Why newspapers are dying and magazines aren’t: hint: it has nothing to do with glossy pages.

Why newspapers are dying and magazines aren’t: hint: it has nothing to do with glossy pages.

The old misconception between print and online: portrays it as a choice between yesterday’s news today, which you have to pay for, or today’s news as it happens. If that were why newspaper circulation has been dropping substantially: it would have happened with the introduction of 24-hour news television and radio. In fact, it would have happened with the introduction of the nightly news. The fact of the matter is that what people most like online is substantially different from the short articles which newspapers generally publish.

I sometimes like to comment on other people’s articles. What amazes me is that the most popular comments are generally not short or sweet comments. The popular type of comments: are those which we at SACNS call concise comments. If you have ever read an Oxford dictionary: you will notice that the concise Oxford dictionary is massive. Concise relates to fully encompassing a matter in as efficient a manner as possible. While newspapers have been dying out, their friend the magazine has been flourishing. I’m not talking about lads magazines, or the mass produced picture books that some think are entertaining. These are dying out. What I am talking about is the long form magazine. What I am talking about is concise reporting, the type of reporting you might read in the National Geographic magazine.

A look at which Internet blogs are the most popular will once again draw up a surprise. It is generally long form blogs and concise blogs which get the most viewership. These are services which make articles of at least 1000 words if not tens or hundreds of thousands of words their mainstay.

If I look at which of my articles are the most popular, factoring out the celebrity influence and niche markets: it is generally the long form or longer form article.

It might seem counterintuitive at first: that the most popular comments on any article tend to be long comments, and to take a while to read. The most popular online articles also tend to take a good amount of time to read.

The same strange trend goes for emails also. Emails which are short and sweet and use very simple language: are the least likely to be opened. Emails which are lengthy and utilise proper and good English: are surprisingly more likely to be opened. To a degree it does make sense. I am far more likely to share an article online that uses an advanced and interesting word that even I have to look up, than one which uses one step up on SMS language.

Which news websites, and news articles are the most popular? Surely websites such as Wired with their very long articles. Surely articles such as those that can be found in: the Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, the British Guardian. The articles these services produce are lengthy, detailed and often require scrolling down through long reams of text. Newsletters have also once again become popular. The type of newsletter which is popular is not short and sweet. It is the type of newsletter that is worth the effort and the nuisance of having another email in your inbox each day. The newsletters I subscribe to tend to be long form newsletters. They tend to require scrolling and much reading. The type of newsletter I have unsubscribed from and banished from my inbox: is the type which is short and sweet and uses simple language. I take no interest in that sort of email. It is not worth my efforts in opening it.

Imagine if newspapers instead of having a headline and five pages on that headline, did what many newspapers are attempting to do with online: had five small headlines on the front page, each with an article of only 100 words. Imagine if that newspaper only had one headline, with a big image: and only 100 words on the headline topic. Would you still buy the newspaper for the headline? After all old wisdom says that newspaper headlines sell the newspaper. I certainly would not buy a newspaper for the headline if the newspaper only had 100 words on the headline topic. 100 words are not enough to be worth the price of 5 Rand or 10 Rand to me. Certainly, there are newspapers such as the Johannesburg Star: which while each article is quite short, have such a broad basis: that in a sense the entire newspaper is one article, possibly worth reading cover to cover.

The question arises as to why people still listen to news radio when news television has come out. Why for instance might I listen to a podcast of 60 minutes of radio news out of America, where I can watch television news for 60 minutes instead? News radio flourishes for the same reason that long form articles have continue to exist despite a decline in news media. If I listen to news radio, for instance RFI, I gain a lot more detail and perspective on an issue. For the same reason that someone might read an entire book on an important event, and pay 100 Rand for it, or even 1000 or more Rand for it: people like to listen to radio specifically because it gives you more detail than other mediums.

