Here we are again dear readers, back in the trenches of the murky world of tactics and the ideology used by the media, both mainstream and independent alike. Today, in honor of this being Wrestlemania weekend and because I’m a geek like that, we have our own triple threat main event lined up for you. We’re going to be covering a situation that is a few weeks old at this point, yet is ongoing. I’m talking about the viral video filmed by way of a hidden camera that made it’s rounds on Youtube that revealed how falsified the aired product of Comedy Central’s “The Jim Jefferies Show” can be.

As stated this will be a 2 part piece with the first part focusing on the initial event that exposed the rather underhanded tactics of the mainstream media show on Comedy Central. I DO feel that this is an important thing to make known as far and wide as possible. That said I spent the weeks following looking into Avi Yemini’s own channel and kept an eye out to see just how he would use his new found, widespread attention. Needless to say I found similarities in the tactics he used, and while they are more overt than chopping up an interview in editing and choosing in order to create a narrative, they are just as manipulative. Part 2 will see me focusing on that end of the situation.

So without further adieu let the opening bell ring.

On Friday March 15th a mosque in New Zealand became the target of a terrorist shooting attack that left a reported 50 people dead and another 50 people injured. As with many such occurrences news of the tragedy spread like wild fire over both mainstream and social media, with some independent media sources in the form of blogs like this and Youtube channels covering the spectacle and many of the arbitrary occurrences that happened in it’s wake…..Whose heard of the Eggboy encounter?

Our story picks up 5 days later when Comedy Central aired an episode of “The Jim Jefferies Show” to deliver it’s own take on the atmosphere surrounding the tragedy and what led to it. Within hours of the segment being uploaded to Youtube, Avi Yemini, the person who was interviewed in that segment uploaded his own response to it in the form of a clip of the interview in progress, taken from a hidden camera. As you will see this clip not only showed that in the process of being edited for television, answers to questions were taken out of context and placed as the answers to other questions, it also showed the host Jim Jefferies in an effort to evoke a reaction or simply to make someone he viewed as a racist to feel more comfortable and let their guard down make some rather disturbing comments and gestures of his own towards people of the Muslim faith. Below are the links to both the original aired segment and the hidden camera exposure video for you to make your own judgement on.

Jim Visits Australia’s Massive Anti-Migration Fence – The Jim Jefferies Show

Hidden Camera: Jim Jefferies EXPOSED

Now you have been given the means to view both and form your own opinion of the state of the mainstream media in modern times. I on the other hand will be holding my view on the entirety of the situation in reserve until after part 2 of this series where I fully intend to let both sides have it from the view point of The Unspoken Ethic. However just focusing on the Mainstream media in this segment I will say this: In the weeks since this event when another high profile news story unveiled the end result of the Mueller Investigation into the U.S. President and those individuals surrounding him in connection to collusion with Russians to effect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election…I witnessed a professional journalist cry on air as they had had to report the findings. When someone has that much emotion invested in the story told rather than the objective process of journalism, it paints a picture, one that to me says they did not get the results they were hoping for. When the primary source of informing the people becomes about what someone wants the people to hear, rather than telling them the facts as they stand, that source loses it’s integrity and the trust of the people when the outcome proves very different than expected. We have seen what results from this in the form of double digit drops in overall viewership percentage after the story broke for CNN, and a dip for MSNBC ratings as well. Below is a direct link to Part 2 of this series.

Media Tactics, The Unspoken Ethic v Mainstream Media v Independent Media Part 2: Avi Yemini

The state of Georgia became the most recent battleground between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice supporters on the topic of abortion with the HB481 bill passed by state legislature and expected to soon be signed into law by Governor Brian Kemp. For those who are unaware of what HB481 is, It is part of Georgia’s Living Infants Fairness and Equality ACT and you may know it by a different name The Heartbeat Bill. I will be going over just what it is and what it does here in this post as well as the contention surrounding it from many considered to be Hollywood Elite.

First let’s take a look at the basics of the bill and how it defines Personhood.

The bill will amend state law to define “Natural Person” to mean any human being including unborn children.

The bill will include embryos and fetuses in state population based determinations.

The bill will amend the state tax code to redefine “dependent” to allow a fetus at any stage of development to qualify as a dependent minor.

