#bbc

Was the CIA too white at the time of 9/11?

Central Intelligence Agency

According to the BBC, it was. The UK taxpayer-funded broadcaster is buying into this hypothesis that the CIA may have been too “white” and not diverse enough to spot the terrorist activity around September 11, 2001. Weren’t the whites that founded the agency in 1947 the same thinkers who had the nous to use “diversity” (Navaho Native Americans) to devastating effect to transmit sensitive information during WWII? That was 54 years prior to the 9/11 attacks.

What a spectacular own goal. How could the BBC be so careless? It should be completely down to the CIA’s white supremacist backgrounds that led to an agency completely driven by irrational fear to facilitate any old excuse to bomb the crap out of shithole nations. Does CM need to do the BBC’s work for them?

Passing the CIA aptitude tests are bound to be pretty tough in the intelligence areas. The day the CIA starts to prioritise skin tones, sexual proclivity and what is between the legs of candidates as opposed to what is between their ears one should expect even more misses to result. It might be too late – find the CIA Diversity webpage here.

Diversity of thought is all that matters. The BBC would do well to seek introspection. If the CIA had been predominantly staffed by blacks and Hispanics, would this article have ever seen the light of day? Of course not. Good to know BBC practices racism. Or is the journalist gunning for a position on the NY Times editorial board alongside the sweet #cancelwhitepeople Sarah Jeong?

Sir David Attenborough’s Climate Change: The Facts

Sir David Attenborough’s narration of Climate Change – The Facts is a one hour BBC sponsored piffle fest, wonderfully timed with the Extinction Rebellion protests. It is a collection of one alarmist liners of “we’re running out of time“, “if we don’t do something now,” or “we’re at a tipping point“. You get the drift. The irony of the title is that few facts are actually presented. A lot of grandiose statements but little in the way of hard numbers. Even when numbers are presented they don’t necessarily prove anything.

Many numbers presented are selected from groups that have been caught red handed manipulating data – including NOAA, UNIPCC and BOM to name a few. Take temperatures in Australia. Sir David puts them forward as rewriting records despite far hotter temperatures recorded a century earlier. Perhaps he should have cited the Bureau of Meteorology scandal of putting a hard floor on cold temperatures.

Some supposed experts spoke of:

1) an explosion in the severity and number of wildfires. The truth is both the area and frequency have fallen in the last few decades. 90% are either accidentally or deliberately lit.

2) rising sea levels and polar melting. Analysis using tide gauges and satellites showed 30 Pacific and Indian Ocean atolls including 709 islands, revealed that no atoll lost land area and that 88.6% of islands were either stable or increased in area, while only 11.4% contracted. What sea level rise? The most experienced is around. 1mm pa. Australia’s former climate change commissioner told us a decade ago that waves would lap the rooves of 8 storey apartments despite owning a house by the water.

NASA noted in 2018 that sea ice was increasing. It said an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

3) the tragedy of coral bleaching at the Great Barrier Reef, despite it seen to be flourishing. Scientists from the Australian Institute of Marine Science in Sep 2017 surveyed 14 coral reefs between Cairns and Townsville to see how they fared after being bleached and were surprised to find the coral had already started to reproduce.

By all means watch it to see how poor a documentary can be made to sell a story of activism. Hysterics, exaggerations and bias to create fear mongering. Even the background musical accompaniment is designed to pluck at the heart strings. To be honest it’s surprising that Sir David wanted to put his name to it. In decades to come the climate scientists will still be saying we’ve got little time left to fix things.

Tucker Carlson beats all CNN prime time presenters combined

How embarrassing for CNN. Fox News’ Tucker Carlson has garnered 3,475,000 viewers over the last week vs CNN’s 2,474,000 (which included Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo combined). If only CNN could admit that the content is the problem for its rankings. A Research Intelligencer survey revealed CNN the least trusted media outlet among Fox, BBC, PBS, Bloomberg, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and ABC.

