The burden of truth

"There is a burden of truth on all of us. There is a weight of responsibility to not give legitimacy to those who do not deserve it" Gemma Tognini "Media regards claims of murderous monsters as legitimate"

Gemma has hit the bull's eye again with her piece (see link above) articulating what many of us have concluded about Main Stream Media. I am not new to criticising the media, just look at the many posts I have penned over the years (see Media related posts ). 

Given the horrendous, unspeakable atrocities perpetrated by Hamas on Oct 7, I expected that the civilised world would speak with one voice. A singular, unquestioning, unambiguous, unqualified voice of condemnation. Yet I was wrong. It did not take even one week for the apologists for Hamas to take to the streets condemning not Hamas but Israel. I guess some reaction from the Islamists, and their useful idiots was not really surprising, but what was and remains surprising, at least to me, is the lack of moral clarity by the media. These are educated, trained journalists who should be able to discern the truth. Professional journalists would be expected to ask questions and evaluate commentary based on the credibility of their sources. Most of all I would expect a commitment to truth. But no. Too many journalists have failed their profession. 

They have accepted as true statements from those who have shown no respect for truth. From those who have been shown repeatedly to have lied. What can you say about a journalist who reports as true, without qualification, claims of 10000 dead civilians, when their source, Hamas,  had claimed 500 civilians had been killed by the Israeli bombing of a hospital which was later proved to be false. It was not Israel but a Palestinian rocket misfire, it was not 500 but about 50 and it had not destroyed the hospital but the car-park of the hospital. Ok so they did it once. But then they made repeated claims that the Al Shifa hospital was not being used by Hamas and that Israel was guilty of war crimes for attacking a hospital When Israel stated they had evidence that it was being used by Hamas, the media started qualifying the reporting saying "Israeli spokesmen claim that the hospital was being used by Hamas". Suddenly they qualify when it comes to claims by Israel but make no such qualifications when reporting on civilian deaths claimed by Hamas.

As a result, Israel has had to do its own media reporting to ensure the truth was told. They have published videos proving that the hospital had been used by Hamas for a long time given the existence of large reinforced tunnels built directly under the hospital. They also released a video from the hospital's internal video systems showing that hostages captured on Oct 7 were taken to the hospital. The truth laid bare despite all the lies.

YouTube Video of the tunnels under Al Shifa hospital

YouTube video showing Al Shifa hospital's security video showing Hamas transporting hostages. As this is adult content to view it you will have to follow the links and view it on YouTube

So what about our media. They have been shown to have had no respect for the truth. Indeed they have not had respect for the truth for a long time. The Shifa hospital was part of the Hamas infrastructure going back at least a decade. And it is unbelievable that the doctors who work there did not know, nor indeed that the media did not know it.

It reminds me of the MeToo movement that seemed to burst into our newspapers only after one brave victim of Harvey Weinstein's sexual misconduct spoke out. Then of course many a victim then came out of the woodwork to join the accusing crowd. In that case, too, it was well known that Weinstein had been a sexual predator, yet no one, not one of the strongly outspoken feminists who had been abused had had the courage to call it out. 

It has taken an all-out war between Israel and Hamas to call out the media lies that have provided support for Hamas' public relations. With Weinstein, the victims and their supporters came together as a group to ensure Weinstein was punished. Now that the media acolytes have been exposed will we see the media call out Hamas for its lies? Will the media confess their own complicity? I doubt it.

But Gemma's words resound more than ever. 

"There is a burden of truth on all of us. There is a weight of responsibility to not give legitimacy to those who do not deserve it"

Unmasking the real cost of EVs

 A recent paper OVERCHARGED EXPECTATIONS: UNMASKING THE TRUE COSTS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES by The Texas Public Policy Foundation provides a sobering assessment. 

The executive summary highlights the economic aspects of electric vehicle (EV) ownership and the challenges associated with the transition from internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) to EVs. 

While the report relates specifically to the US, it does illustrate the misleading headline figures that are driving EV sales. I would expect similar issues in all countries pursuing the move to EVs.