The next part is where the real issue lies with Pro-Choice supporters. It is the Heartbeat Abortion Ban. This section covers the both the ban and the exceptions that the law intends to provide for.

Except in cases of medical emergency, no abortion may be performed or attempted to be performed unless the physician performing the procedure has first made a determination of the presence of a human heartbeat.

The bill will prohibit abortion when a fetus has been determined to have a heartbeat unless the pregnancy is diagnosed as medically futile, or except when the abortion is:

  • necessary to avert the death of the pregnant person or avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant person;
  • necessary to preserve the life of the fetus; or
  • because of a pregnancy at 20 weeks or earlier is the result from rape or incest (and such offense was reported to law enforcement).

The bill will require any abortion performed after the first trimester to be performed in a licensed hospital, in a licensed ambulatory surgical center, or in a health facility licensed as an abortion facility by the state Department of Community Health.

Any person who performs an abortion would need to be a licensed physician.

The bill will require all physician, hospital, or other health-care facility records to be made available to local law enforcement agencies.

The bill will require a physician to inform the pregnant patient of the presence of a fetal heartbeat at the time the abortion would be performed.

Informational materials provided by the state would need to include the following additional statement:

“By six weeks’ gestation, the unborn child has a human heartbeat.”

The bill will amend requirements for abortion reports to require physicians to include information on the determination of the presence of a fetal heartbeat.

In every case of the homicide of a child, current state law allows there to be some party entitled to recover the full value of the life of the child. The bill would extend this to apply to the homicide of a “child carried in the womb,” at the point at which a heartbeat is detected.

I promised a fight with the title of this piece didn’t I? I promised to cover a big duke-a-roo between the state of Georgia and Hollywood, didn’t I? Very well, now that I have gone over what the bill entails, let us now turn our attention to the opponent and what a list of 50 well known Hollywood actors signed off on in an open letter and petition sent on March 28th to the Georgia House Speaker David Ralston and Governor Brian Kemp.

You now see what the bill consists of and you see the opposing viewpoint. Now let’s get into the editorial part of this article as I attempt to suss out what the average person can make of this debacle. It is true that many such bills have been shut down in court as unconstitutional in accordance to the verdict of Roe v Wade in 1973. 46 years ago. I myself have been on both sides of the Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice debate as I remember a time that some of the more vocal Pro-Lifer’s were of the mind that every sperm produced by a man deserved a name. This is of course an exaggeration, but I assure you not by much. They were certainly of a sort that would have never allowed for the type of exceptions that I see presented in HB481, which was a huge part of my own reason for siding with the Pro-Choice argument.

Let’s consider the Pro-Choice argument in this particular case. Besides the obvious argument against constitutional rights, the letter states that the time frame is far too short and by the time many women know they are pregnant the choice is already taken from them. Once upon a time, I might have found this a reasonable point, however with advancements in both contraceptive methods, including a next day pill and the development of more sensitive pregnancy tests capable of detecting the HCG hormone in a little over a week, I would personally argue that any responsible person who is sexually active has the tools to prevent that time window of 6 weeks to pass them by. In light of this I would say the only reasonable argument would be the scheduling for such a procedure in the facilities required by the bill.

The letter goes on to talk about forced hidden procedures done at great risk to the woman. Seeing as how I saw nothing of this requirement in the bill itself, I can only deduce that the signee’s of the open letter were referring to DIY at home methods of abortion….To which I say again; The bill does provide for exceptions to the 6 week time frame. Given that any pregnancy outside of many of these conditions would have to be planned, accidental, or immaculate, being a responsible person provides the best protection. Again only the possibility of a woman’s inability to schedule the procedure within the time frame given is really a justification for this point’s reasoning and only that depending on the facilities available in a given area since same day surgical centers are listed as viable recognized options.

