Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Main Stream Media And Deception

Sarcasm to break the stranglehold on news 
I work in deception detection, from sunrise to sunset, and then some.

It is my life's work and it is impossible for me to "shut it down" and put my brain to sleep.

Just this morning, I woke up at 1:30AM with another "aha!" moment where I was able to identify the author of an anonymous letter sent to a company.  I knew, after working on it all afternoon with another analyst, and all night, that this would happen:  some critical point would come to me while I attempted to sleep.

I cannot turn off deception detection, yet for all the good that comes of it, there is a price to pay.

There can be something heartbreaking about certain aspects of detecting a lie.  The most widely covered theme is romantic deception, but this is really limited to one specific area where the most trauma is produced:

Where one spouse has no element of suspicion but believes that he or she has a happy marriage.  This surprise is to produce the most acute trauma including suicide, suicidal ideation, depression, anxiety, long term health issues, and so on.

This is not to minimize the agony of, for example, finding out one's suspicions are confirmed, but is to state that the most long term negative impact seems to correlate with the level of shock.

There are others, including costly mortgage fraud, car purchase fraud, and others, yet there is an overall lack of trust that can settle in, especially in a period of history where deception and propaganda rule main stream media.

There is always damage but today there is a crisis of confidence in media's reporting, itself.  It is also not new, but it appears to have gained significant traction during a time where we have learned just how much spying our government has done on its own citizens.

In my own life time, I have always been a "news hound", growing up listening to 24 hour a day CBS Newsradio 88.  As a boy, I trusted the news, and each morning, read the sports pages and a few news headlines along the way.

While a boy, I was given an early lesson in dirty journalism and struggled to understand how this worked.

In 1977, New York Mets' pitching ace, Tom Seaver, was up for a new contract and the General Manager, M. Donald Grant had held a level of contempt and resentment towards Seaver after Seaver and his wife moved to Greenwich, Connecticut and joined an exclusive country club.  Grant was of the mindset that Seaver was "rank and file" and country club was for "management upper class only", so he gave a few "tips" to sports writers to seek to bring down Seaver's value to the franchise, in the eyes of the public,  to the point of touching his popularity for the purpose of saving money.

When this failed, Grant had one reporter do what was "the unthinkable" to Seaver and mentioned Seaver's wife, Nancy, claiming "she was jealous" of Nolan Ryan's salary.  Seaver was infuriated  that his wife was brought into things, knew Grant was behind it, but still  took the bait, demanding a trade, allowing Grant to  then defend himself and say, "Yes, I know he is The Franchise and the greatest Met but he demanded a trade!  There was nothing I could do!"

Collusion between the wealthy and media goes back to the first printing press, so it is not new, but for many, it still does not sit well.

American media, year after year during the Tour De France, left a single journalist to do battle himself, against Lance Armstrong and whenever the journalist was singled out, they remained silent.  They had this amazing cancer survivor story that they were not going to bust.

More recently, this summer we have seen the crisis of confidence not just in the United States, but across the world.

"women and children refugees'
German media admitted not warning locals of the rape epidemic committed by migrants, who they called "Syrian war refugees" deliberately, so as not to "galvanize the opposing political party."  Opposing political party?  They knew that by not warning citizens, some women would be raped by the migrants, and they remained silent.  Even now when reported, one of the rapes this week was on the 13th paragraph down from the headlines.

Barak Obama publicly condemned Fox News, and not only barred certain journalists, but gained the reputation for the most "non-transparent administration ever" among journalist supporters.

Last month at a Hillary Clinton event media broke out and gave her a standing ovation.  Media did this.

Perhaps the worst, however, is the collusion between UK police and media in the Rotherdam rape crisis where up to 2,000 young girls and teens were raped by Islamic supremacists who regularly groomed and drugged them.  Even the BBC wrote that "1400 girls..." were victims, which, if you are familiar with the BBC, you likely expected them to under-report.  In Rotherham, at least 1400 girls, as young as 11 years old were raped, many multiple times, as the Islamic gangs isolated and groomed children that were in group homes, foster homes, and otherwise vulnerable.

