The media are mendacious... yes, I think that word would be appropriate, they're
mendacious.
I've tried to resist -just like in other threads here, to fall for the 'Them & Us' routine and
believe that their an organised global effort to keep people in the dark about what is
really going on around the world.
(By the way, most of them are from Mystic Wanderer!)
It's easy to say 'well if this means this, then surely this means that also' and in a perception
where one believes an underlying goal is to be kept secret at all costs, it can seem rational
to believe different forces can work together to convince the masses that a false reality is
true.
But I tend to look at the logistics of it all. Why would this person write or say something that
is false and never think that he/she could be possiblly putting their loved ones in harms way?
How do they convince themselves that the podium they've have the privilage to be on can
be used to dispense lies at the behest of others they deem superior?
If all mainstream news-outlets are competing with one another, then why would they all
sing from the same hymn-sheet...? What could possibly drive them to present the same
news unless that information is just simply true?
For most Journalists -if not all, it's just a job. A job where deadlines must be adhered to
and where information has to fit into either time-segments or column inches.
That's the logistical side of it that I worked in.
Any 'feelings' about a story were never taken into consideration because no matter what
a Reporter was trying to convey, the Sub-Editor would always look to par the account down
to save space, especially these days when advertising pays salaries and not the price of
your newspaper.
I know that today on the internet, a whole page can be given to a Journalist for them to
write an article where their commentary can be included to either make the reader feel like
he or she has the same opinion as the writer or the words are placed to infuriate or annoy
a reader in such a way that they keep coming back for more.
But a story is a story, nuh...? If something happens then it happens and the only way you
can alter the perception of it is to write that it never happened, wouldn't it?!
Well, not necessarily.
As shown with The Telegraph's re-hash of a story from The Mail On Sunday, a Journalist
can now use someone else's research, hopefully grab a reader-possible-customer or
donator AND persuade the masses that there's nothing to see here and the whole sordid
story that possibly shows an organised paedophile-ring that's tied to high-ranking officials
is just really... conjecture.
You see, the Journalist doesn't have to lie, they just have to word the story in a certain way.
.................................
When Chief Constable Mike Veale, the source in my 'Ted Heath' piece from Mystic's
'Pizzagate' thread announced that:
'The police chief investigating claims that Sir Edward Heath was a paedophile is convinced
the allegations are ‘120 per cent’ genuine, The Mail on Sunday can reveal...'
SOURCE:
...the obvious conclusion to anyone reading this article would be that it's a candid interview
with an official that knows the truth. Chief Constable Veale goes on to list thirty witnesses,
proof that the former Prime Minister drove a car when it was stated that he didn't (which
was relevant to the accusations)... and hints that the Establishment went to great lengths
to keep Mr. Heath's alleged activities secret fom the public.
Thank you Mail On Sunday, now for our next guest, The Telegraph.
Police chief hits out at tabloid over Edward Heath abuse claims.
'Mike Veale intervenes after Mail on Sunday claimed investigators believe there was
cover-up to protect former prime minister
The chief constable of a police force investigating allegations that the late Sir Edward Heath
sexually abused children has criticised tabloid claims that he is “120%” certain the complaints
are true.
Mike Veale, the chief constable of Wiltshire police, said it was the job of the police to “objectively
and proportionately” chase down leads. He said those who commented on the case while not in
possession of the facts could damage the reputations of both the former prime minister and
people who have disclosed alleged abuse.
It is unusual for chief constables to comment on ongoing investigations but the force published a
statement by Veale following a story in the Mail on Sunday.
The tabloid claimed private comments made by Veale shows investigators believe the claims are
true, and that there was a cover up to protect Heath.
The paper has previously criticised the Wiltshire investigation.
A source who claimed to know Veale’s thinking is quoted in the paper as saying:
“There are very close similarities in the accounts given by those who have come forward.
The same names used for him, the same places and same type of incidents keep coming up.
What stands out is that the people giving these accounts are not connected but the stories and
the details dovetail.”...'
SOURCE:
Basically, the same story but with little subtle changes to make a reader of both articles think the
initial assertiveness from the Chief Constable is now a little shaky because of The Guardian's
account. Nothing illegal said, but plenty implied.
'Intervenes' -to halt progress and cause faltering.
'Claimed' -always a good word to create doubt.
'Private comments' -means the public ones are false?!
It's stated that Chief Constable Veale 'criticised' the claims and yet the '120%' was his claim.
It's further stated that he adds that they chase down leads 'objectively and proportionately' which
isn't a criticism of his claim.
And of course, someone who's said to know Veale thinks he knows what the Chief Constable
is thinking! A classic fogging tactic.
This is what I believe is 'Fake News'... this is the way that Governments stifle embarrassing accounts
and manipulate the public into think a certain way. Why some Journalists do it...? I think it's culturally
embedded and I think it was done in their early years.
It could be that their opinions are moulded from their class level and see the world different from somone
who fixes gear-boxes or washes windows, it could well be.
But I've always believed that life is basically simple, so either they don't know they're doing it or they do.
If they don't know, then it maybe that many of us are reading the compass wrong and are too filled with
cynicism to see that the world really is the way Journalists portray it.
But if they do know they're creating a false reality, then why are they continuing to behave in this manner?
