The Media & Their Narratives.

[EndtheMadnessNow]

Regarding wheat production, Russia and the Ukraine actually account for a combined total of 11.5% of world production, not the 33% claimed:

.

What a weird coincidence that we were tied with Russia.

[BIAD]

It is odd that when other sources are brought into the mix, the established narrative just doesn't make sense.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not hauling out the usual 'they're all in it to keep the public fearful' slogan, that should be a given by now.
But when wants to financially profit from relating information in a long-term manner, wouldn't it be prudent to be more realistic of
the truth?

I mean if we go with the silly idea that two-plus-two equals five, then four-plus-four must equal ten! If not, then the original narrative
breaks down and nothing is gained. If the same producer of this daft equation attempts to fix it by stating two-plus-two now equals four,
the distrust from the first mistaken equation remains and doubt becomes a regular concern from those one seeks to influence for financial
gain.

Again, all of this is obvious in the world of common sense. But if one sees their business in selling information failing and are aware that
debatable topics cannot be deemed 'news' -in the sense of such information is merely opinions, what can one do?

Change the manner of purveying information and hope the reader/viewer/listener doesn't retain the idea that a preferred narrative had
been supported for money...? Continue with their outlandish and often easily-debunked production of biased reporting and become no
different from the internet-outcasts they call 'fake news'?

If it's either of those two, the result to the news-outlet should be evident by now and if a business is struggling due to its conduct, I'd think
a radical overhaul would have to be on the cards, that includes a proclamation of what they had been doing before they'd realised they had
been deceitful.

However, I believe the Boardroom isn't ready for that quite yet. Being' effective' became a trendy notion with the marketing-agencies of many
media-outlets a few months back and I think this has some miles still left in it. It does generate money to some extent via outrageous viewpoints
butter-patted into confident narratives and backed by official-sounding influencers.

'Effective' means -in the Public-Relations realms, a narrative that is designed to be emotive on several fronts, carry well-known brand names, clash
politics and the public's opinions together and usually can only seem reasonable as a stand-alone set of sentences.

Through the use of upbeat, strong vocal -or written articulation and with a sprinkling of direness, even a mild and bizarre narrative of any subject
can survive for sometimes more than a week! One only needs to survey the Covid chronology to see such use of effective-conditioning throughout
the globe and how it became so effective for those who sought to use an unusual seasonal flu for their own ends.

But I can't see this strategy working for long and my curiosity is tickling to see what next is up their Chantilly-laced sleeves! Can they reset?!

[BIAD]

I'm not sure when the human culture first embraced the idea of intentionally subjugating someone
and then asking for forgiveness after their coercion lost its trendiness. But it seems that some who
cleave to the dying art of Journalism believes it fine to do so.

LET’S DECLARE A PANDEMIC AMNESTY
We need to forgive one another for what we did and said when we were in the dark about COVID.

'In April 2020, with nothing else to do, my family took an enormous number of hikes. We all wore cloth masks that
I had made myself. We had a family hand signal, which the person in the front would use if someone was approaching
on the trail and we needed to put on our masks.  Once, when another child got too close to my then-4-year-old son o
a bridge, he yelled at her “SOCIAL DISTANCING!”

These precautions were totally misguided. In April 2020, no one got the coronavirus from passing someone else hiking.
Outdoor transmission was vanishingly rare. Our cloth masks made out of old bandanas wouldn’t have done anything,
anyway. But the thing is: We didn’t know.

I have been reflecting on this lack of knowledge thanks to a class I’m co-teaching at Brown University on COVID.
We’ve spent several lectures reliving the first year of the pandemic, discussing the many important choices we had
to make under conditions of tremendous uncertainty.

Some of these choices turned out better than others. To take an example close to my own work, there is an emerging
(if not universal) consensus that schools in the U.S. were closed for too long: The health risks of in-school spread were
relatively low, whereas the costs to students’ well-being and educational progress were high. The latest figures on
learning loss are alarming. But in spring and summer 2020, we had only glimmers of information. Reasonable people
—people who cared about children and teachers—advocated on both sides of the reopening debate.

Another example: When the vaccines came out, we lacked definitive data on the relative efficacies of the Johnson
& Johnson shot versus the mRNA options from Pfizer and Moderna. The mRNA vaccines have won out. But at the
time, many people in public health were either neutral or expressed a J&J preference. This misstep wasn’t nefarious.
It was the result of uncertainty.

