A week of the 4th paragraph

So, my observation that the media, it all it's PC and bias, singles out men and whites in headlines, but pushes down references to women and minorities when reporting, unless it's a positive story, where the script is flipped and being male and/or white is left out.

Here in this wonderful week in the 4th paragraph, note the links here a MY headlines, the actual headlines are far more predicatble:

Three people "of African appearance" scarred a 34 year old woman for life over a phone
Man named Mohammed (presumed Muslim immigrant) assaults 2 year old girl, resulting in her death
Woman assaults elderly in shopping center and puts one in hospital for Christmas
Muslim(s) attack German Christmas market, killing 12 and injuring 50

I notice the web address on the 2nd article includes "as-girl-2-fights-for-life-in-hospital".  Obviously the content of the article has since been updated, but the address hasn't.

All of these articles contain a common factor: the crucial details of the offenders, be they African, Muslim or women, is either withheld or left until after the first couple of paragraphs (by which time most casual readers would have stopped reading.

Contrast that with the following articles with their ACTUAL headlines:

Man attacks father in fight over Christmas shopping
Man attacks Muslim woman with coffee

So, let's face it, the media clearly haven't stopped doing their thing after they've clearly lost their credibility.  I guess they have to first admit they've got a problem before they can do anything about it.

I'm not holding my breath for any admissions of racial/gender bias in the media.

Woman who killed eight children in 2014 still hasn't been tried / African assault in St Kilda

A few people may remember when a woman by the name of Raina Mersane Ina Thaiday is alleged to have killed eight children (seven of her own, one of someone else).

Interesting how the headline refers to the case by her last name, which wasn't widely released at the time, and the name of the obscure suburb of Cairns in which the incident took place, thus guaranteeing most people wouldn't bother clicking on the link.

Had the article read "Woman who allegedly killed eight children back in court" they would have gotten far more hits, however to news sites the narrative that all women are victims, never perpetrators is more important that hits on a news website.

It's not just HOW the media reports the news that determines whether it is Left or Right, it is WHAT the media reports.  A bit like how if a migrant is verbally abused on public transport it's front-page news and Australians are declared racists, but if 30 migrants assault random people in the street, the stories are tucked away and their identities hidden for the sake of the PC agenda.  Notice how the first article in this story makes NO MENTION of the nationality of the gangs at all, the guys were just set upon by some random gang that could have been white or Asian.

Three women charged with sexual assault, but not rape

Three women have been charged with sexual assault on a young man after luring him somewhere, getting him passed out drunk, then videotaping things they did to him.

As usual, the media ends the article with the usual "but they're not guilty of rape", although interestingly enough the word 'rape' is never mentioned, only "sexual assault by penetration" (the only form of 'rape' a man can legally be considered to be raped.

Had they all taken turns having sex with him and possibly getting pregnant to him, there'd be no charges at all, he'd just be a stupid boy.

I guess I have to be thankful for something though, at least they didn't wait until the 4th paragraph to mention the genders, although interestingly they're a "girl gang", although their ages are 26, 22 and 20.  Are they perhaps partly excusing the behaviour because "girls will be girls"?

Muslim teen only sentenced to 5 years for trying to blow up bomb in Melbourne CBD

So, here we have yet another example of integration failure where a 'teen' (who is 18 but can't be named for legal reasons) has been sentenced to 5 years 3 months jail for trying to set off a bomb in crowded part of Melbourne CBD.

Now, I know that we can't know his name, but surely we can know whether or not he was a recent arrival from the Middle East or not, but the article doesn't mention his religion, race or country of origin.  About all we get is that he'd been in contact with a Jihadist.

So, yet another example of the 5th paragraph where race and religion are immediately removed because he's not a white Christian.  I had actually thought that the media was upping its game after Trump's big win, but then they pull this PC leftist BS.

I note also that the article comes to his defense stating his family was there in support and that his attitude to ISIS has since changed.  I love it how the media tries to paint this guy who wanted to BLOW UP INNOCENT AUSTRALIANS as some misguided youth who has since seen the light.

Maybe if someone had corrected his course in life BEFORE he planned to kill people for a religious cause.

Girls teach boys lesson - Herald Sun

Upon reading a copy of the Herald Sun I found lying around (lying being a good choice of words), I came across an article titled "Girls teach boys lesson" which, in the first few paragraphs, summed up how much better girls were doing at schools (99 percent of girls stayed through Year 12 versus only 88 percent of boys).

Information that's hardly a world first or surprising, given the anti-male bias in schools, the media and life in general in Australia.

What's interesting is, despite apparently 99 percent of girls staying in schools, a Dr Ravn (female) has won a $310k grant to study why those tiny 1 percent (could it be less than and just rounded up for the article?) leave because, apparently girls who leave school are more 'at risk'.

