Protest group Pussy Riot, long a thorn in Vladimir Putin's side, has claimed responsibility for four people who brought the World Cup final to a brief halt by running onto the field dressed in police uniforms as the Russian President and a global audience watched.


Stewards tackled the three women and one man who charged onto the field simultaneously in the 52nd minute of one of the world's most viewed sporting events.

Croatia defender Dejan Lovren pushed the man, helping a steward to detain him.

Before being hauled away, one of the women reached the centre of the field and shared a double high-five with France forward Kylian Mbappe.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-16/world-cup-final-interrupted-by-pus...
————————————

I am NOT a journalist. But I do feed on information and analysis of this information. It's human. I saw this invasion of the pitch on the Tele. Thank you SBS. My 2:34 AM blurry eyes saw it while I had the sound on mute  — for the whole game. The commentary of the World Cup is like a drone flying at low altitude and annoys my old brains. In the comfort of my own space, I could thus quietly yell to the French defender “don’t you pass the ball to the goal keeper, you moro…" that the goal keeper made a blue for the blues — and what should be considered the dumbest goal in the history of this WC was scored… Anyway, with the field invasion, the TV cameras seemed to hold back a bit and waiting. 

But the press is reporting on who claims the deed, in an example of some discreet bias. Suddenly four people disrupt the proceedings of a one billion plus audience. Disruption achieved. Putin is bad. He can’t even control Pussy Riot… In the days of Stalin ("I sometimes wish it was 1937," the man off screen says, referring to the year in which Stalinist purges were at their height)— or Any US President, though — Pussy Riot members would have been old dry bones in Siberia — or shot on the spot, should they’d been blacks in Texas. 

Putin is a more lenient sort of bloke. He will let the Russian justice system (did you notice? I did not place the word “justice” between quotes) deal with this according to the laws which would be similar to those in England or Zanzibar — about the invasion of soccer fields or cricket pitches during important events. Meanwhile, zoomlensing on his private box, the cameras showed us a RED(the cad, is he a commie or what?)-tied Putin in a shirt and no jacket, enjoying the soccer — seemingly free of worries before his own world cup with Donald Trump, in Finlandia. 

At the end Emperor Macron, as all gentlemen should do, kissed the president of Croatia, Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic (unless she was the kissing-initiator), while his wife looked on. Then it rained… Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic did not have an umbrella while all the blokes had one held up by their respective secret service personnel. How ungentlemanly, not to bring your own secret services…

So news can be fun or weird...

For example when two more people “were affected by the novichok poison”, one had to be circumspect about the details that were missing from the onset in this information. Yet the Russians are still blamed by end of articles about this “new” case with no proof, in relation to the other case where the Russians have not been proven either to be involved, but they are found guilty anyway “often not even allegedly" by the media. Then more information about this new poisoning comes about. It’s sketchy and “not adding up” — a bit like a puzzle you buy one piece of, every week at your newsagent to build a model of Nelson's Victory. 3,467 more weeklies to buy at random. In regard to the poison, it’s not clear yet to get a picture of what happened, and yet the Russian are still blamed by end of articles, reiterating the Skripal case, etc. Blah blah blah… One should smell a rat. 

But the media does its job: bash Putin. The media does not ask questions and lazily repeats allusion about the Russians and the Skripal case again. It fills columns space and we can show the pictures of “experts” in weird suit, giving inference of chemical warfare in the middle of Dorksville, Hammerset.

In regard to the Skripals, we are even told that “…before ordering the expulsions, Britain privately presented its case against Russia to other governments, including evidence that G.R.U. cyber specialists had hacked the email accounts of Mr. Skripal’s daughter in 2013. Both Mr. Skripal and his daughter were under surveillance before the attack, and her phone was possibly infected with malware to track her whereabouts, the BBC reported this month.” 

Have you seen the “evidence” presented as a PowerPoint document? A ten year old would know he/she is being lied to about Santa Claus. And what about this “possibly infected”? It is or it is not... At this level of news, one should know that most of the malware “infections” are done by the USA (see Wikileaks uncut secret files if you don’t believe me). "Both Mr. Skripal and his daughter were under surveillance”… Yes, but from whom? Russia? MI6? The Russian Mafia that hates Putin guts? The CIA? Father Christmas? Pussy Riot?