Obviously some people intended to mislead and made wildly irresponsible claims. Remember when the public-health
community had to spend a lot of time and resources urging Americans not to inject themselves with bleach?
That was bad.
Misinformation was, and remains, a huge problem. But most errors were made by people who were working in earnest
for the good of society.

Given the amount of uncertainty, almost every position was taken on every topic. And on every topic, someone was
eventually proved right, and someone else was proved wrong. In some instances, the right people were right for the
wrong reasons. In other instances, they had a prescient understanding of the available information.

The people who got it right, for whatever reason, may want to gloat. Those who got it wrong, for whatever reason,
may feel defensive and retrench into a position that doesn’t accord with the facts. All of this gloating and defensiveness
continues to gobble up a lot of social energy and to drive the culture wars, especially on the internet.

These discussions are heated, unpleasant and, ultimately, unproductive. In the face of so much uncertainty, getting
something right had a hefty element of luck. And, similarly, getting something wrong wasn’t a moral failing.

Treating pandemic choices as a scorecard on which some people racked up more points than others is preventing
us from moving forward. We have to put these fights aside and declare a pandemic amnesty. We can leave out the
willful purveyors of actual misinformation while forgiving the hard calls that people had no choice but to make with
imperfect knowledge.

Los Angeles County closed its beaches in summer 2020. Ex post facto, this makes no more sense than my family’s
masked hiking trips. But we need to learn from our mistakes and then let them go. We need to forgive the attacks,
too.

Because I thought schools should reopen and argued that kids as a group were not at high risk, I was called a
“teacher killer” and a “génocidaire.” It wasn’t pleasant, but feelings were high. And I certainly don’t need to dissect
and rehash that time for the rest of my days. Moving on is crucial now, because the pandemic created many problems
that we still need to solve.

Student test scores have shown historic declines, more so in math than in reading, and more so for students who
were disadvantaged at the start. We need to collect data, experiment, and invest. Is high-dosage tutoring more or
less cost-effective than extended school years? Why have some states recovered faster than others? We should
focus on questions like these, because answering them is how we will help our children recover.

Many people have neglected their health care over the past several years. Notably, routine vaccination rates for
children (for measles, pertussis, etc.) are way down. Rather than debating the role that messaging about COVID
vaccines had in this decline, we need to put all our energy into bringing these rates back up.

Pediatricians and public-health officials will need to work together on community outreach, and politicians will
need to consider school mandates.

The standard saying is that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. But dwelling on the mistakes of
history can lead to a repetitive doom loop as well. Let’s acknowledge that we made complicated choices in
the face of deep uncertainty, and then try to work together to build back and move forward...'

The Atlantic:

[BIAD]

I know that this may seem obvious, but the type of word-smithing we see every day has become a way of life
in Journalism and has effected us all in the manner we absorb news. (Please forgive the length of the essay)

Published 2018
The Hidden Life of Modal Verbs
A linguist explains why we get so distracted by the fiery language of politics, while ignoring urgent information
reported by scientists.

'Between California’s megafires and the troubling extremist talk of recent elections, it’s a scary time no matter where
you’re from. Meanwhile, the scariest news of all according to the latest U.N. I.P.C.C. report, that we have only a scant
twelve years left to limit carbon emissions before we’re toast, has registered barely a whimper from the general public,
despite the fairly conservative science-based consensus and careful communication behind it.

Gravity is not just a good idea, it’s the law, as the joke goes. But scientists often seem to have trouble conveying the
true gravity of things to the general public. Why?

The answer is not simple—these are complex issues. We are often distracted and motivated to act by the fiery language
of populism but somehow ignore urgent information that could profoundly affect millions of lives when reported by scientists.

Populists, of course, don’t arise in a vacuum, they need the right social context to gain traction. Politicians also happen to
be quite good at clever rhetoric and repetitive messaging. Science has the rough end of the stick with the need for obscure
jargon that’s harder for the lay person to understand. Scientists are just not as expert at telling stories the way people need
to hear them.

What many are looking for right now, during difficult times, is simple certainty, not nuance. This is reflected in the kind of
direct, simple-to-understand language that the mass of people are drawn to. It’s also exactly the kind of language that
conscientious scientists don’t tend to use.

