--Margie Wylie, CNET
THE subject of this article is better understood after reading what we've outlined in part one, part two, part three and some preliminary 'teaser' parts. If you did not read at least some of those, then we suggest doing so now. We'll cut right to the chase, in order to avoid repetition, which can in turn cause boredom.
"As some people are aware, later today there will be some protests against Bill Gates, in various locations worldwide."We're meanwhile trying to piece back together the spiked article which caused a journalist to be fired, shortly before the publisher put Bill Gates in charge (as editor). The role I played in it was a long (very long) interview more than half a decade ago. "Do you still have a recording of our prior chat," I asked the journalist. "I might do," I noted, but "do you have the spiked article?"
As we said in prior parts, the publisher denied the journalist access to his very own notes! Before firing him and making Bill Gates the editor rather than subject of shame. Prior to the interview I was told that the editor (Patel) was very interested in thrashing Gates, so why the sudden change? How much did Gates pay The Verge or what else was promised? Clearly something happened...
"I would like to collaborate on bringing the above to light," I added later, as "I think these types of things aren't just supported by evidence but are also pretty damning."
"As we said in prior parts, the publisher denied the journalist access to his very own notes!""I don't have my Verge article," the journalist said, "because it was never completed — but I do have the recording of our conversation."
We think we need to carefully plan and coordinate coverage of these matters, compare notes etc. This may take some time as the journalist is currently very busy covering the protests in the US. In the meantime readers might want to read about Gates paying my employer all of a sudden (I can only guess it may be an effort to compel me to be silent). Just remember that there's an effort to discredit Gates critics for anything they say that cannot be easily proven. But we have the facts, we just need to be careful in how we present them. Sometimes, and as recently as hours ago, people ask us for information. But some of them have an agenda like opposing vaccination. Not all, but some...
"I was wondering if there was any update," one person told us in IRC, "as I am trying to place a request for the 2851 page report from Seattle police... Writing a book."
"The length to which he goes, sometimes with his fake 'charity' as a vehicle of influence, ought to be widely recognised and broadly understood."For this particular issue -- like the Gates Foundation interfering with OLPC (in effect battling a charity in Africa) -- I'd suggest a multi-part series, which feeds in the feedback from prior parts. That worked well for prior matters. There are two strands of stories here: 1. the OLPC thing (or bad intent in Africa) and 2. the attempt to muzzle the media. Those two are naturally connected. We thought we'd be able to finish the series by now, but it's taking longer because of the protests in the US. We'll pass around some notes we currently have regarding OLPC being targeted by the Gates Foundation even if those are of draft quality. Techrights does reach millions of people, so we can do justice to that story, over time... the top priority is ensuring we have evidence to support every statement made. That takes time.
Gates has long attempted to delete 'uncomfortable' history or rewrite it using misleading puff pieces. The length to which he goes, sometimes with his fake 'charity' as a vehicle of influence, ought to be widely recognised and broadly understood. "Charitable grants" are often a mask for bribes. ⬆