What do they get out of it?
mendacious.
I've tried to resist -just like in other threads here, to fall for the 'Them & Us' routine and
believe that their an organised global effort to keep people in the dark about what is
really going on around the world.
(By the way, most of them are from Mystic Wanderer!)
It's easy to say 'well if this means this, then surely this means that also' and in a perception
where one believes an underlying goal is to be kept secret at all costs, it can seem rational
to believe different forces can work together to convince the masses that a false reality is
true.
But I tend to look at the logistics of it all. Why would this person write or say something that
is false and never think that he/she could be possiblly putting their loved ones in harms way?
How do they convince themselves that the podium they've have the privilage to be on can
be used to dispense lies at the behest of others they deem superior?
If all mainstream news-outlets are competing with one another, then why would they all
sing from the same hymn-sheet...? What could possibly drive them to present the same
news unless that information is just simply true?
For most Journalists -if not all, it's just a job. A job where deadlines must be adhered to
and where information has to fit into either time-segments or column inches.
That's the logistical side of it that I worked in.
Any 'feelings' about a story were never taken into consideration because no matter what
a Reporter was trying to convey, the Sub-Editor would always look to par the account down
to save space, especially these days when advertising pays salaries and not the price of
your newspaper.
I know that today on the internet, a whole page can be given to a Journalist for them to
write an article where their commentary can be included to either make the reader feel like
he or she has the same opinion as the writer or the words are placed to infuriate or annoy
a reader in such a way that they keep coming back for more.
But a story is a story, nuh...? If something happens then it happens and the only way you
can alter the perception of it is to write that it never happened, wouldn't it?!
Well, not necessarily.
As shown with The Telegraph's re-hash of a story from The Mail On Sunday, a Journalist
can now use someone else's research, hopefully grab a reader-possible-customer or
donator AND persuade the masses that there's nothing to see here and the whole sordid
story that possibly shows an organised paedophile-ring that's tied to high-ranking officials
is just really... conjecture.
You see, the Journalist doesn't have to lie, they just have to word the story in a certain way.
.................................
When Chief Constable Mike Veale, the source in my 'Ted Heath' piece from Mystic's
'Pizzagate' thread announced that:
'The police chief investigating claims that Sir Edward Heath was a paedophile is convinced
the allegations are ‘120 per cent’ genuine, The Mail on Sunday can reveal...'
SOURCE:
...the obvious conclusion to anyone reading this article would be that it's a candid interview
with an official that knows the truth. Chief Constable Veale goes on to list thirty witnesses,
proof that the former Prime Minister drove a car when it was stated that he didn't (which
was relevant to the accusations)... and hints that the Establishment went to great lengths
to keep Mr. Heath's alleged activities secret fom the public.
Thank you Mail On Sunday, now for our next guest, The Telegraph.
Police chief hits out at tabloid over Edward Heath abuse claims.
'Mike Veale intervenes after Mail on Sunday claimed investigators believe there was
cover-up to protect former prime minister
The chief constable of a police force investigating allegations that the late Sir Edward Heath
sexually abused children has criticised tabloid claims that he is “120%” certain the complaints
are true.
Mike Veale, the chief constable of Wiltshire police, said it was the job of the police to “objectively
and proportionately” chase down leads. He said those who commented on the case while not in
possession of the facts could damage the reputations of both the former prime minister and
people who have disclosed alleged abuse.
It is unusual for chief constables to comment on ongoing investigations but the force published a
statement by Veale following a story in the Mail on Sunday.
The tabloid claimed private comments made by Veale shows investigators believe the claims are
true, and that there was a cover up to protect Heath.
The paper has previously criticised the Wiltshire investigation.
A source who claimed to know Veale’s thinking is quoted in the paper as saying:
“There are very close similarities in the accounts given by those who have come forward.
The same names used for him, the same places and same type of incidents keep coming up.
What stands out is that the people giving these accounts are not connected but the stories and
the details dovetail.”...'
SOURCE:
Basically, the same story but with little subtle changes to make a reader of both articles think the
initial assertiveness from the Chief Constable is now a little shaky because of The Guardian's
account. Nothing illegal said, but plenty implied.
'Intervenes' -to halt progress and cause faltering.
'Claimed' -always a good word to create doubt.
'Private comments' -means the public ones are false?!
It's stated that Chief Constable Veale 'criticised' the claims and yet the '120%' was his claim.
It's further stated that he adds that they chase down leads 'objectively and proportionately' which
isn't a criticism of his claim.
And of course, someone who's said to know Veale thinks he knows what the Chief Constable
is thinking! A classic fogging tactic.
This is what I believe is 'Fake News'... this is the way that Governments stifle embarrassing accounts
and manipulate the public into think a certain way. Why some Journalists do it...? I think it's culturally
embedded and I think it was done in their early years.
It could be that their opinions are moulded from their class level and see the world different from somone
who fixes gear-boxes or washes windows, it could well be.
But I've always believed that life is basically simple, so either they don't know they're doing it or they do.
If they don't know, then it maybe that many of us are reading the compass wrong and are too filled with
cynicism to see that the world really is the way Journalists portray it.
But if they do know they're creating a false reality, then why are they continuing to behave in this manner?
What do they get out of it?
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.