So what is my take away from this? The bill. The fact that 50 Hollywood stars signed off on a letter that threatened a boycott of an entire state and the urging of production companies to follow suit. There was a time when, as a person who sided with Pro-Choice, I would have been content with what HB481 provides for. As far as Anti-Abortion bills go, I really see nothing unreasonable about it given all of the advancements in prenatal healthcare in the last 46 years. So the only elephant that is left in the room is whether or not it is unconstitutional…..The “What a woman does with her body.” argument. I agree, to a point……a 6 week point. You see human beings in most all cases, but a few extremely rare defect scenarios, only have one heart beat, because they only have one heart. When a second heart beat is detected…..It really isn’t JUST the woman’s body anymore……is it? When you consider that this argument essentially can be seen as the woman having the right to treat an unborn child, a second life form with it’s own heart beat, as though it were an article of personal PROPERTY to be kept or discarded at will…..I ask you, the reader, how constitutional is regarding a human life as if it were PROPERTY?

Fancy title Isn’t it? I believe, as I hope you will, before it is over with you will understand the nuances of it’s meaning. In this post I will be going over some things that may seem unrelated at first, but will come together to in the end to make a point. In this post I will be going over why you see only a fraction of the posts on this site that you used to, and the reason for this is I want to use MYSELF as an example of what NOT to do.

First off. Am I hypocrite? Did I JUST pull a James Gunn and delete multiple posts on account of what others may think? My answer to these will be revealed in time, even if I can honestly tell you NO, you have no way of taking that answer at face value so I won’t insult you by expecting you to. What I will tell you is that if you are a long time reader and follow along in all the things I say and do, you will find that I STILL hold to pretty much all of the PRINCIPLES and BELIEFS that you read about in those deleted posts. The reason that I deleted them is because I did not connect the dots very well. I had a very dark perspective that had come from a still very raw emotional state and though I did work my way into a more balanced mindset, I was finding that only certain posts were drawing attention and rather than risk someone being inspired by only part of the story, I opted to eliminate that risk in favor of sharing the more complete perspective that I am in a far better place to do now than I was. Does this count as self censorship? In a way it can be considered as much, maybe a little more like self revision, I simply found a better way to convey it.

A more direct form of self censorship would be, not speaking in church, in the same manner as you would with your friends watching a football game. A recognition of there being a time and place for everything, based in respect for others. An example of how I apply this would be….notice the lack of profanity in the last couple posts…..Not only is it a far cry from even many of the previous posts from years back that still remain, but it shows refining a method…..Here, Twitter on the other hand is my play ground, and I tend to say what I want and even then as time has went on I handle my interactions with others differently than what I post on MY wall with the idea that if you don’t like it….Look somewhere else. That is what the mute and block options are for. Here I am attempting to reach a broader audience. The point is self censorship works…BECAUSE it is a choice.

There is however another type of censorship and that is imposed censorship. This is a form of censorship we are seeing more and more of in modern times. Imposed censorship is generally enforced by taking a negative aspect of the few and blanketing everyone with an opposing view under the label of that negative aspect in order to coerce the majority into demonizing any view that opposes the censoring party whether it fits into the over generalized negative box or not. The more the censoring party accomplishes this, the more we then begin to see organized systems and even legislation put into place cementing the silence.

Now I will tell you why imposed censorship is a doomed course that accomplishes absolutely nothing. First off, even if the censoring party does their best to convince you that it is for the greater good, this is inherently a lie. It is a lie because, unlike self censorship which is choice driven and usually done with a measure of respect, imposed censorship is about forcing an idea on someone whose mind may tend a different direction, making it less about the overall value and more about the consequence. Already it sets a tone with defensiveness that is non-conducive to a peaceful outcome. This isn’t saying someone is dangerous because of actions taken but rather thoughts. Threatening to spank someone does not take these thoughts away. Education and debate takes those thoughts away through transforming the mindset towards a more balanced place. Imposed censorship blocks the very means to change by making a topic taboo to even bring up. When the destructive mindset remains, the mind finds other avenues to manifest itself.

A majority of the people dealing with everyday life, like the comfort of being told what to think and do, but inherently need the option to decline if they so choose. Imposed censorship strips them of that option, through CONTROL. History and even current events around the world have shown us that when people get their willpower beat down enough through Imposed CONTROL they will reach a breaking point in one of two ways. They will either become a destructive force, or become too weak to function. Neither option provides for anything but a bleak future outcome.

I know right? This sort of headline is becoming more and more commonplace these days, The big difference this time comes from the fact that I am the only one to my knowledge pointing this one out and the reason…..Well the reason will become clear here in the course of the article.