The amusing side is that CNN attacked Carlson for running lesser known brand ads recently, a reflection of a boycott by some brands based on comments he made as a shock-jock between 2006-2011.

In the end, corporations aren’t stupid enough to turn down 3.5m viewers in one slot than chance 700,000-800,000 audiences at CNN. Forget what the “Sleeping Giants” type activists say, the viewers are all that matter.

TDS – Turnbull Delusion Syndrome

How absolutely true to form. Consistency is much coveted in politics. Sadly not when it comes to reflection about reality. Former Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull was interviewed by the BBC’s Andrew Neil and put it to viewers that the Liberal Party didn’t want to win the next election. When Neil questioned 40 straight losses in the polls he still believed he’d have beaten Bill Shorten. Which political party would overthrow a leader that would offer electoral victory? Turnbull Delusion Syndrome at its finest. Can’t wait to see Alex Turnbull’s tweets.

Facebook face plant?

FB.jpg

Facebook is the dark blue line. Its popularity has been waning. Some people are complaining (and others cheering) that Tommy Robinson has been banned from Facebook & Instagram (he had already been banned from Twitter in March 2018) after he exposed the BBC in his ‘Panodrama‘ documentary with his own undercover video  claiming allegations of threats, blackmail and intimidation to smear him. BBC News was clearly happy to report on the outcome today. Regardless of one’s view on the legitimacy of the life ban on Robinson, FB is a corporation that has the power to exercise its own guidelines, no matter how farcical some might judge them. There are countless examples of censor bias across multiple social media platforms. The managements admit as much.

The flip side for Facebook to ban him only makes him more desirable to his followers and increase their willingness to leave the platform.

If conservatives are becoming frustrated at the bias shown by Facebook, Twitter or any other social media forum why not set up a rival? If conservatives feel their voices are being suffocated by political correctness and the actions of arbitrary thought police why haven’t they set up a platform that will not silence what they covet?

Even if they have a very good case to argue against being silenced they have two options; stop using these social media players who they feel obstruct or build a fresh site which would surely see conservatives flock to it.

Fighting Facebook or Twitter to play fair has been proved worthless countless times (e.g. black conservative Candace Owens being suspended for replacing the word “whites” from Sarah Jeong’s tweets with other races). So it is a war that won’t be won.

The publishing of Google’s internal post-election debrief video shouldn’t have surprised anyone in the slightest either. All the outward appeals to the group’s impartiality were smashed by this leak. In a sense Google was the victim of the half-life nature of the very digital media feeds it seeks to control. Even worse it was all the senior management talking about what really goes on. Sunlight is truly the best disinfectant.

There is an opportunity to plug the gaping hole in social media – one that is willing to support all free speech and not shut out those that ideologically disagree with the apparatchiks in the censorship department. The question is why conservatives haven’t stopped complaining and moved to finance a rival? Or is there an inner fear that the authorities will become the judge and jury on what is considered free speech and shut the platform, not the individual…

Failing to grasp capitalism

7fe0f17d-a5b6-42f7-b14e-37730747cdd1

Good to see that the alarmists have moved the “saving the planet” argument to repairing 5yo washing machines. 35 years ago, repairing a VHS deck was worth the money. A new deck would set one back multiples of the repair. Can one honestly say they would bother repairing a 5yo deck when the replacement is likely to be near as makes no difference the same, if not cheaper than the repair?

Did the BBC think to measure that a brand new washing machine might consume a quarter of the electricity and half the water of a 5yo one? Over 100s or washes it would pay for its own environmental footprint many times over.

Perhaps the regulators trying to gather momentum behind this ‘grand’ proposal  might let the free market determine whether people would bother to repair a broken appliance based on cost. If they felt compelled to revive a 5yo for the cost of a replacement then so be it. Chances are, like flat screen TVs, capitalism will have brought the cost of a like for like new LED 4K to a quarter of what it cost 5 years ago.

