too much of anything is bad for you, you blithering tw@t. That's what "too much" means.
I'm kind of disappointed that sausages aren't their own category though lol
_____________________________
"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."
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
These were the questions:
And what do you expect? Rulers over money to be leaving fate to random conditions of democracy and eventually educated folk and ants infantry? Whereas it can be controlled by a minute fraction of one´s power and means?
Ricardo, what is there to "evaluate" months and years long, before publishing Panama or paradise papers? (This one was answered by Piwin, indeed.)
And with 120 politicians remaining in the released paradise papers, would it be only natural to NOT mention eventuality of deposited bribe money? And coincidental that this 'natural' mental treatment is being unitary across international mainstream media?
Are money laundry and tax flight the exclusive shady applications of offshore accounts?
quote:
What scientist and what what his job? I say BS as if he was truly threatened he can sue as the science community totally is against this.
What kind of scientists do you expect in an analyzing laboratory?
That is an unworldly approach, Ricardo. Such threats are likely hardly ever explicitly uttered. Instead you would just find yourself exposed to new working conditions, sorted as freelancer or dismissed with best wishes for the future. Nothing unforeseen, once you appreciate to have had the chance of finding such a privileged and stable position.
Further, what evidence could be presented in respect of an eventual conversation, and where would a plaintiff as whistleblower find a job again after legal action in the first place?
And not at last: In such cases, aside from eventual subtle hints about details, there is no need for dedicated demands from the staff. Everyone knows his job, his branch, standards and whispers down the lane when required.
And some know even way too good. If you read the article, you might have seen a passage as to how:
quote:
Efsa has been criticized for years, because it always works together with scientists who were previously employed in the chemical or food industry or changed from the authority to one of the industry's biggest names.
Get real, amigo.
quote:
What "someone" was that and how much was he offered as a bribe?
I described his function above. And he was asked by a talk master in a popular German TV-show. His answer was like: "Well, in view of a bunch of money which otherwise I would have to work long and hard for, guess I would accept it." -
quote:
Could be legal issues, could be conflicts of interest with sponsors, could be any amount of things.
Yes. Only just not a sorting out of precarious and immune names, right? Can´t be what shouldn´t be.
And reputation wise leading states like the German one who is ever since resisting against measures to put a stop to tax heavens and anonymous offshore accounts, is not doing this on behalf of own routines, but for some ideological reasons, innit.
So let´s ponder on what a clean background for the protection of quiet stashing could be. Maybe free trade? hahaha How funny is that.
And once you´ve thought to have found a plausible answer, next you might think about the 2 trillion of international black money that Germany is hosting itself as a highly appreciated haven. (Now, don´t you run to your bank to inquire for a way of sneaking your secret piggy bank over to the land of BMW and BASF. Bank brokers won´t accept smutty little funds for transfer if comprising below of 80 million bucks. -Of which 10% becomes their own for the kind support.) -
In view of the quoted weird classifications of supervisory offices. How if you turned the horse around to saddle it on the backs front?
What if lumping the categories by swapping minor and major toxics back and forth was to be serving as blurred scale and allocation? (Have you ever seen reports in which independent university scientists discuss blatant offical classifications?) And don´t you let yourself be beaten to it by above items like
quote:
The agency is less well-known to identify excessive risks for chemicals.
An inversion of this kind negation should roughly equal: "The agency is well-known for not indentifying risks of chemicals."
What if administrative and societal decisions in general were made by first considering how much of dollars rolling to where, and looking then after how to tweak guidelines and processes?
Would that be shocking? Incredible? Impossible?
Why?
Now that I have basically suggested how corruption works and how its principle grows stronger the larger funds involved ...
Could you please state what plausibility there is that keeps your democratic Disneyworld solid and immune against the minor little termite of private enrichment for delegates?
What keeps the idealism alive that is substantial for equaling brass plates with actual occupation of officials, who in your world are controlling money aristocracy in place of vice versa?
Tell me of some good clue as to how things function, so that I may sleep firmly too, whilst the planet is recovering; fairness and reason spreading under a genuine mission of idealist representatives who care about people, community and planet. (And decades of constant information, witness and effects dissolving as hallucination.)
Aaaaaah, that´d be so cozy; so beautiful, so reassuring, so relieving! So heavenly good!