If Twitter were killing newspapers: then the advertisements newspapers put on the streets, with headlines even shorter than twitter tweets: would have killed newspapers long ago. Open your average newspaper, there might be 50 stories in it. Open your average newspaper, there is a wide variety of news. Open your average magazine, are there perhaps 20 articles folded between the covers?

Why is it that short form film: that music video television channels are dying out or changing to other formats? Is it because the same music videos can be found on YouTube? Why then do television channels which show series and movies not also die out as quickly? Is it not perhaps because music videos are short and sweet? You might not go to most movies, at the cinema, but you probably watched long movies such as Star Wars, the Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and so forth. The short and sweet movies could not hold your interest enough to keep you there.

People often speak about the meat and bones of something. Information-wise it consists of a thorough telling of what in fact has occurred. Many newspapers have become lazy over the years. Their articles are short and sweet. They have ceased to point out spelling mistakes. They pay their journalists next to nothing and think that an uneducated, illiterate journalist is the equivalent of a master of the English language. They have based their news on a foolish and idiotic audience, aiming at the lowest common denominator rather than taking a stand and in fact investigating what has actually occurred in the world.

Some say that news media has taken a different role in the world of blogs and citizen journalism: that of verifying fact and disputing fiction. However, many blogs and citizen journalists have that very integrity that media often lacks. I’m not speaking of the social media idiots many people have come to know. I am speaking instead of human beings with integrity, the same integrity that many successful news organisations used to hold to.

Even though I mostly disagree with their viewpoint: I love to read the British Guardian online. They are more likely to tell me the sort of details that really matter.

As many newspapers are introducing pay walls, many are doing so to their own destruction. If all I am getting is a summary, I might as well find a summary for free. If all I am paying for is someone who will give me the exact same view as I hold: I am unlikely to pay for that. Certainly, these type of articles might get a lot of shares. They get these shares to prove a point, but if they add nothing new to my worldview than I might as well not pay for them. In the world of Twitter I can gain the view of a celebrity or world government that interests me simply by subscribing to them on social media. If media is to play any role at what our future is to be: it can no longer simply be repeating the words of others. Partisan media and media which is merely a mouthpiece for another, might as well cease to exist, as the source can easily be accessed independently. If I am to buy a newspaper or buy access to an article, it needs to have meat and bones. It needs to provide me with a sustaining meal that I cannot find elsewhere. This is why magazines continue to flourish. This is why short form newspapers continue to die.

There used to be a mantra that if a site took more than eight seconds to load it would be seen as unworthy of reading. It was a mantra that people have a short attention span. Unfortunately, the same people who are easily distracted by butterflies and bees, are only distracted for a moment or so, and can easily find distraction elsewhere. They are unlikely to even remember a small distraction, and go on with their lives having forgot that they even clicked on a link or loaded the website in question that took less than eight seconds to load and remained in their memory for even less time. The problem with things that only temporarily take up but a moment of a person’s time, is that often there is no sustenance in these. I will probably not go to a restaurant and sit down only to eat a very small, unappetising meal all alone. If you want your website to get a lot of viewers in the short term, or your newspaper likewise: go ahead, be sensationalist, and take up people’s time for just a moment. They will forget you existed tomorrow, and will not thank you for it! If however you are a media organisation that desires to respect your readers and to give them the full picture that they desire, consider instead gaining a long-term audience by writing longer and more concise articles. This article has already hit almost 2000 words, if you did not stop reading it upon discovering that then you’re not the sort of person who only reads short works. You’re the sort of person who probably still buys magazines every now and again. You are the audience who will still pay to read news, but not simply news summaries. If newspapers want to survive the next hundred years, whether behind pay walls or physically: they need to relearn the art of the concise article and of providing meat and bones to the audience. They also need to relearn the importance of being not a mouthpiece, or a mere bulletin board for the important. People will not pay to simply read one view on a matter when they can gain the full perspective from several sources for free. If newspapers want to survive they need to start adhering again to audi alteram partem: they need to give the full picture in a concise and effective manner, which informs and entertains their readers in a respectful exercise of telling of the truth and of informed and intelligent opinion. This is far more the sort of work which an individual is likely to pay to consume. Think of the most famous books and plays in history. Think of War and Peace. Think of the Lord of the Rings. Think of the Odyssey and Iliad. Think of just how difficult it is to read Shakespeare or Pride and Prejudice!