So, if the numbers are to be believed, 12 percent of boys don't finish Year 12 vs only 1 percent of girls and this 'Doctor' feels that we as a society need to help the 1 percent more (pun intended).

If we take the percentages at their rounded out figures, that means that 92 percent of the children leaving school are boys and 8 percent are girls, but since the girls are more important we need to focus on them.

Maybe this is sour grapes and a "what about the boys", but clearly the entire schooling system needs to take a good hard look at itself if it is so unappealing to boys that almost 1 in 8 boys can't even stick it out to completion.

It's also very telling how the Herald Sun can simultaneously state that "girls are better than boys" and also celebrate hundreds of thousands of dollars to help them because they need more help.

Girls teach boys lesson - Herald Sun

Upon reading a copy of the Herald Sun I found lying around (lying being a good choice of words), I came across an article titled "Girls teach boys lesson" which, in the first few paragraphs, summed up how much better girls were doing at schools (99 percent of girls stayed through Year 12 versus only 88 percent of boys).

Information that's hardly a world first or surprising, given the anti-male bias in schools, the media and life in general in Australia.

What's interesting is, despite apparently 99 percent of girls staying in schools, a Dr Ravn (female) has won a $310k grant to study why those tiny 1 percent (could it be less than and just rounded up for the article?) leave because, apparently girls who leave school are more 'at risk'.

So, if the numbers are to be believed, 12 percent of boys don't finish Year 12 vs only 1 percent of girls and this 'Doctor' feels that we as a society need to help the 1 percent more (pun intended).

If we take the percentages at their rounded out figures, that means that 92 percent of the children leaving school are boys and 8 percent are girls, but since the girls are more important we need to focus on them.

Maybe this is sour grapes and a "what about the boys", but clearly the entire schooling system needs to take a good hard look at itself if it is so unappealing to boys that almost 1 in 8 boys can't even stick it out to completion.

It's also very telling how the Herald Sun can simultaneously state that "girls are better than boys" and also celebrate hundreds of thousands of dollars to help them because they need more help.

Trump wins, his (male) supporters still 'bad'

So 'The Donald' will now be known as 'The President'.  But the media don't appear to have changed at all after this after some men chanting slogans were kicked out of an event at a bar.

I like how earlier in the article they mention how a woman was ejected for throwing a drink over pro-Trump people (which is legally assault), but the headline is all about how the Trump supporters were kicked out for saying things.

Apparently the University the held the event is even looking into following up with the men.

So, in this still mixed up world saying a bunch of generic things to no one specific will mean they'll kick you out then hunt you down, but assaulting someone by throwing things at them isn't.

Nice.

Trump wins, his (male) supporters still 'bad'

So 'The Donald' will now be known as 'The President'.  But the media don't appear to have changed at all after this after some men chanting slogans were kicked out of an event at a bar.

I like how earlier in the article they mention how a woman was ejected for throwing a drink over pro-Trump people (which is legally assault), but the headline is all about how the Trump supporters were kicked out for saying things.

Apparently the University the held the event is even looking into following up with the men.

So, in this still mixed up world saying a bunch of generic things to no one specific will mean they'll kick you out then hunt you down, but assaulting someone by throwing things at them isn't.

Nice.

More proof of some subtle media bias in reporting

Here's an article about Steve Herbert resigning from his government position in relation to the scandal of him using his taxpayer funded car to ferry his two dogs between addresses.

What the whole article outright avoids mentioning is that he is a LABOR party (Left-wing) member.

I have no doubt that, had he been a Liberal party member (Right-wing) the article would mention his political affiliation left, right and center.

Not only defend female sex offenders, they provide a platform for defence

So here's a woman who had sex with an underage boy and complains that he seduced her.

I don't know what's worse, the media portraying her as the victim, or the fact that she's being given a platform on which to defend her actions on television BEFORE SHE'S EVEN GONE TO TRIAL!

Any other country that'd be considered tampering with a potential jury, unless of course there won't be a jury, in which case she (or her lawyers) are trying to garner public sympathy.