Key points include

• A comprehensive analysis of the costs associated with electric vehicle (EV) ownership is crucial for a holistic understanding of the economic landscape surrounding the attempted mass transition from internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) to EVs.
• Major selling points promoted by EV advocates are lower maintenance and fueling costs over the life of the vehicle and the common claim that reductions in battery prices will eventually make EVs less expensive to own than ICEVs.
• A study conducted by a group at the Argonne National Laboratory estimated that while an average EV is about $22,000 more expensive to purchase than a comparable ICEV, they cost about $14,000 less to fuel, insure and maintain over a 15-year period, making their lifetime cost only $8,047 more than an ICEV.
• No one has attempted to calculate the full financial benefit of the wide array of direct subsidies, regulatory credits, and subsidized infrastructure that contribute to the economic viability of EVs.
• The average model year (MY) 2021 EV would cost $48,698 more to own over a 10-year period without $22 billion in government favours given to EV manufacturers and owners.
• EV advocates claim that the cost of electricity for EV owners is equal to $1.21 per gallon of gasoline, but the cost of charging equipment and charging losses averaged out over 10 years and 120,000 miles, is $1.38 per gallon equivalent on top of that.
• Adding the costs of the subsidies to the true cost of fueling an EV would equate to an EV owner paying $17.33 per gallon of gasoline. 
• And these estimates do not include the hundreds of billions more in subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act (2022) for various aspects of the EV supply chain.

Is journalistic ethics an oxymoron?

"Moral clarity", "moral compass", and "Moral fog", are phrases used frequently nowadays to expose arguments that support actions with a flawed ethical basis. Most common recently in relation to the Oct 7 Hamas attack on Israeli civilians, but of course applicable in many other areas of cultural conflict.

                                

So what is moral clarity? While not easy to define for any situation, hypothetical questions provide some insight by focusing on dilemmas where we have to make choices. Our choice of right or wrong highlights our moral compass. For ourselves at least.

Here are three hypothetical questions to let you clarify your own position.

Question 1; You are a journalist confronted by an active crime scene. A young man has a woman by the throat and is trying to rape her. Do you; -

1. Try to stop him and liberate the woman?

2. Call for help and try to help her?

3. Take out your mobile phone and start filming the rape?

Question 2: You are a television journalist and your producer has inside information of where and when a protest will take place in front of a private residence. He wants you to go and cover the protest together with a film crew. You are told the protest is on a private residence so you are to ensure you do not violate trespassing laws.

Do you

1.  Follow your producer's instructions and go to the property without alerting the owner of the property?

2. Tell your producer that you would be an accomplice and therefore do not accept the assignment?

3. Inform the authorities and let them know where and when the illegal protest will take place then go and cover the protest?

Question 3; You are a photo journalist and your producer has asked you to attend a military action by a terrorist organisation. Your producer has asked you to cover the action to provide a professional record.

You know this is going to be violent and on a large scale

Do you

1. Follow your instructions and join the group as an observer to record the 'action'?

2. Tell your producer that you refuse to go as you do not want to be an accomplice to the actions of a terrorist group

3, Do you advise the authorities where and when a terrorist attack is to take place and then go and cover the action?

And a second part to this last hypothetical. 

Question 3 part 2

You had decided to go and create a record without informing the authorities who could prevent it. You now find that the terrorists are carrying out a massacre, murdering, raping, butchering, burning, decapitating,

Do you

1. Cover the story with pictures and live narrative?

2. Refuse to take part in any way?

3 Try to help those being massacred?

Of course, these are pointed questions. Unfortunately, the scenarios are not totally hypothetical,  Question 2 is based around the protest covered by Australia’s ABC where the TV crew covered an anti-mining protest at Woodside CEO's Perth residence (see Woodside files formal complaint with ABC over CEO protest. They chose not to let the victim know but took part in what they knew would be an illegal action. What do you think of the ABC's ethics?

And worse still Question 3. There was a CNN journalist embedded with the Oct 7 Hamas massacre of Israeli civilians. Yes, really. Hard to believe. Of course, some questions on ethics are now being asked, but this is after the event.

(see story Photographers Without Borders: AP & Reuters Pictures of Hamas Atrocities Raise Ethical Questions)

These questions are of course not easy. I can hear journos providing a variety of excuses for moral compromises; 

• "If we let authorities know, then we would never have informers
• "The crimes would have occurred even if we were not there, but then the world would not know about them? Surely it is better to shine a light on such events?”
• "We never break the law"

Mmm. I guess that is where the moral clarity is missing and moral fog takes over.

We cannot relinquish the streets to the mob!

 Repercussions of Hamas' barbaric attack on Israeli citizens are percolating throughout the world with continued rocket fire by Hamas, the severe bombing of military targets by Israel, and most recently a full-force ground invasion, with the rest of the world polarising. Most Western democracies have stood strongly by Israel and support their mission to eliminate Hamas. But so too, most Western democracies have a noisy minority voicing general anti-Israeli sentiments, together with antisemitic tropes. The minority is too often allowed to march and given implied support by an activist-biased media. Unfortunately, we have been here before. The magnitude of the attack by Hamas is however unprecedented, a ubiquitous word nowadays, so we are in new territory. The coming weeks will tell.