We are somewhat led to believe that these two new case people were just bystanders that had nothing to do with the Skripal case but got poisoned for “just” being… somewhere else? Not even that. Apparently a small bottle of Novichok was found at their premises. Were these people bottle collectors? How did it get there? How big is this small bottle? Is there enough poison to kill a few thousand people considering the damage one single drop of this stuff can do to the brain of retirees, even by being only deposited on the skin? Were these people the poisoners of the Skripals who acidently spilled some stuff onto themselves? Where they linked to the Russians or to the Russian Mafia? Are they ordinary retirees or retired spies? 

Not only we have not got all the pieces of the puzzle but the pieces we have do not add up. In this case, the media is at the mercy of the police (or MI-something) that can say anything it wants, with the media always adding at the end of their “articles” that the Russians are to be blamed for all this since they invented the poison… etc etc. 

Will we find more news titbits on this case, after the Soccer World Cup? After the Trump-Putin meeting in Finland? By february 2026? Sure we will get more bits but none that fit our model of Nelson’s Victory. Are we going to end this story with a question-mark, blaming Putin because we only can get a question-mark investigation? 

This is where the whole saga becomes so twisted, we cannot trust the bits anymore. Yet most people will stick to the headlines on their smartphones: “Two more people affected by Novichok poison. Putin to be blamed” end of story. They now know everything. These are really “troubling” news: Putin is a nasty man. Pussy Riot says so and 70 per cent plus 12 per cent of communists in Russia got it wrong when the re-elected Vladimir the Impaler. How much more do we want to know? Poison = Putin = Poison. Linked. Done. That’s what the authorities want you to believe. Don’t ask questions: WMDs = Saddam = WMDs. Same caper.

Of course this is unsastisfactory, but this is the level of news most people contend with. Instant noodle news. On the other hand, the story of 12 kids and a coach trapped in a cave got the "entire” (at least, not the martians) world busy talking. Amazing rescue! It's news in progress: will they get out alive? Will they not? We’re praying for them… Elon Musk makes a submarine and apparently calls the coach a pedo… Even Elon falls for the facile quip, unless he has info we do not have. Stick to batteries and rockets, you nutso...

In Japan, more than 200 people died and 500,000 got “displaced” because of a storm (possibly due to global warming but we’re not allowed to mention this), at the same time. But this news is “passé” already, that is to say, there is no “new” ongoing voyeuristic element in it. It happened. Done. Buried between two adverts, one for dishwashing liquid and another for vitamins. 

Yet the cave story appeal does not reach the cat videos viewing proportions. Or the ephemeral world cup.

Our journalistic voyeurism is unvoidably selective, especially on issues of internal politics and on Russia. We reinforce our prejudices because we need to, otherwise we would be swimming in uncertainty, like Donald's love. Cats are funny, not as funny as dogs, but they are more fluffy. So we are distracted. We are distractable and the smarter news will distract us more than others. News about movie stars and royalties are far bigger business than “Public Interest Journalism”. Some specialist journos will be assigned to cover the voyeuristic appeal of these movie stars and royalties — EVEN IF NOTHING REALLY HAPPENS. Grey is the new pink.

So what is the real problem of journalism? Lack of cash, mostly. Traditional revenues have plummetted due to the advertising dollar migrating to cat videos and other inane websites, like Google that prey on your short attention span. 

Mind you, a new dynamic has happened in the last few days: Google has tightened its searches. It blocks searches even if only one in a million items searched could be “contentious” or have tits in it. Bing is still a bit more vague, thus on some seaches it is “better” and Bing will throw in a few red herrings as well. 

All this butt-tightening has been due to the “fake news” phenomenom that has only existed since way before the birth of Jesus Christ… but it’s now, with the proliferation of information platforms that have relegated the pulpits to wood-piles they make Pinocchios out of, that we discovered there was some fake news about. 

