IT is somewhat fashionable to dismiss topic-focused sites as "biased" or "with an agenda" (or "lacking balance" or something to that effect). This sort of nonsense is sometimes used to demean and discredit critics of the Gates Foundation, which is so opaque that it can take a long time to understand its true nature. It swallowed the media using bribes that are disguised as "grants" which "support journalism" (they mean Bill Gates puff pieces, not journalism; it's designed for lobbying, so it's part of the agenda-setting pipeline). The "academic grants" offered by António Campinos and Benoît Battistelli are also similar to Bill's. Scholars lose their ability to research freely; there are strings attached and they're in essence indebted to crooks. It's a condition. No grants, no tenure; that's how academia works.
"Scholars lose their ability to research freely; there are strings attached and they're in essence indebted to crooks. It's a condition."Wikipedia, which is far from perfect (too controlled/steered/manipulated by the powerful), defines investigative journalism as "a form of journalism in which reporters deeply investigate a single topic of interest, such as serious crimes, political corruption, or corporate wrongdoing. An investigative journalist may spend months or years researching and preparing a report. Practitioners sometimes use the terms "watchdog reporting" or "accountability reporting"."
"So next time the EPO tells you that Techrights is blocked be aware that it's for refuting lies (based on evidence), not for telling lies."This should, in fact, be the best form of reporting if not the only valid form. A reporter cannot properly cover a topic by only speaking to few self-appointed 'experts' or repeating/rewriting press releases. Back in the days IP Kat, under the pen name "Merpel", did that to the European Patent Office (EPO). It stopped when the EPO's management took action against IP Kat, whereupon several key people -- the founder included -- left the blog. It has not been the same since. Deviation from the "official" agenda, be it in posts or even in comments, will result in severe consequences including deletion (in silence, no evidence).
Our reporting on EPO affairs isn't biased. It's accurate. It's different from what compromised media tends to say, but it is based on what actual workers of the EPO are saying, not what management of the EPO (de facto "occupying force" in the eyes of staff) pays the media to say. When the EPO's President has an approval rate (among staff) near zero it should be rather clear that the management of the EPO isn't saying/telling the truth. It's covering up the truth. So next time the EPO tells you that Techrights is blocked be aware that it's for refuting lies (based on evidence), not for telling lies. I've been writing about Microsoft and patents since I was a teenager; I am still focused on such topics because I understand them well. How often are we caught telling a falsehood? Almost never. ⬆
Comments