Here's one that makes me smile -or at least, smile for a moment. It's the contemporary reliance of software to
do the job junior Reporters were once tasked with. I'm assuming this is the case because the alternative is that
well-cultured eight year-old children are actually re-writing other Journalists' work!
..................................
There was a time when a Government policy would be issued to the Press and with its standard demand that
the information can only be displayed after a certain time and date, the mainstream media would prepare their
narratives and attach their own ratings-hooks.
Since most large and small news outlets are held by a handful of massive corporations with their fingers in many
pies of societal-shepherding, those narratives can sometimes take precedence over the actual facts.
These biased bulletins one hears declared every day can take many forms, a dislike of an authoritative decision
because it doesn't serve a particular agenda of the media or owner of that media group, a targeting of a particular
politician or that the administrative guidelines strangles a certain way of making money.
These days, it's usually the latter.
In England (5th July 2020), the Conservative Government issued a decree to invest £1.57bn in the arts sector due
to the plague lock-down. The main focus of the legacy media was the reopening of theatres because in their world,
everyone goes to the theatre, unless your a deplorable -of course.
The details -an ironic use of the word if your read further on, is in this Government link here.
So obviously, the next day (Monday) would be full of different opinions on this support package and the BBC were
no exception. (Well they wouldn't be would they?!) The story was their main headline and interviews with diverse
characters were abound, well-spoken people who've never shat outside, who regularly use taxi services and have
no idea what a food-bank looks like.
What some might call non-deplorables.
Here's part of a flowery piece from the BBC's Arts Editor, Will Gompertz. The link shows the whole article. (BBC Link)
6th July 2020.
"...The rescue package has been warmly welcomed by many arts leaders, some of whom said they
thought it to be at the upper end of what had been hoped for.
The Culture Secretary, Oliver Dowden, who has been under pressure from the arts and heritage sector
to deliver a meaningful funding solution to a crisis brought about by Covid-19, feels vindicated that his
behind-closed-doors approach to negotiations with the Treasury has paid off.
As always, the devil will be in the detail. The government has not specified how the money will be divided
between competing art forms or regions, nor how the application process will work.
There will be winners and losers.
And then there's the elephant in the auditorium: when will the rules around social distancing in performing
arts venues be relaxed to allow the show to go on?..."
Okay... now here's part of an article supposedly written by an 'Editorial Team' on the same date: (Link Here)
6th July 2020.
"...The rescue package deal has been warmly welcomed by many arts leaders, a few of whom stated they
thought it to be on the higher finish of what had been hoped for.
The Tradition Secretary, Oliver Dowden, who has been underneath strain from the humanities and heritage
sector to ship a significant funding resolution to a disaster caused by Covid-19, feels vindicated that his
behind-closed-doors strategy to negotiations with the Treasury has paid off.
As all the time, the satan can be within the element. The government has not specified how the cash can be
divided between competing artwork types or areas, nor how the appliance course of will work.
There can be winners and losers.
After which there’s the elephant within the auditorium: when will the principles round social distancing in
performing arts venues be relaxed to permit the present to go on?..."
Who wrote the first one and who -or what, re-wrote the second?!
The wording is similar, but certain colloquial phrasing is altered. 'Devil in the detail'... could this possibly offend some
section of the reading community or is it merely a poor sense of logical reasoning from something that struggles with
nuance and cultural terminology?
'Satan' is generally known as a name and yet it wasn't capitalised, but neither was 'Devil'. The title of Oliver Dowden
as the Culture Secretary morphed into 'Tradition Secretary', why?
A clue?
At this point, I would boast that this is the work of artificial intelligence, but there are other subtle changes from the Arts
Editor's supposed-article and the one from the Unique News Online web page.
"...And then there's the elephant in the auditorium" changes to "...After which there’s the elephant within the auditorium:".
'Then' becomes 'After which' and that could be simply an algorithm, but the 'there's' shows the same designed process
of explaining a catchphrase now taking a shortcut!
Shortcuts are due to the need to minimise space and time... what the f*ck is a computer-implementable set of instructions
doing worrying about column size?! It's a throw-away article, a literary-piece for the lad-de-da nonces who enjoy a trip to
the theatre and now we have computers telling you of an opinion.