The presence of modals introduces nuance and opens up discussion.
As well as all these factors at play, it’s interesting that it can take just a simple element of grammar, boiled down, to make
the difference between language that is powerful, and language that seems more uncertain—and perhaps even unbelievable:
the boring old modal verb.

You might think nothing can be more grammatically dull and unremarkable than the closed set of function words we call
modal verbs, like can, may, must, will, shall and more secondary modal verbs like could, might, ought to, would and should.

But using them can have an outsized effect on how information is received by others, and subsequently even how we judge
the speaker, their credibility and competence, without actually changing the content itself. Rather than being well-behaved
classroom monitors helping the main verbs of a sentence, they are in fact linguistic rebels with an attitude problem.

Modals are weird verbs, syntactically defective in that they don’t inflect like regular verbs, and their very presence essentially
messes up simple, direct statements by introducing very confused human feelings of uncertainty, possibility, obligation,
permission, and ability into the mix.

Compare a sentence like “she’s the murderer” to “she must be the murderer” or “she might be the murderer.”
The first is an ordinary declarative, that could be true or false but sounds objective. In the second and third, the speaker
suddenly breaks the fourth wall and intrudes into the statement with their own uncertain beliefs (such as “I’ve deduced
from other evidence she’s the murderer” or “I think it’s likely she’s the murderer”), even though the content hasn’t really
changed.

The presence of modal verbs such as “must” and “might” suddenly injects the speaker and their imperfect judgements into
an objective statement, adding a certain kind of nuance, making them seemingly weaker and more tentative, opening it up
for further questions. It makes it clearer that what seemed at first to be an objective statement is in fact from the point of
view of the speaker.

But it gets worse. Not only do modals make declaratives sound less sure of themselves, they are also often semantically
ambiguous, which messes up how you might read them. For example:

You must be very careful (i.e. you are required to be careful).
You must be very careless (i.e. you obviously are careless).
You must be very careful since you are able to paint such delicate pictures (i.e. you obviously are careful).
You must be very careless so that we can scare the guests off once and for all (i.e. you are required to be careless).

In these examples, the interpretation of “must” can only really be resolved by the context of the utterance itself, as Alex
Klinge points out, rather than depending on just the lexical semantics of the word. (And how are we to understand an
utterance like “you must try some of this delicious cake!” which pretends to be a requirement but isn’t really).

Modals can have multiple meanings, ambiguous readings (depending on context) and can even overlap with each other
to mean the same thing in speech. Take the infamous grammar rule that can I is for asking about ability while may I is
or asking permission.

In common practice the two overlap and can (or may) mean the same thing. As a result of these semantic shifts over
time, linguists have been confused about how to adequately categorize them into their core meanings, especially as
in pragmatic communication they can often behave in messy, complex ways. This can certainly add to the general
uncertainty and weakness that utterances with modal verbs are received than those without.

Scientific and academic writing often contains quite a lot of linguistic hedging.
Declaratives without modals (or other linguistic hedges such as “I think,” “possibly,” etc.) have this straightforward
objective power, even if the content is untrue. Compare sentences like “criminals have invaded our neighborhoods”
vs. “the devastating floods that may have resulted in hundreds of deaths could have been due to climate change.”

The presence of modals introduces nuance and opens up discussion. Depending on the modal verb used, the speaker
can choose to convey varying degrees of certainty, for example the modal verb “will” as in “an average global temperature
rise of two degrees celsius will result in higher death rates” has often been assessed by researchers as having the highest
certainty, while a modal verb like “might” sounds much less sure.

The register of populist politics is definitive, repetitive, memorable messaging. Your typical politician or civil servant, however,
may use longer, obscurer constructions with hedging to avoid being challenged on certain claims. A good example is the
elegantly manipulative politician Frances Urquhart’s classic line from House of Cards, “you might very well think that, I couldn’t
possibly comment,” chock full of modal verbs with a side helping of plausible deniability.

We’re used to thinking that someone using this kind of language is probably untrustworthy, with something to hide.
In fact, some studies have shown that when people use linguistic hedging, like modal verbs, to temper how sure they are of
something, they can be perceived as less credible, competent and authoritative, and more powerless in formal environments
like the courtroom.