Summing up the US Presidential election

It seems like the whole world is involved in the current election, but the whole thing seems to be able to be summed up in what I thought was a brilliant summary of why the media hates Trump (paraphrased because I don't have the exact wording):

"They fear that Trump might be the kind of politician that Hillary has already proven that she is"

So far, from what I've seen, the whole Pro-Hillary argument is (and my comments in italics):

• She's served in government for a very long time - she's worked very little in the private sector;
• She knows lots of people and can work with them - she's brokered deals that got her foundation lots of money, sometimes against the national interests of people both US and foreign;
• She can make the country better through working hard - if she's so great, then why has the last 8 years seen the doubling of the US debt with no clear direct change;
• She's never assaulted any women - although she's allegedly threatened enough of the women who have been allegedly assaulted by her husband; and
• She's better and more reliable than Trump as a government worker - better the devil you know, I guess

The whole Pro-Trump argument is (again, comments in italics):

• He's a successful business man - who has seen companies go bankrupt before;
• Hillary is crooked - no arguments here, but I've bothered to watch Clinton Cash;
• Hillary isn't healthy enough - which apparently is sexist when you question her health, but was ok when McCain was running;
• He says what everyone is thinking - which isn't always a good thing to have, sometimes the person in power needs to have the wisdom and self-control to steer people out of emotional waters;
• If we keep voting for the establishment candidate, we'll get more of the same - this is the big question, is it better the devil you know because not all change is good; and
• Wikileaks failed to find anything worthy of posting about him - again, can't complain

All up, I'd have to say I wouldn't trust Hillary with anything, given that she's far to tainted to be trusted with ANY future office, let alone the top office.  It was a joke how little coverage any of the other democratic candidates got and how the media declared her winner before Bernie Sanders had even finished running.  Bernie had a lot more people on side than the media claimed and his loss really was a case of the Establishment deciding what's best for the voters, which is why there are so many anti-Hillary democrats.

Say what you will about Trump, but he was a lot like Sanders in that both were non-Establishment, both had the media against them at every turn, the difference was that Trump 's opponent didn't fight as dirty as Hillary did to win.

I don't agree with many things that the US does, I don't understand why mandatory voter ID is such a big issue as we have it here in Australia with no big issue (although it's more of a "give us your name and address") with ID only sometimes being requested.  Once you've received your blank ballot papers here, everything you do from then on is anonymous.

I even counted votes here for the last Federal election and the stuff people put on them included:

• John Snow for PM
• Trump for PM
• F**k you all, the last guy I voted for didn't win, the system is rigged

Admittedly this happened all over the place, but I noticed it quite a bit in the safe Labor (Democrat equivalent) seat.

I'm pro-Trump, not because I think that he's a great person, but because their country needs to do something different, because more of the same has nearly doubled their debt (from $10 trillion to almost $20 trillion) in eight years, because he cares about the economy and he's speaking to the people as one of the people and, more importantly, LISTENING to them.

Hillary acts like the Queen who is destined to rule and can do no wrong.  She speaks down to people, she laughs off things like breaking the law, dodgy pay-for-play deals and intimidates people.  The media has steered clear of almost ALL of her failings, yet amplifies any little thing Trump does wrong, which is a clear indication of who THEY want in power.  She comes with too much baggage and owes too many Establishment groups favours to do what's best for the people anymore.

She might surprise everyone and go against the establishment should she win, however I don't think she's going to turn her back on all of the groups that have helped get her elected, have made her rich and have helped get her out of political and legal binds (which you can bet would be put back on the table the moment she steps out of line).

You can bet your dollars that if the media desperately wants one candidate over the other, you probably want the other candidate.

Women are 12% angrier than men, but for good reason, apparently

So a new article has appeared in the left-wing media about how women are actually angrier drivers than men, but the media is quick to justify it.

Interesting to note that when people point out that when men have anger issues and that it's because they evolved to have higher testosterone to help them be more aggressive hunters/fighters people jump on it and say that we as a society should have evolved enough to control it.

Despite having lower testosterone, apparently women are given a pass for being angrier drivers.

Nothing to see here...

Back on board after a long hiatus

Well, it's been a while since my last post, which I've been away for several personal reasons.

But now I'm back on board and the topic of the next couple of weeks is going to be the US Election.

It's interesting how the media is portraying Trump in Australia, almost as though trying to build up global dislike for him on an international level, possibly in the hopes that Australians will tell (or at least apply pressure) their American friends how to vote.

That never really works as well as they think it will.

Woman stabs man in the eye, walks free

So, here's a surprise.

Notice that her gender isn't specifically mentioned until about the 3rd paragraph, up until then she's simply "a student".

Are male students who do things simply "students" when they do the wrong thing?

Also, the whole article goes on to defend her actions for supposedly defending her friend from having a drink poured over her head.

So, the correct action to stop a drink being poured over one's head is now to stab a person in the eye with a sharp object.  Right, only if the person doing the stabbing is female.

Accepting large numbers of young men without women is good for the economy

...but let's just ignore the social and cultural demise of such an act.

I do like the doubling down of the whole "but they're really good for the economy" angle.  Just think of all the extra jobs created for security guards at events to ensure "random men" don't accost young girls.

Consider all the extra overtime the police will get to guard public places!

Just think of all the hit-pieces that'll be done by deceptive journalists on the problem of white males doing all of these things.

Oh wait, they only mention the background of the perpetrator if he's white...

Damn that 4th paragraph...