Thursday, 24 November 2016

Chronicle of a Death Foretold


We aren’t writing about the investigations into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann or any possible suspects: we don’t want to prejudice a legal process that is working in a most satisfactory way.


David James Smith
 

Safe With Us

Remember those wonderful claims that the MSM used to make about the difference between itself and the dirty little net?
Kier Simmons and David James Smith were just two of the loudest shouters –  people tend to shout when fleeing a collapsing building – about  the MSM giving  you a sort of John Lewis warranty free with every story. Why, they all claimed, with those disgusting, mad, internet tales you’re on your own, at the mercy of any nutter’s inventions, while the MSM is a proper organization, you know, like an Oxford college or a civil service department: archives, researchers, intensive training,  tradition, a reputation to protect, answerability and ethics.  
What a load of old shit that was, but frightened people say strange things, don’t they? Simmons, of course, is emblematic of almost everything that’s wrong with television news, as anyone knows who watches the shockingly trivial kids'  magazine junk that ITN pushes out at 10PM every night;  and the Times never told us why these warranties didn’t protect people from David James Smith’s hidden McCann  promotion  [an indispensable insight to it can be found here]
Ethics Man
 
Or, to take the most obvious example,  how did those lofty standards and structures protect us against the green and stinking rotten meat that journalist Tony Parsons dumped in our laps  week after week in 2007, deifying a couple he knew literally nothing about and insulting in nauseating  terms the Portuguese, one of the most decent and civilized peoples in the world?   Had he received an education in the different European cultures or any real education at all?  No, of course not. Was he trained? Yes, on the job - at the New Musical Express, a pop promo-sheet aimed at other semi-literate teenagers. Ethics? No, f*****g Essex. Did he have a reputation to protect? Tony Parsons? Reputation?
Still, we can  stop rehashing  these old arguments because events are now moving so fast that the MSM itself dare not make them any longer. Instead they’ve gone for  the “Fake News”  stuff which, according to them, is a deadly virus infecting Facebook, Twitter and, of course, Breitbart and which, wait for it, may have saddled America with a madman. Oh, if only they’d listened to us!

Post-modern, innit?

Pull the other one. Twice in the last couple of weeks alone the London Times, David James Smith’s  old paper, has been caught inventing news on a huge scale, [ link here ] news which other, supposedly “quality”, papers as well as the broadcasters followed up noisily and in detail for days, despite having had  cast-iron evidence provided to them that it was fake. That's how it is now.
This tendency has been growing  for years but it’s the nervous breakdown induced by Brexit and now Trump that has revealed just  how the Death Ride of 2007 foretold things to come for the MSM: it is now a husk, hollowed-out by infiltrators cleverer than itself, spinning sensationalist “opinions” (inventions) around news agency tapes – just like Facebook clickbait sites. And it's skint.
Some warranty, eh? Everybody with any intelligence – and, granted, that leaves a few people out – uses the net. They use it carefully, if they’re interested in the facts or don’t want to get hurt –  both of which, as the Bureau never tires of pointing out to the Cesspit floaters, are the same thing. The net reflects the wild, often crooked and unsavoury chaos of life itself while the media image of life is pure fiction. People with sense, though, know that just as you can't use the media but only passively consume it, you have to use the net or else it will use you: result  Click and Regret!
Only the barmy or thick choose an hotel on the basis of a single Trip Advisor review: the rest of us know the site is crammed with shills, paid promoters, people with a grudge and all the rest of it. What do we do? We read a good selection analytically, use Google Earth if we want to, weed out the dross and about 99.99% of the time we end up in a hotel in the Alps with a view  as beautiful as its website pics suggest and no Tyrolean dancing. And the same goes for the rest of the net. In spades. But what about a hotel review in the travel pages of the MSM? The Times, say. How do we use or evaluate that? How do we claim on the warranty?

No Returns!

The real death sentence for the current MSM model is that you can’t use it because it's one-way and they deliberately hide everything you need to know. It’s not accountability that the MSM lacks, as  Scouser   Leveson insisted, it’s transparency - and that will never change now. We can suss out the dodgy Trip Advisor hotel write-ups most of the time but what can we do against a corrupt and obsolete culture of hiding everything that matters?

Like, in this trivial instance, who provided the hotel story? What perks did the journalist get? Was a PR company or other hollowing-out parasite involved?  Did  any of them  know the owner? Trivial, yes. But not trivial at all when the story’s not about an hotel but about a politician’s life and sexual tastes or a crucial vote or a couple of vulgar arguidos in a missing child horror case. When someone on the net - no names - makes a claim but can't produce evidence for it then at least we can follow it up and see the deception for ourselves - even if pointing it out to suckers is a waste of time. Yet  the MSM has got away with the "a source said" rubbish for decades without anyone condemning its obvious invitation to deceive.
And all that, of course, applies to David James Smith  and the Times when they so accurately foreshadowed the future of the MSM with the McCann story. They never made it clear how  Beyond the Smears was provided to the Times, never told us how  the couple’s PR spinners were involved, never told us what agreements, tacit or otherwise, had been made with the couple, never told us about the significant gaps in the narrative, never said what control the pair had over content. Most of all they never helped us with the  question that we now know matters most in the modern  information  world, the question that you need an answer to before doing anything, even reading on – why was it written? Whether on the net or the MSM, whether the subject is Bitcoin, Viagra,  Tony Blair or Brexit - why was it written? Who gains? 
That David James Smith article was in fact a trailer for all that  the MSM was to become. We didn't enter the media-created "Post-Fact World" in 2016. We glimpsed it in 2007 and it stank as much then as it does now. Then it was the stink of deception; now it's the  stench of MSM putrefaction as it rots away.