Despite this, researchers have noted that scientific and academic writing often contains quite a lot of linguistic hedging, such
as the use of modal verbs, in the very environment that seems to call for powerful conviction and clarity. Though style and
grammar guides sometimes advise scientists to avoid using modal verbs in their work to reduce ambiguity and
misinterpretations of what are otherwise evidence-based and often precise findings, scientists and academics can’t seem
to help but use them liberally. Some studies have even cautioned that modal verbs and other hedges may cause other
researchers to misreport results when citing them.

So if modal verbs are just going to introduce ambiguity and obfuscation, and make people assume you don’t know what
you’re talking about, or worse, that you have something to hide, why even use them?

To many, real language is about saying what you mean. That means using the literal, logical, lexical meanings of words.
Direct speech and plain speaking is often valued in a way that indirect speech is not, regardless of whether the content is true.
I’ve heard from some frustrated folk recently who view indirect speech as a kind of passive aggressive behavior designed to
manipulate.

Yet indirect speech acts, such as someone answering “I’m too tired” to refuse an invitation, or a superior saying “That’ll be
all” to a subordinate as an imperative to leave the room, are very common ways we use to express social politeness and
face saving as we negotiate power relationships.

As much as we want to assume otherwise, language (as well as science) in practice is messy and often not logical when
it comes to using spoken language. It’s important to understand that language is not just about the bare content of what
we say, but also the interpersonal and social functions of how we say it. As an example, I once said “I might go now,”
meaning I had every intention of leaving and an American friend immediately joked “Might you? Don’t you know if you are?”

This dialectal difference is important, especially as modal usage has changed greatly over time. Although an American
might read the sentence as oddly weak and unsure, a British or Australian English speaker understands that, in a certain
context, there’s another subtle nuance here: an indirect form of cooperative politeness.

As in, “I intend to leave now… unless you have some reason why I shouldn’t.” This is also true of Appalachian English’s
multiple modal constructions, which Margaret Mishoe and Michael Montgomery show are often used when the social
situation calls for negotiating politeness, indirectness and saving face, as in this exchange:

[Customer:] […] the car is driving fine.
I’m just a little concerned and I thought you MIGHT COULD know right off what it is […].
[Repairman:] […] We MIGHT COULD’VE overlooked something.

The interpersonal aspect of how we use things like indirect speech acts, hedges, and modal verbs in some ways is more
important than the literal lexical meaning itself. Crucially, modals and other hedges and indirect speech are commonly
used by all of us to indicate a kind of cooperative politeness and reduce face threatening acts (as well as for other purposes,
such as when one is unsure or trying to avoid saying something).

Scientists increasingly understand, perhaps in a way that the public doesn’t yet, that using hedging language is often
necessary to conscientiously convey more accurate degrees of certainty. This doesn’t mean, however, that their findings
should be dismissed as not authoritative.

That allows for scholars to be more collegial and circumspect in presenting work, which may often challenge and pick
apart the previous work of colleagues. Modal verbs used in hedging open up debate, and allow researchers to be more
measured about the true certainty of their findings and conjectures, as few things in science are a hundred percent absolute.

So this is not to say that scientists presenting their work should aim to speak in short, definitive statements, because stating
something as a fact doesn’t make it true. It’s good to be aware that linguistic hedging, even when it comes to your basic
modal verb, may erroneously encourage the public to believe that an expert is unsure of what they’re talking about because
of how this language is sometimes viewed in other environments such as politics and the courtroom… but it is exactly this
careful and nuanced language of science that we should value and seek to understand...'

Source:

[BIAD]

I think we can all agree the dying art of reporting news has evolved into some Journalists generating data by stoking
certain discourse forums with emotive issues and column-worthy intrigue. To do this with a certain type of assumed
authority, these places award a badge to somehow proclaim the speaker is someone held in a mysterious regard and
should be heard.

But what if a story appears that could hint towards that sort of 'news-governing'? How does those who benefit from
such honours of being above the masses report such an account? By changing the narrative or NOT reporting on it,
of course.

Below, one will see how the account only vaguely touches on the incriminating headline.

Elon Musk confirms people paid up to $15,000 for Twitter verification

Elon Musk, CEO of microblogging site Twitter, has revealed that some employees of the company under previous
ownership sold the coveted Twitter verification badge (blue tick) to some individuals for thousands of dollars.