When you’re done thinking of these things, realise that the long form is here to stay. Concise news is a return to history, a history where news was worth paying for! A history, that can sustain newspapers which are dying not because of the Internet but because they are not worth paying for anymore or any longer. Unless their articles once again were to become longer, of course.

Israeli war a fundraising event for HAMAS? #PrayForIsrael #PrayForGaza #PrayForPalestine #PrayForPeace

Israeli war a fundraising event for HAMAS?

You could almost set your clock by it. HAMAS and Israel are at war again. The backdrop once again lies in world events which take focus off this conflict. Israel as usual accuses HAMAS of using human shields. HAMAS supporters however point out that due to Israeli alliances with neighbouring nations, the people in the Gaza Strip are pretty much stuck in the Gaza Strip. Whether or not HAMAS has stocked Israeli targets with women and children is also a point of contention. The Gaza Strip is densely populated with an impoverished and very captive population. Dense urban fighting inevitably gives rise to high civilian casualties when people are unable to flee an area. Whether Israel should ignore consistent rocket attacks over its border, which statistically do likely kill less people than dog bites and bee stings, or consistently almost yearly: invade and enforce control against the Gaza Strip, is also a matter of much contention. There is a vast difference between a dog bite and a bee sting and intentional murder. Did Israel pamphlet the Gaza Strip telling people to flee? Did HAMAS ask civilians to crowd around their soldiers? Is dropping pamphlets upon a densely populated area where people have next to no where to go, enough to do away with the obligation not to hit civilian targets? Is HAMAS breaking international law by operating in densely populated areas?

These are not questions which are easy to answer. The fighting often resembles a blood feud. When America invaded Iraq, shockingly, children from my South African Christian junior school at the time were flown into Iraq by their parents, to be human shields in Iraqi buildings. The practice is not unknown in modern war.

So what is important about covering this blood feud? It is vital not to take sides or to report propaganda as if it were truth. Most South Africans support the Gaza Strip, leading to calls for the Israeli ambassador to be ejected from the country. Instead of such an approach, a focus not on taking sides but on attempting to encourage warfare which is less dangerous to civilians might be a better placed effort. I deeply empathise with the civilians on both sides of this intractable deadly mudslinging exercise between parties who have been fighting for decades, in what: until Palestine is recognised as its own nation is best phrased as the Israeli civil war. After all, HAMAS is not a state government, it is merely an organisation which attempts to govern, administer, and control the Gaza Strip. If there is a Palestinian government it is the one situated in the West Bank, once just as much under the horror of violence and war as the Gaza Strip currently is.

What is important is the humanity of the situation: creating humanitarian corridors and means of escape for the population of the Gaza Strip are vital measures that ought to have been taken already and should be taken for the sake of the innate value of every member of the humankind. Creating humanitarian ceasefires for the caring of the injured, the endangered and the ill is important. The focus should not be the blood feud, revenge, and the annihilation of opposing parties. The focus should be upon keeping civilians safe. It does not matter whether these civilians, by their own stupidity are volunteering to be human shields, or whether they simply cannot flee their homes to escape disaster. What matters is protecting noncombatants in this horrendous war in which no one is entirely innocent except the civilians. Pray both for the civilians of Israel, who for years have lived in terror and deep fear of death and utter annihilation among nations that have often been deeply hostile to their mere existence, and for the nations around Israel who have feared it for many years, and especially for the civilians in the Gaza Strip who have only ever known consistent returns to war, mixed amongst the ardour of extreme poverty and little control over their own lives.