It’s the new buzz: “fake news” has to be suppressed… Your government tells the truth.

Same with Twitter killing some accounts because… "Twitter has a history of dishonestly employing tools to limit free speech on their platform, from shadowbanning, to putting certain accounts behind warnings or “temporarily restricting” accounts for being “abusive”. All of these measures were introduced within the last year, and all have seemed to disproportionately affect anti-establishment figures, alternate news sites or independent journalists.” There you know.

While the idiot box is still attractive with Free-to-Air and cable, for viewers and advertisers alike, most of the newspapers barely survive by doing advertorials and “features”, in which specialists advertising is bunched for impact: holidays, hair transplant, tours, real estate, fishing, towns with all mod cons, pub crawls, cars, boats, you name it. Meanwhile real journalism is shrinking to having junior barely check the spelling of press releases by the government — and from time to time one coming from ICAC. 

The government is glorious and it says so itself, then one minister is caught with his/her hands in the till. But he/she won’t get sacked like they used to be in the old days. In nowadays of ball tempering cricket, they are offered their own option to “walk” or not. It’s disgraceful as the outcome becomes attached to the size of the offence rather than to the intent. 

Anyway, what do I know… So real journos are starting to panic. Katharine Murphy is one of them:
https://www.mup.com.au/books/9780522873795-on-disruption

 

On Disruption

Katharine MurphyThere is no way to know if the disruption will settle into a new normal, or whether chaos is the new normal.

The internet has shaken the foundations of life: public and private lives are wrought by the 24-hour, seven-day-a-week news cycle that means no one is ever off duty. On Disruption is a report from the coalface of that change: what has happened, will it keep happening, and is there any way out of the chaos?

“It's something everyone should read.”
GERALDINE DOOGUE
————————————————————————

Yes Geraldine… There is a malaise. Reporters cannot change into Supermen any more.

 

Can journalism and the news industry survive the perfect storm of digital disruption? Dr Martin Hirst reviews Katharine Murphy’s essay On Disruption

At only 120 pages, it would be unfair to expect Katharine Murphy to provide fully-articulated solutions to the almost panic-inducing problems confronting the mainstream media. Having said that, On Disruption is an insight into how establishment journalists see themselves, their mission and the state of their industry.

The key theme that Murphy explores is that the internet and social media instituted a period of disruption that has unsettled the news media and left it in a state of uncertainty that persists today.

This is true enough, but my criticism stems from the technological determinism that frames her view:

‘… the boss has decreed this is the future, not because he or she necessarily wants it to be, but because it is the future, and we are powerless to argue with it.’

This is a classic trope of technological determinism: the belief that technological change is the root cause of everything. In this case, it is the pessimistic, and ultimately passive, view that the future is somehow pre-ordained by the technology and that we are “powerless” to shape the future for ourselves.

Inevitably, Murphy argues, journalists must adapt to the new ways, rather than challenge them. The second telling point about the quote I’ve used here is the reference to “the boss”. This metaphorical figure is present in a long anecdotal metaphor that Murphy uses to explain how disruption has affected the news industry.

…..

Well, yes. But, unfortunately, as I’ve been arguing, this is actually harder than it might look from Murphy’s simple injunction. She is right that journalists need to be cautious and clever in how they report Trump so that what they do is not ‘straight out amplification’. I’ve made the point several times in recent columns for IA.

But I don’t think Katharine Murphy has the intellectual distance from the news establishment to see clearly how easy it is to get caught up in normalising Trump’s abnormal behaviour by just following what seem to be the cardinal rules of journalism — to report using a lens of objective pluralism.

‘Journalists have to watch the President and report. Watching powerful figures and keeping them accountable is the job.’

As we know, this is not enough when Trump blatantly tells dozens of lies every day and thrives on gaslighting his allies as much as his foes.

In the end, Katharine Murphy has laid bare a little of her soul and provides some useful insights into how a senior member of the news establishment sees her role and the wider journalistic profession.

Her conclusions are rightly pessimistic.

‘I don’t know if journalism will ultimately survive the great disruption, I don’t know if I can sustain myself as a journalist through this period of change or whether I will burn out or be tossed out or go crazy.’