The clandestine act was confirmed by Mr Musk while responding to a question by a user who asked the new CEO
if the allegations that some employees were selling the verification badge to unqualified people for amounts ranging
from $15,000 upwards were true.

The world richest man tweeted “yup” under the tweet of the user, confirming that the verification badges were indeed
issued to some individuals who were able to pay for it. Since he took over the social media company in a $44 billion
deal last month, Mr Musk has sought to revamp Twitter’s verification process.

In the new verification process, which the Tesla CEO tagged “power to the people”, any Twitter user can get the blue
badge on their profile irrespective of their level of significance, given that they pay $8 per month for the company’s
premium service.

The new system bypasses the old that was designed for only individuals who can prove that they are people of high
notoriety. According to multiple sources including The Guardian, Twitter has started rolling out the $8 per month
Twitter blue service in Apple iOS devices on Saturday, with the company announcing that its premium subscribers
will get the blue tick.

Although the service is only available to users in some selected countries, Mr Musk said “as soon as we confirm
it’s working well in the initial set of countries and we have the translation work done, it will roll out worldwide”...'

Source:

Elon Musk Confirmed Employees At Twitter Previously Charged $15,000 To A User For The Blue Tick

'Elon Musk publicity agreed to a statement made by a user that alleged, previously Twitter employees charged
$15,000 for accounts to be verified. Since Musk's reign began on Twitter, he shocked users by announcing the
new subscription mandate called Twitter Blue. Where the users who 'sign up now' would receive a blue tick like
'celebrities'.

Recently, a user alleged that this is not the first time Twitter is charging for verification on accounts. They said
twitter employees privately demanded a sum of $15,000 for the verified status.

@WSBCHairman said, "Twitter employees were selling verification for upwards of $15,000.
For certain accounts, mine included, they would refuse to verify you through the standard
application and then privately offer to verify you for $$ behind the scenes. Investigation needed".

Elon replied to the tweet with, "yup". His controversial confirmation on the same shouldn't seem as jarring, given
his recent history with the company. Musk's first actions after newly taking over Twitter was to fire the CEO and
several board of directors. Twitter also informed employees that they will be informed about layoffs in "an effort
to place Twitter on a healthy path".

The mail also mentioned "We will go through the difficult process of reducing our global workforce on Friday".
Further adding "We recognize this will impact a number of individuals who have made valuable contributions
to Twitter, but this action is, unfortunately, necessary to ensure the company's success moving forward"...'

Source:

You wouldn't believe the things these hacks organise on their private forums and oddly enough, the main narrative
of the MSM is that the public shouldn't interact through social-media! Here's a live-running commentary from a BBC
employee, who explains to an unknown questioner how only the mainstream media should be trusted to bring them
the truth.

13:33 (GMT)
Why is conspiracy rife in America?
Mike Wendling in Washington

Alison, US, asks: Why is conspiracy rife in America?
The easy answer is: social media.

But of course false rumours predate Facebook by centuries. And some research indicates conspiracy theories haven’t
become more popular over the last decade or so. So why does it feel like fake news and false rumours are overwhelming
the country?

For one thing, very important people are talking about them: Kayne West, Elon Musk, Donald Trump. Conspiracy theorists
are running for office. We’ve been tracking a group of candidates organised by a QAnon influencer.

More broadly, a BBC analysis of Republican candidates running for Congress or governor found that 175 - or 35% - have fully
and publicly denied the outcome of the 2020 election. And there’s another interesting twist - several big recent conspiracy
theories are explicitly party political. Again that’s not exactly new, but it is something that America hasn’t grappled with in
a long time.

Rumours about, say, the moon landing took aim at shadowy forces like the “military industrial complex”.
But recent debunked conspiracy theories – QAnon, Pizzagate and “Stop the steal” – have targeted specific politicians, mostly
Democrats...'

BBC:

[EndtheMadnessNow]

So I’ve been wondering where Ukraine and Europe are getting diesel...

The US Northeast Is Hurtling Toward a Winter Heating Crisis (November 7, 2022)

Region is rationing heating oil, warning of natural gas shortages

In the most densely populated corner of the US, temperatures are just starting to drop. And the signs of a winter crisis are already multiplying.