Scary-stuff and another example of how far true-reality is from us.
do the job junior Reporters were once tasked with. I'm assuming this is the case because the alternative is that
well-cultured eight year-old children are actually re-writing other Journalists' work!
..................................
There was a time when a Government policy would be issued to the Press and with its standard demand that
the information can only be displayed after a certain time and date, the mainstream media would prepare their
narratives and attach their own ratings-hooks.
Since most large and small news outlets are held by a handful of massive corporations with their fingers in many
pies of societal-shepherding, those narratives can sometimes take precedence over the actual facts.
These biased bulletins one hears declared every day can take many forms, a dislike of an authoritative decision
because it doesn't serve a particular agenda of the media or owner of that media group, a targeting of a particular
politician or that the administrative guidelines strangles a certain way of making money.
These days, it's usually the latter.
In England (5th July 2020), the Conservative Government issued a decree to invest £1.57bn in the arts sector due
to the plague lock-down. The main focus of the legacy media was the reopening of theatres because in their world,
everyone goes to the theatre, unless your a deplorable -of course.
The details -an ironic use of the word if your read further on, is in this Government link here.
So obviously, the next day (Monday) would be full of different opinions on this support package and the BBC were
no exception. (Well they wouldn't be would they?!) The story was their main headline and interviews with diverse
characters were abound, well-spoken people who've never shat outside, who regularly use taxi services and have
no idea what a food-bank looks like.
What some might call non-deplorables.
Here's part of a flowery piece from the BBC's Arts Editor, Will Gompertz. The link shows the whole article. (BBC Link)
6th July 2020.
"...The rescue package has been warmly welcomed by many arts leaders, some of whom said they
thought it to be at the upper end of what had been hoped for.
The Culture Secretary, Oliver Dowden, who has been under pressure from the arts and heritage sector
to deliver a meaningful funding solution to a crisis brought about by Covid-19, feels vindicated that his
behind-closed-doors approach to negotiations with the Treasury has paid off.
As always, the devil will be in the detail. The government has not specified how the money will be divided
between competing art forms or regions, nor how the application process will work.
There will be winners and losers.
And then there's the elephant in the auditorium: when will the rules around social distancing in performing
arts venues be relaxed to allow the show to go on?..."
Okay... now here's part of an article supposedly written by an 'Editorial Team' on the same date: (Link Here)
6th July 2020.
"...The rescue package deal has been warmly welcomed by many arts leaders, a few of whom stated they
thought it to be on the higher finish of what had been hoped for.
The Tradition Secretary, Oliver Dowden, who has been underneath strain from the humanities and heritage
sector to ship a significant funding resolution to a disaster caused by Covid-19, feels vindicated that his
behind-closed-doors strategy to negotiations with the Treasury has paid off.
As all the time, the satan can be within the element. The government has not specified how the cash can be
divided between competing artwork types or areas, nor how the appliance course of will work.
There can be winners and losers.
After which there’s the elephant within the auditorium: when will the principles round social distancing in
performing arts venues be relaxed to permit the present to go on?..."
Who wrote the first one and who -or what, re-wrote the second?!
The wording is similar, but certain colloquial phrasing is altered. 'Devil in the detail'... could this possibly offend some
section of the reading community or is it merely a poor sense of logical reasoning from something that struggles with
nuance and cultural terminology?
'Satan' is generally known as a name and yet it wasn't capitalised, but neither was 'Devil'. The title of Oliver Dowden
as the Culture Secretary morphed into 'Tradition Secretary', why?
A clue?
At this point, I would boast that this is the work of artificial intelligence, but there are other subtle changes from the Arts
Editor's supposed-article and the one from the Unique News Online web page.
"...And then there's the elephant in the auditorium" changes to "...After which there’s the elephant within the auditorium:".
'Then' becomes 'After which' and that could be simply an algorithm, but the 'there's' shows the same designed process
of explaining a catchphrase now taking a shortcut!
Shortcuts are due to the need to minimise space and time... what the f*ck is a computer-implementable set of instructions
doing worrying about column size?! It's a throw-away article, a literary-piece for the lad-de-da nonces who enjoy a trip to
the theatre and now we have computers telling you of an opinion.
Scary-stuff and another example of how far true-reality is from us.
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.