Nevertheless and sadly in my view, Murphy’s choice is to carry on rather than resist.

‘But rather than worry ourselves to paralysis, my colleagues and I press on… and will go on doing that for as long as the endeavour remains viable.’

To me that sounds like playing in the band while the Titanic slips beneath the waves.

https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/on-disruption...

———————————————————

Gus: unfortunately, I think that Dr Martin Hirst own review of Katharine Murphy’s essay On Disruption, also falls a bit short. First, when the Titanic was sinking, the sea was flat as a pancake. There was no waves. Only an iceberg. I saw the movie.
So to continue with the iceberg analogy, I think that Dr Martin Hirst should get his hand on “The Crucial Role of Public Interest Journalism in Australia and the Economic Forces Affecting It”. It’s a report written by Henry Ergas, Jonathan Pincus and Sabine Schnittger. 
This very dry report, like the Gibber desert with plenty of stones unturned — that landed on Gus’ desk by accident — has also a lot of appendices and graphs showing this and that in the news consuming patterns and delivery, including the cost of “Public Interest Journalism”. It’s also grim, yet if fails to explore the real problem as it underhandedly blame the ABC for encroaching on the digital turf and the “defamation laws" that prevent the media from being nasty to people. 

They do not mention that opinionation has given “Public Interest Journalism” a bad name, by often mixing the two with boundaries rarely being well-defined. Henry Hergas would be familiar to the readers of Gus’ YD opinionations. Henry is an old American (or canadian?) guy, paid by Rupert, to harp on The Australian, about what we can’t mention — global warming. Henry is a full-blown denialist and a rabid neoconservative economist, as well. He’d like to see the ABC take a massive pay cut, like his own hair cut — a near full shave. Uncle Rupes loves him. He should kiss Ergas’ egg-polished head like Emperor Macronleon kissed that of French Soccer player, Kylian Mbappe, a new son. 

Gus has rambled at length on the subject of Public Interest Journalism way before one of his earlier published cartoons on YD in 2005, reproduced here. 

We would have hoped that by now all these issues of the financing of good old journalism would have been ironed. Nupe. The traditional media went on as if nothing was amiss and then it hit the Iceberg: Google News and the others such as Yahoo News coming on your smartphone. 

The next problem is the attention span of the reader, now falling way below three seconds per item. Barely time to read a headline but enough to scan a picture. Pictures become the stories. Anyone has a smartphone that can take pictures.  

The conclusion of this comprehensive Ergas report is quite wishy-washy and asks more questions than it provides answers. It’s a bit lost at sea without floaties, like Katharine Murphy’s On Disruption, it seems.

This is understandable, yet this state of affairs was predictible at least ten years ago and by now new “business models” of delivering news would have been adopted by the “traditional” media. Murdoch worked hard to find a crack in the wall. He build one. A Pay wall. But often, as soon as a new model is adopted a new delivery platform challenges this. Adaptation is crucial. Cash is scarce.

And any moron, like me with a small computer, can challenge the journalistic pitch like Pussy Riot. Yet ORIGINAL sources are precious, but they are costly and we, the morons like me, are no more than blood-sucking parasites on the information gathering beast, including the secret services. History tells us that blood-sucking parasites tend to survive beyond the death of the beast, but we need to find a new host. 
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a unique model, with that of SBS. They have a  quality, fairness and balance to uphold, yet the present Australian government is trying to kill them off — to favour the commercial media which to say the least apart from a few journos, are the pits of news.

One of the major point often missing in all these analysises is bias and the quality of the journalism — even in its minimalist format. Investigative journalism is going to meet resistance from the people being investigated, as well as being expensive and not always fruitful. Only dedicated journalist can achieve that, often for no other rewards than being dragged over coal by the government and other jealous media. 
Copyright is also a major issue. Delivery system like Google and Yahoo are mostly automated to redistribute the news in snippets with a link, and flount Copyrights thus. They have been banned from certain countries in Europe. Google News is dead in Spain. Where to from here?
The next instalment next...

Gus the Elder
Your local born every minute...