Heating oil delivered to New York is the priciest ever. Retailers in Connecticut are rationing it to prevent panic buying. New England’s stockpiles of diesel and heating oil — the same product, taxed differently — are a third of normal levels. Natural gas inventories are also below average. A Massachusetts-based utility is imploring President Joe Biden to prepare emergency measures to prevent a gas shortage.
...
That creates a tricky political calculus for the Biden administration. US energy exports have surged amid pressure to help European allies replace sanction-hit Russian supplies. But Biden is also facing calls to curb such shipments to help consumers at home. For Republicans, inflation has proved to be a potent political weapon: A press release announcing a Donald Trump rally in Pennsylvania this month noted the state’s surging heating oil prices.

So far, the Biden administration is using one of the few tools it has at its disposal to tackle high pump prices: It’s releasing unprecedented amounts of crude oil from the nation’s emergency reserves. But that can only go so far. US refineries are already running flat out, and without excess capacity to process the crude into usable fuel, the extra oil releases don't do much good.
...
On peak days in the winter, as much as 35% of New England’s natural gas supply comes from LNG cargoes, according to New Hampshire utility Unitil Corp. And the US will find itself in competition with buyers from the UK to Japan.

Algeria officially applies to join BRICS bloc

Algeria is Europe’s largest provider of natural gas after Russia and Norway. Algeria has the 11th largest gas reserves in the world.

BRICS is turning into the world's source for commodities. If they can figure out a BRICS currency...

Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa BRICS Bloc Grows with U.S. Left Out

WW3 = BRICS Vs NATO.

[ABNARTY]

Not sure where to go with this thread. It's all over the place 

However, on the one with an "amnesty", I vote no. 

Somehow I am not convinced a crowd who hoped I had died, now seeing I am alive and well, want's to "forget about it". Just kidding. No hard feelings.

That bunch have already shown their a**. They are not sincere about anything except their level of hate for those they differ from. If a new opportunity came about tomorrow for shipping me off to the camps, they would be cheerleading just as loud as before. 

As far as the author trying to gaslight the readers about what happened? Sounds about right. The truth is way to inconvenient on those matters. 

If I am honest, I am glad the whole thing happened. I now know who I can count on to sell me down the river for the least reason. That's good to know.

[EndtheMadnessNow]

How's about think tank narratives...



The "think tank community"?

Not helping are calls from the think tank community pushing for negotiations just when the Ukrainians are on the march. In Foreign Affairs, the Rand Corporation’s Samuel Charap and Miranda Priebe seemed to bemoan the withdrawal of the progressives’ ill-timed and ill-advised letter after a “predictable outcry.” Doubling down on the thrust of that letter, they expressed support for “openness to an eventual negotiated end to the war” and dismissed the “optimistic scenario” that Ukraine could actually defeat Russia in this war. Such calls undermine Ukrainians’ confidence in American support.

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies

[BIAD]

Not sure where to go with this thread. It's all over the place 

However, on the one with an "amnesty", I vote no. 

Somehow I am not convinced a crowd who hoped I had died, now seeing I am alive and well, want's to "forget about it". Just kidding. No hard feelings.

That bunch have already shown their a**. They are not sincere about anything except their level of hate for those they differ from. If a new opportunity came about tomorrow for shipping me off to the camps, they would be cheerleading just as loud as before. 

As far as the author trying to gaslight the readers about what happened? Sounds about right. The truth is way to inconvenient on those matters. 

If I am honest, I am glad the whole thing happened. I now know who I can count on to sell me down the river for the least reason. That's good to know.

I totally agree with your comments, ABNARTY.

It's tragic that the 'whole thing' you mentioned was perceived by the media was nothing more than another emotive topic that
outrage-causing articles could be written about. It was never viewed as personal -on the level of intimate sensitivity, merely a
vehicle to draw in viewership and interest.

The fact of life in the established media and the bottom-feeders on the internet who receive an income from this eternal ocean
of indignation, counter-arguments, snide-comments and fake bloated offence are fodder for a machine where on one feeds the
other. They stir up the sh*t and then write about. They write sh*t and comment about it. They imagine sh*t that would enrage
a reader and then write about it.

Virtue has no longer a place in a News Desk and common-sense is shouted-down when pages or air-time are needed to retain
those much-needed advertising monies. When a flu appeared that could seriously effect those with damaged immune systems,
it was pushed with passion by the media and a nod was made to Joseph Goebbels' comment regarding the Big Lie.