They will suffer for the rest of their lives. Had police only warned school officials, right upon dismissal, these young girls could have been kept safe until they reached their homes.  Tania Cadogan has commented upon this more than a few times, here at the Statement Analysis blog.

Deception has a terrible price.

But why?

What could possibly be the motive for this deception via silence?

Why did police and media conspire to keep this from the public?

The perpetrators were Islamics and police feared being called "racist" and media did not want to "contribute" to racism.

Many of these children were sent home by police and social workers who scolded  them as "child prostitutes."

One woman, grown now, with children of her own, in desperate need of money for therapy, had a group start a "go fund me" for her last summer.  While $43,000 was raised for "fake hate" less than $1,000 was raised for her.

I did not know that such a thing as a "child prostitute" could exist.  I have known some women who did prostitute out their children and I have dealt with some of these exploited children, one of whom, weekly, walked into my daughter's room and utterly destroyed her dolls.

She was about 5 years old when she did this. Each week she would play nice but target one doll and by the end of the day, the doll was shredded to pieces.  The hard plastic faces were targeted the most.

In spite of it, my daughter, a little younger, invited her over again, week by week.  "She doesn't have a daddy" she would remind me.  Her father was dead and her mother was selling her and her sister on the Long Island Rail Road for cigarette money.  Dying of AIDS, she spoke to me without the slightest hint of guilt over her many children.  She repeatedly threatened child protective services of NYC that unless they gave her money money, she would get pregnant again.

She kept that threat at least 7 times before she died.

Those that are immune from the negative consequences often lecture the loudest.

It is like the wealthy who call for no borders and no guns, while living in gated communities, and having armed security as if their lives are worth more than our lives.

A talk show host news program had reported, oddly enough, the explosive issues in the South China Sea in a way that seemed oddly to favor China.  Reuters called the station, got a major run around and eventually learned that...

The Chinese government had purchased the station.

Watching sports on television, I commented this summer my appreciation for professional sports to take the time to honor the military with some pre-game ceremonies.  It seemed to be a "decent thing" to me.

I just learned that they were paid to host military honor events by the Pentagon to do so.

This week, across the nation, the headline read, "Ben Carson Admits Lying!" which, as readers here well know, caught my attention.  I did what many people do, and hit "play" on the audio to hear Dr. Carson's mea culpa.  He had written that he was offered a scholarship by West Point while in high school, but not only was there no proof of this, West Point does not give out scholarships; it is by appointment.  Plus, he has now "admitted" his lie, so I want to post it for analysis.

I have found none, but did find various media outlets calling "Politico" who broke the story only to report that Politico isn't returning phone calls and isn't playing a sound bite, nor actually naming the person to whom Dr. Carson admitted lying, and...

I have two family members who graduated from West Point.  Both were sports stars and before acceptance, when we discussed how in the world it would be afforded, my sister said it was a "full scholarship"  and then went into detail about appointment, grants, etc, and the pattern was typical:

A dedicated high school coach sends out letters to various colleges when there exists outstanding candidates of which schools will send scouts or, in the case of West Point, if the coach knows the student is interested, has the athletic ability and the extremely high grades necessary, contacts WP, who will send a representative who encourages application,  via a non binding offer, the "scholarship", which is later explained in detail where the money comes from.

Carson, going from hot seat to hot seat, did not issue a reliable denial instead opting to say it was a lie and that lying is a moral failure.  A denial that is not reliable doesn't mean deception, unless there is more to it, or the setting and context dictate the clarity, such as a straight forward allegation where one sees the allegation and must say, "I did not steal" or "I did not rape..." and so on.

Sometimes, the allegation is not clear and in interviews, I have given subjects many opportunities to deny it.  Some will say, "Oh, no way I would do that", which is not reliable, only to then say, "I did not do it..." clearly.  Once, in thinking that the subject did not do it, but did not issue a reliable denial, I said, "If you were going to write to the judge on this, what would you write?" to which he said, "but I would not write to the judge!", so I said, "Why not?" and he said, "because I didn't *****"


Politico has now answered the charges of lying and has updated their story and blamed the NY Times.  They use the phrase "per se" appropriately:  exactly the way I understood "scholarship" for family and exactly what a 17 year old kid would understand as well.