I have been shocked by the barbarism and even more by the many of my fellow citizens who have failed to condemn it but rather support it. I am dismayed by the marches and demonstrations shouting anti-semitic slogans. But most of all I am astounded by the failure of our police to enforce the laws against illegal demonstrations and hate speech. With such a blatant violation of the law, inaction clearly sends a message, that we will not enforce hate speech laws if they are directed at Israel or Jews. It is like a time warp to the 1930s with Hitler gangs and marches. What is the base reason for such moral inversion? Is it playing for Muslim votes as some have excused, or is it something far more serious? Is it plain and simple cowardice? The police have no problem breaking up unauthorised demonstrations by peaceful anti-lockdown protesters, even using rubber bullets to break up the demonstration and arrest large numbers. Yet they have no appetite to break up a belligerent crowd fomenting hatred of Israel and Jews. Is it sympathy with the cause? I don’t know but think it is cowardice. Cowardice in the face of a loud belligerent angry mob. Fair enough they fear that they may be hurt in the melee. But if that is really the case they have the wrong job. We need police who will apply the law without FEAR or favour. Without FEAR! Also, there has been no follow-up on those who clearly broke hate speech laws in their harangues to the crowd. They were identifiable. They clearly broke the law. But was the law enforced?. Were they arrested? Has anyone been charged? Not to my knowledge.

Cowardice in the face of a minority who intimidates even our law enforcement is clearly unacceptable. We cannot, must not, relinquish peace and safety to the rule of the mob. 

It is time to hold the Police Commissioners and the Ministers of Police accountable and replace them with those who have the courage to do their jobs. In NSW we need both the Minister of Police Yasmin Catley and Police Commissioner Karen Webb to be sacked. Premier Minns if you fail to replace these people, then you yourself will share the blame and your electorate will hold you accountable via the ballot box. It will become your failure to replace those who have not done their jobs to keep our streets safe. You cannot abandon the Jewish citizens of your state because they are a small minority. Failure to enforce the law reflects on all of us. How can any of us feel safe if the laws intended to protect us are not enforced?

Time to leave UN and create a new world body of - United Democratic Nations

The United Nations (UN) was established in 1945 with the aim of promoting international cooperation and maintaining global peace and security. However, while it may have had some success as a forum for discourse it has utterly failed to maintain global peace and security. Worse still, it has become a pulpit for dictators and malevolent blocks to bully the weaker countries. In recent years it has evolved to become a supra-national legislative body usurping the rights and obligations of a democratic country to serve its population. 

Of course, much of this is not surprising. After all, while the UN purports to represent the world of nations, they do not represent the world of people. Many of the UN's nations do not represent their own citizens, as they are not democratic and do not hold regular, free elections. 

There are many reasons the UN is not working, including;-

1. Dictatorships: The UN has a large number of member states that are dictatorships or authoritarian regimes. These countries often use their veto power to block resolutions that go against their interests, making it difficult for the UN to take action on important issues.
2. Human Rights Council: The UN’s Human Rights Council has member states with very poor human rights records. This undermines the credibility of the council and makes it difficult for it to effectively address human rights abuses around the world.
3. Disproportionate resolutions: The vast majority of the UN’s resolutions are used to demonise just two countries, the US and Israel. At the same time, they ignore serious abuses by other member states.
4. Ineffectiveness: The UN has never prevented a war, nor has it stopped one. Clearly, this is because its members are not all democratic countries that value the lives of all citizens.

Given these failures, there is a strong case for establishing a new world body modelled on the United Nations but with stricter membership criteria. Such a body could require that member states be democratic and have free and fair elections on a regular basis.  This would ensure that only countries committed to human rights and democratic values are represented.

Such a body would have significant benefits; -

1. Democratic representation: Requiring member states to be democratic would promote democratic values and reduce the influence of authoritarian regimes.
2. Improved effectiveness: Unlike the old UN, the new UDN would be able to provide peacekeeping assistance for conflict resolution and even military force to resolve wars started by belligerent states.  
3. Reduced bias: Members of UDN being respected democratic states would remove the incongruence of a UNHRC having members who have abused Human Rights. The UDN would avoid accusations of bias and a lack of impartiality. 
4. Greater accountability: A new world body could be more accountable than the UN. Democratic states generally provide more transparency and accountability.

The UN is clearly not working. Even today, while it is fomenting violence in the Middle East, Iran is to Chair UN Human Rights Forum. What a farce!

Surely, it is time to call time on the United Nations and create a new United Democratic Nations to provide responsible, democratic leadership to our troubled world.