It was obvious to most that the idea that personal responsibility of one's physical body demands the owner of that body decides
what he-or-she can do to, could never be a debatable issue, but the media thundered on with their pro-jab narrative knowing
full-well it would cultivate a divisive paradigm where their work could flourish and support their ailing trade.

It's that simple. I find the organisation of news-gathering, news-influencing and media-lobbying fascinating. Agencies are packed
to the gills with articulate, theme-driven people skilled in verbal magnetism. Many of them have academic degrees on subjects
entirely different from what they're commenting about, but the letters after their surnames is hoped to convince the viewing public
that they have an authority on what they are saying and should be listened to.

But it was never personal... even for the awe-inspiring, all-encompassing, global disease that suddenly faded away like newsprint
on a wet Wednesday morning and suddenly, a fourteen year-old war in a Slavic country became the new Covid or Bird Flu or Trump
or BLM... it was never personal.

The media have moved on now and can't we just all be friends again? I swear Charlie, I won't snatch the ball away this time.


Politicians use the media and vice-versa, they entertain like Troubadours and surreptitiously deliver an agreed message simply
because it pays the monthly mortgage. In the echelon of media-presentation, the prizes tend to be power-based along with
the riches. But the ranting on social-media, the fires burning in a food-outlet or the Government-driven dictates that demand
the public stay in their houses until the flu-Passover... they were never personal.

They were never personal because it has been a long time since the public has ever been perceived as special by the media.
They don't listen to the public, but it is never personal. It's just a job where people with dignity are mocked for their innocence
and silly things like morals just get in the way.

[EndtheMadnessNow]

ABNARTY | BIAD - Yep, 100%. Round & round we go.

[BIAD]

On a main page, The Independent announced:

Zelensky accuses Russia of missile attack on Nato member Poland
Polish PM calls urgent meeting of security and defence councils as Pentagon investigates

'Volodymyr Zelensky said Russian missiles hit Nato member Poland on Tuesday in what he called a
“significant escalation” of the conflict as dozens more caused destruction and power outages across Ukraine.
US and other western officials were investigating explosions at a grain store in Przewodow, Lublin, in which
two people were killed...'

Independent:

When the same URL is sought in Archive Today, the headline changes slightly, but the sentiment remains
the same.

Russian missile crosses into NATO member Poland, killing two people
Polish PM calls urgent meeting of security and defence councils

'Russian missiles crossed into NATO member Poland, killing two people, a senior US intelligence official said
on Tuesday in what could mark a serious escalation.

The weapon hit a farm in Przewodów, Lublin, near the border with Ukraine, according to Polish media reports.
Polish prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki has called an urgent meeting of the country’s security and defence
councils, a government spokesman said. Pictures from the scene showed a huge crater in the ground...'

Archived Page Copy:

A day later...

Ukraine war: Poland says missile deaths an unfortunate incident
'Polish President Andrzej Duda has said there are no signs of an intentional attack after a missile strike
killed two people on a farm near the western border with Ukraine.

Earlier, US President Joe Biden said it was "unlikely" the missile had been fired from Russia.
The two workers were killed as Ukraine came under fire from one of the biggest barrages of missile strikes
of the war. The Kremlin had insisted it had nothing to do with their deaths.

Poland said initially that the missile that hit the farm at Przewodow, 6km (4 miles) from the border was
Russian-made...'

BBC:

I'm from the same country The Independent is supposed to come from and I struggle to make sense of this.
Russians nastily bomb Poland, The Ukraine accidently bombed Poland. But the two are somehow different?

[EndtheMadnessNow]

On a main page, The Independent announced:

Zelensky accuses Russia of missile attack on Nato member Poland
Polish PM calls urgent meeting of security and defence councils as Pentagon investigates

'Volodymyr Zelensky said Russian missiles hit Nato member Poland on Tuesday in what he called a
“significant escalation” of the conflict as dozens more caused destruction and power outages across Ukraine.
US and other western officials were investigating explosions at a grain store in Przewodow, Lublin, in which
two people were killed...'

Independent:

When the same URL is sought in Archive Today, the headline changes slightly, but the sentiment remains
the same.