And I swear: I will be the first inline with trying to put straight those nasty conspiracy theorist who claim that mafia was reigning and ruining this world. For, such an unjust distortion just would not be right!
Thank you so much in advance, heaven-sent rescuers of a lost little soul! (Where´s the icon of an unfolding blossom?!)
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
quote:
quote: Could be legal issues, could be conflicts of interest with sponsors, could be any amount of things.
Yes. Only just not a sorting out of precarious and immune names, right? Can´t be what shouldn´t be.
I kind of thought that was covered under "conflicts of interest with sponsors". I wasn't trying to dismiss any possible answer to this, just saying that I personally am not informed enough about this particular case to have any real opinion about it.
Mind you, I'm not advocating a "Disneyland" version of the world as you put it. Back in my political science days, I did a fairly thorough study of the fall of the USSR and its financial implications. On paper, billions of dollars just vanished into thin air at that time, and are still unaccounted for to this day. Which is why when more and more information starting coming in about Trump and his business ties with Russia, it raised eyebrows. The money's being syphoned back into the economy some way, so anything fishy catches my attention. So yes, corruption, money laundering and the like are obviously real problems. We probably disagree on the extent of the problem. I prefer to think in terms of specific cases and avoid blanket generalizations that would have one "essentialize" an entire group of people (i.e. rich=bad). But at the same time, it's also clear that if there had to be one group who was shielded from corruption in their everyday lives, it would have to be us in the Western middle-class. It's just not part of our daily lives in the same way it is in other parts of the world. In fact, what surprised me the most in my short time in Africa wasn't even how corrupt it was at the lower rungs of the ladder, but how shameless they were about the corruption. It just didn't seem to be all that shocking to them. So it wouldn't be surprising that we'd have a tendency to downplay the problem.
I don't exactly know how you envision all of this, how much of it is a "conspiracy" to you or not. I'm always uncomfortable with these notions of conspiracies. I'm loathe to share those views but I also don't feel the need to necessarily dismiss those who hold them. I look at the so-called 9/11 truthers and I think to myself that their story doesn't ring true, that the evidence doesn't point in that direction. But at the same time I figure that the mere existence of the memoranda proposing "operation Northwoods" back in the 60s gives some kind of creedence to their belief. At least, they're founded in believing that their government isn't immune from considering that kind of false-flag operation. The Japanese were blowing railways in Manchuria and blaming it on the Chinese and shortly after the Germans were blowing up their own infrastructure in Poland in an attempt to justify the invasion of Poland. And I don't think any of these are controversial subjects amongst historians. But at the same time, these are easier to handle because they are specific occurrences with clear objectives. It's much easier to make sense of than some vague notion that the rich and powerful are corrupting public institutions and manipulating the press. I'd need specific cases. Or else the argument of "it's a conspiracy" is basically just a form of hard solipcism. It's like when some Harry Potter fans theorized that the whole fantasy part of the story was just happening in Harry's head, that the whole while he was stuck living under the stairs. Which is fun to think about I guess, but you can apply that to literally every story ever told: Tom Sawyer never made it out of the cave. The last part of the book is just the raving imagination of a kid dying of starvation and dehydration. Only the first 20-min of Star Wars I actually happened. The rest, all 7 or 8 movies are just made-up in the head of Jar Jar Binks as he was drowning in that underwater scene. The little train that could had a heart attack on the way up the mountain and the rest of the story is just endorphins kicking in while he dies. etc. etc. The "it's a conspiracy" argument poses the same problem. It is very easy to apply it to just about anything. This doesn't preclude that there actually areconspiracies out there, but we should be very cautious before we claim that there is one.
_____________________________
"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."
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
So, I've been looking into both Panama and Paradise papers a bit more in-depth. Each of them represent over 10 million documents...which seems like the most sensible answer as to why it took time to process and publish...Even with a team of over 300 journalists, that's still a hell of a lot of documents to analyze, cross-reference with other databases, etc. etc. I haven't checked for the other news organization, but at least Le Monde was thorough enough to cross-reference all of these documents with the information they had on their own shareholders so they don't seem to have been particularly shy about denouncing those involved. As for the issue of bribery you hint at, my guess is that it's simply outside the scope of the investigation. If there was bribe money involved, all the documents showed is what happened to that money once it was syphoned off to tax havens, but they didn't provide any hard evidence for where the money came from in the first place. An investigation into bribery would have to be a different investigation altogether and the sources required for that would probably not be a financial institution in some tax haven somewhere.