"An application to West Point begins with a nomination by a member of Congress or another prominent government or military official. After that, a rigorous vetting process begins. If offered admission, all costs are covered for all students; indeed there are no “full scholarships,” per se."

Over the course of an interview it becomes up to the skill of the analyst to make his conclusion.  A man once was asked if he had killed his son, outside of court.  He said, "I won't even dignify that with an answer!" to which some wrote to me saying, "there it is!  He did it!  He can't deny it!"

The context gave the answer to why the question was sensitive:  He was not a suspect.

Contextually, he was shocked by the question.

I once had a woman repeat my questions back to me.

The questions were sensitive to her.


I asked.

She had major hearing loss.

It is one of the many reasons I encourage formal training of those who are serious about lie detection.

Here, I am alerting some to the understanding that "with knowledge comes much sorrow" in that some people have said that they best enjoy the bliss of ignorance.

In some settings, I agree with them.

Readers here frequently reference main stream or "corporate" media in the negative and I agree:  I do not trust them.

Corporate Media (including Yahoo, BBC, Der Spiegel, NY Times, etc) reported on the Oktoberfest recently.

I have always admired German quality.  My car is German, my shoes are German, and even my dog is all German bloodlines.  I like German Oktoberfest ales, too.

If you read them about Oktoberfest and the migrants you might have come to this portrait in your head:

"Your average German citizen vomits on a public side walk to celebrate Oktoberfest while the poor war weary refugee looks on, pensively, wondering what decadent society she has brought her young chidden to."

In MSM, who are those who do not want Islamic supremacist males, aged 18-30 in their towns?

MSM never fails to use "xenophobic" and "right wing" and the word "Nazi" as well.

If socialism is left wing and capitalism is right wing, why are National Socialists called "far right"?

We look at what happens when someone says, "Uh, I don't think global warming is real" or worse, what happens when a scientist reports it.  The vilification sets in, but think of its source:

The news media.

They are supposed to be reporting the news.

How ironic is "Fox" news' title?

Ever turn it on at, say, 1PM in the afternoon and there are six women in mini-skirts and none of them are unfortunate looking?

What happened to reporting the news?

Then, to show that they are "fair and balanced" they irritate me with shill commentators on both sides.

Why not report the news?

MSNBC's hosting of a presidential debate made our country's media look like a joke.

We saw how bizarre the celebrity status of news reporters (they are reporters, not news "makers") cross over to insane with Brian Williams.

"Newscaster, Brian Williams today, rescued 2, no that is 3 puppies, from a burning fire as the kittens were almost in critical condition, just before boarding a plane to Iraq where he was shot at by ISIS, as bodies were flying across inexpensive coach, where he was able to, single handedly, take control of the massive jet and land it safely in Somalia, just in time to celebrate an Islamic Gay Pride parade after dropping off food in the Sudan."

Glamour Magazine awards "Woman of the Year" to a 65 year old grandfather who killed somebody with his car but dolls up like a college co-ed.

Planned Parenthood butchers sell body parts for really expensive sports cars.

If someone comes to the United States, he cannot be checked to see if he is a wanted murderer, but we will undress an 89 year old woman for a strip search before she enters an airplane.

Our main stream media has not told us the truth on major news stories.

Even when caught, they backpedal and like politicians, they invent new words.

When a politician now says what they believe in, should the public's belief be different, the politician no longer is to be seen as not having a backbone, but

"my position has evolved."

This is supposed to be the new moral high ground.

The problem with this form of evolution is now no politician is ever committed to any single issue.

Those of us who believe voting for someone due to moral character have long been laughed out, but those of us who want to know where a politician stands on a given issue, no longer possess the ability to actually know.

The politician's stance may just "evolve" to something we disagree with.

No comments:

Post a Comment