@DrewPavlou Sarah says it was a comedy routine. Jewish people 'scared of protesters'. Can you imagine? Ha ha ha! So funny, Sarah. https://t.co/RVnMVML4h3
Israel stymies Hezbollah's Attack
A comment on the media covering the most complicated story in the world at the moment - badly.
It is fascinating how yesterday the coverage of the Hezbollah 'revenge' attack on Israel and Israel's successful preemption was covered completely wrongly by all the major reputable oldfashioned media greats - BBC, ITV, NYT, all of whom claimed that Israel was attacking and 'escalating' and Hezbollah, a victim of Israeli 'escalation', was reacting.
This was despite that fact that Hezbollah launched unprovoked attacks on Israel on 8Oct and ever since has bombarded N Israel, most recently leading to the massacre of Druze children playing football. Hezbollah has so far sent 8000 missiles. But despite the fact that Hezbollah itself was announcing and boasting of its huge attack on Israel at the time, the media ignored this and instead announced on all major bulletins that Israel was escalating war to which Hezbollah the victim was reacting..... In other words, our prestige media was actually altering the story in order to cover up what Hezbollah was not only admitting but boasting about in public announcements that we could read on say twitter.
It was only next day that the story changed and these media reported the story correctly, partly because Hezbollah chief Nasrullah himself broadcast and said that Hezbollah had with great success hit Israel (though incidentally he also great exaggerated Hezbollah's success and did not even mention that Israel had destroyed many missile launchers on the ground....)
This follows a pattern that has repeated itself ever since Oct7 where a dramatic event happens, it is quickly packaged by Hamas or Hezbollah into a shocking tragedy or escalation which is then reported widely by all media (particularly a few effective terrorist assets who unquestioningly repeat their stories without any attempt to confirm them @skynews@BBCNews ) and politicians issue shocked denunciations.
Often Hamas Houthi or Hezbollah elements have in fact boasted of their own crimes online, filmed on their own cameras, but in these cases, Western media actually protects them from their own admissions (as happened on Oct 7 where Hamas fighters were downloading atrocities while Western professors well known historians and correspondents were insisting these were lies, crimes that noble resistance fighters would never commit.)
Gradually (usually thanks to twitter, FB, whatsapp and osint etc) it emerges many of these stories are actually.... urr.... untrue. Totally untrue. There was no massacre or it was not Israel that was escalating but the v opposite was true - as in this case. And noone sees the need to correct themselves afterwards.
This is not just about the extreme bias against Israel in the coverage. But that is part of it. Once admired outlets like BBC have such entrenched bias that they automatically publish an anti Israel story even when the evidence available online and on the wires contradicts it openly. (I am not grumbling about cricitism of Israel per se. There is lots of criticise in what is happening in Israel today and that is rightly reported - particularly this week the disgusting attacks by fanatic settlers on Palestinians in the West Bank; the pyromaniacal provocations on Temple Mount and WBank by the repellent BenGvir, the illtreatment of Palestinian prisoners and more...)
But what this means is: as a reader and listener, if you still believe in these media, you are sometimes being told the truth and sometimes you are being fed a total lie. Even if you are anti-Israel but would like to hear the truth (there are many anti-Israel fanatics who dont want to hear the truth but this doesnt apply to them), you can no longer depend on BBC Sky NYT particularly in the early stages of a story. They have been repeatedly wrong and stubbornly refuse to self correct and learn from their mistakes.
This is a cousin of the fashion for media to censor and ban stories that are against their perceived interests: for example there was the famous story of Hunter Biden's computer, the ludicrous intelligence dossier 'compiled' against Trump; the most recently the fact that President Biden was deteriorating mentally and physically was concealed; his health and dynamism promoted even though everyone knew it was a lie. Except the poor readers of course who trusted the story. Then the story changed: Biden was so old that he had to go and VP Kamala Harris became the candidate...
This matters because our liberal democracies depend on a trusted media that gives truthful news - even on complex fastmoving stories like US presidential politics or even more so the Middle East. But this is not happening. We all attack worrying aspects of Twitter etc but actually we need these outlets in order to check the BBC for example because, due to an extraordinary process of self mutilation and degradation, our great media institutions are destroying their own prestige and trust thanks to their own cultures, factionalism activism sectarianism, whatever you want to call it.
From now on everyone should check the prestige media but since its often not just wrong but upsidedownly wrong, one should check online on FB,
whatapp Twitter etc, with trusted commentators and threads and with OSINT sources and others to find out what is really happening. The self harm to these prestige media has already hugely helped malign powers, Russia, Iran, China, not to speak of terrorists who are opposed to everything every value we believe in such as Hezbollah, corrupting and tainting the trust in media that is so essential to our open societies. If the prestige media does not at some point correct itself, our democracies will be hugely undermined....
This is partly about resisting lies, but partly too about resisting autocracy and disinformation. Our values are worth fighting you and you the reader, the consumer, the citizen can help by pointing out when these stories are false and demanding accurate reporting. Or go elsewhere.
If they are lying about these things, soon they will be misleading readers on something that really matters to you immediately.... and the moment will be lost
https://t.co/YKxar7GcLr via @WSJopinion
Can't wait to see you at Yossi Vardi's rebranded D.L.D. now called the 🇮🇱 Tel Aviv SPARKS Innovation Summit ⚡. Our 22nd Pair-Up event is open! Come if you're looking to build on a new idea 💡, or need to 🏎 accelerate your current idea. 😎
https://t.co/1zXdhtIotc
@MusicOfLee On the other hand, if your focus is on physical manipulation of the sound source, then electric guitar and theremin would need to be allowed, and the focus is not on the sound-production membrane, but on the human-instrument interface.
@MusicOfLee Fascinating thread! Obvious to me, but not top of thread-- it sounds to me like you are asking for instruments whose primary sound production is NOT via electro-magnetic membrane oscillation, aka 'speakers'.
@MusicOfLee This definition allows electric-powered pipe organ, electric-powered player piano, electric guitar sans amplifier. It disallows the theremin, analog synthesizers. It allows quiet instruments that are often amplified.
@leashless Keys would be best. He could also show PGP signed emails, or email content that only Satoshi could have verified by a sender. A great topic, how can Satoshi prove who he is? I covered it here, FYI https://t.co/fkjuLKz4ik