_____________________________
"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."
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
There exist good people among the super rich, and I have named some on the foro before. Most of those starting to doing good action after they either stepped back in their firms or sold them.
But they obviously are in the minority. For specific international cases enough to display ruling principle I would suggest the SPIEGEL archive from the late sixties to the late eighties of past century. That would be best telling. However, it being such a giant reading that hardly anyone will try absorbing in retrospect. (After all it would take me almost a whole week´s spare time reading per edition.)
Further, super rich can´t and won´t overlook all of their kinds of investments, even though aware about the brisk efficiency of their trustees. Who does not want to see the evil of his fortune, will not take notice. But many have proven that they don´t need to fool themselves.
There is plenty of specific cases to understand the world, but if requested as exclusive clue, ongoings cannot be captured simply for the size of international operations.
However, the principle at work displays itself daily in form of paradox and counter productive symptoms. You can take any of those symptoms and follow its pecuniary path, and the outcome will almost always be corruption.
Regarding overpowering symptoms; after all look at the insanity! Evolution going extinct in spite of warnings over 4 decades, and what is finally being done? Postponing, postponing, postponing and in the end some minor concessions, as if global physics and nature were to be granting some leeway on behalf of poor corps and billionaires.
Hosts of species extincting, yet ruling instances unable of overcoming themselves to sacrifice even just per mille of abundantly wasted means in order to halt the unspeakable. (Asides: Due to glyphosats extermination of bees and insects, Californian farmers are lacking pollination. Now due to ordering costly service who brings over bee stocks temporarily. Same in Germany where everyone is noticing the devastation.) Yet, all the current squabbling in the EU from delegates who refuse to ban the bee killer. Why; why on earth? Could such -ever same behavior in regard of destructive additives- be had without bribed officials? How then?
Hosts of people suffering from hunger and famine while we are throwing away half of agrarian production. (Even in countries like India!)
-Don´t recall the exact reply of my inquiry to the official responsible for the EU´s destroyal of food, but it was a useless answer.
Hosts of working people in advanced nations to whom automatisation is not bringing in relief and share of increased profits, instead resulting into unemployment, reduction of worker´s rights, and contract work.
The absurd list of common anachronisms and paradox would just be too long.
Are the symptoms invisible? And if you see them, what cosmic coincidence could be causing the odd preponderance?
And why the extend of conspiracy be relevant in your observation / to the question whether or not mafia reigns?
Yes, conspiracy is being evident all the time. Cartels, price agreements and protectionism yielding regular headlines and ridiculous prosecution of it. Naturally, most are not set uniform across the world, and many in their individual territory and branch share even different kinds of specific goals. Sometimes being even contrary to each other. (Like for instance back then the opposing interests of the US lawyers´ lobby against the one of the cigarette industry, of which we know whom of both finally came through. -Otherwise the tobacco industy´s bold denial would still be in place like before / their dictations in the supervisory offices alive like back then / just like today for other industries.)
Yet, without one single instance accounting responsible, there does exist world-wide inhumane accordance, as you can see with national constitutions which all embezzle the human right of inalienable right on labor value, and legalize the exploitation of fellow man through thirds.
Would that hence equal a democratic coincident, because of the accordance not having been instigated by one single unity?
Would it need all of patent and latent pools of interests to be globally conjunct, so that you could accept prove for global corruption, first?
If taking specific case and evidence over each and every single occurrence, no systematics, no natural science, no principle would be viable. There wouldn´t even be capacity for examination to start with.
Without demonstrable poo on our heads, there be no prove of us standing under the butt of an elephant, I guess. Lesser even if the elephant has figured out since thousands of years how to crap at us sideways. hehe
Seriously, amigos, look at the world. It tells it all.
-If that still be not enough, as I mentioned above, there exists more verified report over the shadow world than one could be reading up in a lifetime´s spare time (in addition to your common lecture).
RE: Must-see docu on journalism, of ... (in reply to Ruphus)
quote:
Why; why on earth? Could such -ever same behavior in regard of destructive additives- be had without bribed officials? How then?
Perhaps this is the core difference between your approach and mine? To me, this here is an argument ad ignorantium, i.e. "I can't think of any other reason that could cause this, therefore it must be the reason I'm thinking of". That's not how I construct truth.
_____________________________
"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."
Printable Version
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