Perhaps Brussels can establish an entire building dedicated to subsidized repair jobs. Spend billions in infrastructure to cater to a question no one is asking

The EU regulators are trying to force manufacturers to make appliances last longer. If a consumer wants to buy a cheap Chinese made fridge and run the risk of it dying too soon, why stop them? If another shopper thinks paying 3x for a fancy Made in Japan fridge on the basis it might last longer, why not let them choose?

Going by the EU directive surely car makers should offer 20 year warranties. Although doesn’t it contradict the push to eradicate fossil fuel sales by 2040. Doesn’t forcing child slave labour in Africa to mine the cobalt to go in batteries propose deeper ethical questions?

Ultimately market forces can quickly determine whether repair is feasible. No need to mandate makers to build equipment that consumers aren’t demanding.

Rest assured people! The EU once launched multi year study on whether water rehydrated or not. Instead of accepting it, the EU introduced laws which prosecuted companies that claimed its water products did! Go figure? It’s journalism like this that makes one think they’re all eating Tide pods.

Fair facts about Fairfax

2B03F9D5-E4A0-445B-8DF6-A240FFFEEBD1.jpeg

Freedom of the press. A beautiful thing. By all means, the 177-yo Sydney Morning Hearld (SMH) executed full autonomy over what it published. In the end, the public didn’t buy it. For the staff to seek the union to block the Nine Network’s takeover of Fairfax Media smacks of the identical numb-skulled action that has brought them to this predicament. If the paper decided to listen to what the audience wanted to read (the mood) as opposed to telling them they “don’t get it” it might have retained its independence. Take a look at the pictograph above – 20 anti Trump articles in one day. Overkill?

Last year the SMH had to take two massive rounds of lay-offs inside of 12 months because the product wasn’t reaching. The SMH staff took a vote to strike because their evil overlords put profit ahead of people. Welcome to the free market. When one journalist at the SMH became a scab (because he admitted the paper’s journalism was the  problem) he was vilified by his fellow workers. Instead of opening their minds that they maybe the root cause, they protested. Finger on the pulse?

It certainly makes a strong case for how the diminishing readership base (i.e. the free market) viewed the content. Not very highly. It is why The Guardian now asks its readers for charity so it can stay alive? Could it be that media jobs don’t exist to serve the journalists needs but that of their audience? The Fairfax scribes might reflect on the fact that the taxpayer funded ABC – which produces identical product – was not the friendly ally it believed it was but the mortal enemy who ended it. As an audience, if we’re not offered a differentiated product where the same content  is free to consume, who would pay for the one that costs?

Yet the sale of Fairfax was obvious. Digging a bit deeper into the stats of the ABC reveals its biased left leaning journalism has dwindling popularity. Comparing 2016/17 and 2015/16 it is clear that TV audience reach for metro fell from 55.2% to 52.5% and regional slumped from 60.3% to 57.3%. If we go back to 2007/8 the figures were 60.1% and 62.4% respectively. For the 2017/18 period, the ABC targets a 50% reach. Good to see taxpayer dollars openly championed with enhanced levels of mediocrity. Yet the ABC screams for more funding.

Throwing more money won’t fix the problems. The ABC’s wage bill is 50% of revenue while its multicultural sister station SBS runs on 31% of revenue for salaries. Why hasn’t the ABC got superior economies of scale? On a global basis, the UK’s BBC spends 22.7% of its revenues on salaries. How can Nine Network survive on advertising revenues? Could it be audience numbers allow advertisers to make rational decisions to tap them?

Criticise Rupert Murdoch’s The Australian for right wing media bias but at the very least he serves a market who is willing to pay for the content. Simple. It is no difference overseas. Fox has more viewers than MSNBC and CNN combined. Don’t belt Fox viewers for following “Faux News” but question what is it about their offering that they’re missing? At what point do the likes of Fairfax or Time Warner realize the problem lies within.

In Fairfax’s case we have the answer – market forces.