Russian missile crosses into NATO member Poland, killing two people
Polish PM calls urgent meeting of security and defence councils

'Russian missiles crossed into NATO member Poland, killing two people, a senior US intelligence official said
on Tuesday in what could mark a serious escalation.

The weapon hit a farm in Przewodów, Lublin, near the border with Ukraine, according to Polish media reports.
Polish prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki has called an urgent meeting of the country’s security and defence
councils, a government spokesman said. Pictures from the scene showed a huge crater in the ground...'

Archived Page Copy:

A day later...

Ukraine war: Poland says missile deaths an unfortunate incident
'Polish President Andrzej Duda has said there are no signs of an intentional attack after a missile strike
killed two people on a farm near the western border with Ukraine.

Earlier, US President Joe Biden said it was "unlikely" the missile had been fired from Russia.
The two workers were killed as Ukraine came under fire from one of the biggest barrages of missile strikes
of the war. The Kremlin had insisted it had nothing to do with their deaths.

Poland said initially that the missile that hit the farm at Przewodow, 6km (4 miles) from the border was
Russian-made...'

BBC:

I'm from the same country The Independent is supposed to come from and I struggle to make sense of this.
Russians nastily bomb Poland, The Ukraine accidently bombed Poland. But the two are somehow different?

The UK Independent colluding with the The Kyiv Independent? They (the war mongers) use to call this "Collateral Damage" - now all they do is point fingers at each other.

Kinda reminds me of a WWII story. Most people don't know or simply forgotten, but the Japanese launched high altitude balloon bombs to sail across the Pacific to the unsuspecting US west coast population and detonate. That operation did not work very well, except for one family in Oregon. They were out having a picnic in a rural area (still very rural today) and one of these balloons with bombs still attached landed in a forest without going boom. I visited this place several years ago, now a monument and was a very eerie feeling.

The tragic story:

In 1945, a Japanese Balloon Bomb Killed Six Americans, Five of Them Children, in Oregon

[BIAD]

...Kinda reminds me of a WWII story. Most people don't know or simply forgotten, but the Japanese launched
high altitude balloon bombs to sail across the Pacific to the unsuspecting US west coast population and detonate...

I was willing to look at this idea as the Roswell wreckage and the cover-story to keep the US public from worrying
that the Japanese had discovered the jet-stream. But I believe the dates are all wrong.

[FlyingClayDisk]

I'm not sure I understand why Zelensky is making such a big issue out of this.  I don't see him slip-up very often, but I think he's making a mistake here.

First of all, the origin of the missile is going to be very easy to pin down in short order (frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a US supplied arm).  Because of how a munition like this is designed, there are lots of fragments leftover after impact/explosion which make them quite easy to identify.

Secondly, "collateral damage" is a common thing during wartime.  Unfortunate, yes, but common all the same. 

Thirdly, (given the above) making an allegation against Russia unintentionally/intentionally striking Poland is a BIG deal, and something which will be thoroughly investigated by numerous countries, not just Ukraine, Russia and Poland.  Consequently, making an erroneous claim about such an incident will erode confidence in Zelensky in the public eye.  This is something Zelensky should be VERY sensitive to, and something he should be avoiding at all costs! Furthermore, being wrong about such an allegation has really BAD optics!

Fourth, it would be completely acceptable, understandable even, for Zelensky to say the missile very well could have been an accidental incident on Ukraine's behalf (even if it wasn't).  This way, he could say the matter is being investigated, and he would look like the 'good guy' in the process.  This has a lot better optics than blanket denials until the truth is known. Especially, if Ukraine IS found to be at fault.

Fifth, and possibly most important, Zelensky should know he's got no friend in Bidet (president of the Socialist State of America).  Bidet is going to look for any way to torpedo Ukraine, and prop up his buddy Vlad (who snickers at his stupidity behind his back), even if he has to go plant the evidence himself.  In fact, he'd probably even risk American lives doing it!

Conclusion - Zelensky has got nothing but lose-lose options by denying the missile was Ukranian, and nothing but win-win options by saying it was Ukranian and accidental.  Now, if 10,000 people had been killed this might be a different story, but we're not talking about 10,000 people here...only 2.  More Polish citizens died in car crashes in just the time it took to write this post.

Conclusion #2 - Zelenshy isn't really saying fuck-all, but rather the MEDIA are the ones who are REALLY wanting to stir up some shit between Russia and NATO!