Unaoil; I wonder why the BBC is NOT covering this story...

[stonberg]

This is fecking shocking:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/una ... f53aefa1da

http://www.theage.com.au/interactive/20 ... world.html

Is it getting much coverage in the US, or is your media as much under the thumb of big business / the government as appears to be the case in the UK?

[BBC]
"Sorry, there are no results for unaoil.

Suggestions

Make sure that all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords."

I had, perhaps somewhat naively, assumed that there was at least a degree of openness and freedom of speech in the UK's press and media. Nope, not even a smidge of it. I even find it hard to worry about this scandal because the scale is almost beyond my ability to grasp. It does seem like The Times and (somewhat surprisingly) The Daily Mail are covering this story though, so perhaps there's some minute form of hope still:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuter ... probe.html

Kinda sad that it required the Antipodean media to break the story on this.

I'm interested in finding out how many have heard about this, or whether your country's media is covering it?

[hubird]

Not yet here.
New for me too, will check it out.
Don't even know what bribe means

The Panama Papers tho are mentioned everywhere.

You can't hide anything anymore these days.
It will all show up.

-ah, bribe, steekpenningen, now I know.

Not a big (Dutch) news site, but they have the story:
http://925.nl/archief/2016/04/04/unaoil ... bedrijven/

Google tells me this 'biggest bribe scandal' is reported in many articles worldwide.

[astroman]

stuff revealed on April 1st is notoriously suspect...

cheers, Tom

[hubird]

[JoPo]

But I don't find what that bride scandal has that is so special. In oil companies world, it's everyday life, nothing special.

[Mr Arkadin]

Not much coverage of TTIP either. Check it out, it should scare the bejesus out of you.

[hubird]

Not much coverage of TTIP either. Check it out, it should scare the bejesus out of you.

TTIP ans ISDS is on the map here, greatly introduced by criticaster Arjen Lubach in his weekly tv show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLP0CzpP1XQ , for those who understand Dutch or like to get a taste of local culture


Scary is the right word, especially ISDS.
Canada already knows why...as it was forced to allow shale gas exploitation, by foreign multinationals that is, while it's disastrous for the environment.

There's a referendum wednesday here about the trade treaty of the EU with Ukraine.
There's one in the make for TTIP/ISDS, 300,000 signatures needed.
(have to be careful with such numbers, we use the . instead of the , in such cases...).

Ukraine has a chance to get a yes from Holland, regarding the political part of the treaty (the trading part is definitive anyway), but TTIP won't never make it in case a referendum will succeed.

[hubird]

To come back to the topic, I think the 'Panama Papers' is hotter news than the Unaoil story.

Although I must confess the BBC knew to protect Jimmy Savile for quite some time, the difference is that she had direct interest in keeping the story under the hood.
Unaoil is something different.

I've never heard of Unacoil btw, must be because (wiki says) it's mainly active in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa.
The proximity factor...

The Panama Papers, again, show you only need one journalist, one whistle blower, one usb stick or laptop robt from an employee's car, one revieling email wrongly addressed, and there you go.
Tomorrow the related Dutch names will be published, can't wait.

And it's with news like with everything: some subjects aren't 'sexy'.
Because of the subject itself, like a trading treaty, or because of the proximity factor, or a new sexier scandal.
Savile would have won from Unaoil, for instance

[yayajohn]

They will probably end up making a movie out of it like all the other bank scandals. No one will get arrested and the banks will remain intact

[valis]

The Panama Papers was actually supposed to be a Wikileaks lead put out tomorrow (Tuesday) but they were trumped by the Panama Papers. Some of the info in Wikileaks (this was known 2-3 weeks ago by some) is now counter to what's in the Panama papers, such that the western 1% that would have been exposed as well are now 'covered'. If the wikileaks article came out now, it would simply create confusion, so there's discussion about what (if anything) can be recovered or released in a useful manner, albeit at a later date.

Ie, it seems the Panama papers was a well timed move done to implicate many players one would think are 'on the other side' of western politics. To buy into such games is of course to stay in that game, sadly. On and on we go...

[darkrezin]

This is fecking shocking:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/una ... f53aefa1da

http://www.theage.com.au/interactive/20 ... world.html

Is it getting much coverage in the US, or is your media as much under the thumb of big business / the government as appears to be the case in the UK?

[BBC]
"Sorry, there are no results for unaoil.

Suggestions

Make sure that all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords."

I had, perhaps somewhat naively, assumed that there was at least a degree of openness and freedom of speech in the UK's press and media. Nope, not even a smidge of it. I even find it hard to worry about this scandal because the scale is almost beyond my ability to grasp. It does seem like The Times and (somewhat surprisingly) The Daily Mail are covering this story though, so perhaps there's some minute form of hope still:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuter ... probe.html

Kinda sad that it required the Antipodean media to break the story on this.

I'm interested in finding out how many have heard about this, or whether your country's media is covering it?

Whatever the point of the Unaoil story is, the BBC has never been about transparent investigative journalism - its role is to keep the population calm but healthily frightened.

Every newspaper in the UK is merely a vehicle for pushing advertising to a certain demographic. Every single one is owned by and pushes the interests of the establishment in some way. Even the 'socialist' Guardian. The Times is owned by Murdoch; the Daily Mail is a disgusting rag not worthy of discussion.

I doubt it is much different in any country in the world.

[hubird]

Every newspaper in the UK is merely a vehicle for pushing advertising to a certain demographic. Every single one is owned by and pushes the interests of the establishment in some way. Even the 'socialist' Guardian. The Times is owned by Murdoch; the Daily Mail is a disgusting rag not worthy of discussion.

I doubt it is much different in any country in the world.

Well, I still feel happy with the situation in my country.
A few quality papers, public broadcasting radio and tv with critical docs about backgrounds or the functioning of fields of society, I feel well informed.
Those docs often make politicians put formal questions to the minister from the Chamber the next day.

The Vox Populi is also widely heard in the medea, which is often accused from being an elite information or indoctrination channel.
In Belgium/Flandria it's about the same, Germany made a switch this year regarding political correctness, and France is doing well also.
I bet Denmark, Sweden, Finland belong to the same category.

Unless one doesn't believe in anything anymore, but I don't suffer from that

[dawman]

Whatever the point of the Unaoil story is, the BBC has never been about transparent investigative journalism - its role is to keep the population calm but healthily frightened.
I doubt it is much different in any country in the world.

Well said..

Cameron is running for cover from Internet Journalists only who can't score a gig at the filtered media outlets...