It’s no secret that we live in a world where buzz words designed to evoke instant and pure emotional response from the reader are rampant in media of all forms. In the entertainment industry, the ones we are seeing more of like sexism, racism and troll are designed to impose a negative image based on the emotions and personal prejudices they reinforce in the minds of the reader. What this article will be covering are the questions: To what end? and DO the media sites that use these terms so commonly, actually have any belief or moral stake themselves in the ideals that they use to generate these negative emotions?

Please allow me to begin by showing you a tweet by the director of Wonder Woman, Patty Jenkins. What you may notice right off is the supportive nature that embodies many of the popular memes and quotes that you see floating around the internet about women standing in support of one another.

So far, so good.

I’m not even aiming to get into the controversy surrounding Captain Marvel. If you look at YouTube and Twitter that ground and it’s counter arguments have enough voices on it and The Unspoken Ethic is about taking on the angle that isn’t commonplace or driven in the ground. No this isn’t about Brie Larson or her personal stances. This is about how so many of these types of matters are being presented in the media itself. So let me challenge you by showcasing a little piece by Variety titled:

‘Captain Marvel Ends Box Office Myths About Female Superheroes 

I am at a loss as to what myths this film was supposed to end. Wonder Woman landed was extremely well received and fairly balanced in it’s gender audience, with 55% being female. Captain Marvel’s audience surprisingly enough, for a film that was outright directed at drawing a female audience had 61% of it’s opening weekend audience being male. Both did good numbers. Both showed that even the male demographic would turn out for them….. What “myth” did it dispel exactly? What “myth” unless that myth is the narrative being pushed by the media that there is an issue with Female led superhero movies at all? Is this an issue with the studios, or the fans, because I see more coverage directed at fans being the problem than I am seeing evidence that the idea merits such coverage, so then……. To What End is this being played out to suggest otherwise?

Here is another piece written just yesterday put out by Gizmodo titled:

Wonder Woman 1984 is a sequel, How Is This Even a Question?

Pay attention now, especially my Twitter followers, because I’m about to pull a rope-a-dope and the end I’ll make my point clear. The above article is what the title of this post is inspired from. In this article you will find another buzz phrase lets see if you can spot it in this quote.
“That’s no reason to create some bizarre “False Narrative” around your film.” This statement is in regards to Patty Jenkins not considering WW84 a sequel. Now there are a couple reasons why this may not be “false narrative” One is that it was rumored that the film’s release date was pushed back in order for a “Flashpoint” movie to come before it. We now know that isn’t likely as that project won’t even start filming until late this year. The “Flashpoint” first news sprung up in the wake of a change in people in charge of the DCEU movies and the belief that an overhaul was needed while still securing the more successful elements of it like Wonder Woman. This isn’t to say that just because the “Flashpoint movie comes after that it’s story won’t play a huge factor in this Wonder Woman movie. that would be risky, but allow me to suggest another reason.

There IS a narrative among fans and general movie goers that superhero movies in general really have nothing to offer but origin stories. What if WW84 is (gasp) Actually just meant to be a stand alone film that loosely draws from the origin told and is just meant to be a cool Wonder Woman movie that does not even need to fit into the DCEU continuity? I can imagine at the time of preproduction they might not have even been sure there would be a continued DCEU storyline after Justice League took a hit. Given the 2 reasons I just mentioned, it seems rather unsightly to write an article that essentially openly calls Patty Jenkins a LIAR, with no more details than we have. That hardly seems in the wake of Captain Marvel’s seeming success to be very supportive of the next female led superhero movie to grace the big screen. How about that? The MEDIA just TROLLED the Wonder Woman sequel, maybe Rotten Tomatoes can censor their critics reviews next.

Are we getting it now? If anything is TROLLING these films in a manner that may limit their success it lies in how the media is at best making a mountain out of a mole hill and scaring even more general movie goers away, or at worst by laser focusing on social issues and making the arguments around a mere film that is just supposed to be a fun escape something far more personal than it has a right to be is further damaging the structure of communication in our society and generating chaos….. But then to What End?……… Does it REALLY seem like they care at all about these ideals, or are they JUST using them to their OWN ENDS?