The question then is whether or not HAMAS is benefited or hurt by Israel's invasions? For me the answer is clear: just as Israeli politicians who invade Gaza gain the support of the populous, HAMAS is legitimised with every civilian that dies at the hands of an Israeli soldier. Every time Israel invades the Gaza Strip, HAMAS gains more legitimacy in the international scene, as their supporters point to the lopsided death count in every invasion. War is maintained by war. Peace is maintained by peace. Hamas have their legitimacy amongst the Palestinian people, as their protector against Israel. These people, until such time as a two state solution is gained: are Israeli people. The people who are killed in the Gaza Strip, including Hamas militants are Israelis. Let us not assume that simply because they have been herded like cattle, by fear and opposing sides over decades: that the people of the Gaza Strip have chosen either side in this conflict and are not simply attempting to survive as best they can. Just as American drone strikes have turned Al Qaeda into not a small Afghani organisation but an intercontinental fighting force, through the civilian deaths that had been wrought: Israel is not securing its border by giving the world a civilian death count, whether the deaths resemble human shields, prisoners of ideology, or hapless victims in the wrong place at the wrong time, simply attempting to survive another day in subhuman conditions wrought by consistent conflict and fear.

The arguments of both Israel and Hamas bear a lot of weight. Israel should not suffer under consistent terror of missile launches. The Gaza Strip should not be a prison of stateless people with little to no say over the path of their lives. Hamas is an acronym for Islamic Resistance Movement. Their purpose of existence and their legitimacy if they have any is in resisting. If they had nothing to resist, if Israel spent more money on the Iron Dome, preventing Israeli deaths and ending the fear that consistently causes Israel to act in revenge against HAMAS: instead of on consistent invasions, perhaps I would not be writing this article today. Hopefully peace will one day come to the Gaza Strip, as it impossibly has to the West Bank.

But whatever happens as you read the horrific stories which come out of the situation in the Gaza Strip, be certain to take this not as a new event but as a long-standing conflict. There is history on both sides. And there are strong emotions which have had generations to foster themselves into firestorms. Focus instead on the people on both sides of the conflict, who so desperately need relief from the warfare of a blood feud.

Malaysia Airlines flight MH 17 was negligently diverted into danger without cause?

Malaysia Airlines flight MH 17 was diverted without cause?


MH 17 flew 2000 feet below the altitude that it should have been flying at, and 300 miles off course, it has emerged. The shooting down of the aircraft is similar to an accidental shooting down of a passenger
airline by the American Navy, when it confused such craft with an F-14 fighter jet, making the choice of flight path possibly a dangerous one.


According to the United Kingdom's Daily Telegraph newspaper, Flight MH 17 was 300 miles off course for a flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. The Telegraph quote Robert Mark, an editor of Aviation International News Safety magazine, who used the FlightAware flight tracking system, from it, declaring that the previous two weeks worth of MH 17 flights occurred 300 miles south of where the crashed MH 17 flight tracked. The Daily Telegraph looked at flights on FlightAware and discovered that the evidence lead to a conclusion that Mark was correct. Even back then, a few days ago when the story broke: Malaysia Airlines denied that the flight was any different from the route other airlines used.


At a press conference held by the Malaysian Transport Minister today, the Minister stated that MH 17 had intended to fly at 35,000 feet as usual, but had been told by the air traffic control tower to fly at 33,000 feet. The Minister did not specify why the altitude needed to be altered, the plane simply obeyed the tower instructions of the Ukrainian government. This is according to Alexey Yaroshevsky, a Russian reporter who was at the press conference. He then quotes a Malaysia Airlines spokesperson who states that the change of altitude upon request of a traffic controller was not something unusual, and that the route was deemed safe and was not taken mistakenly. According to Singapore's Today Online news service, which also verifies the altitude change and belief that the route was safe: Malaysia Airlines also felt the need to do their own track analysis and found the route was safe, flying over eastern Ukrainian airspace was not an error or a mistake. Today Online however mentions, crediting the press conference, that the aircraft was told to fly at 33,000 feet, 'due to other traffic'. It is uncertain whether or not Today and the Russian journalist both are paraphrasing an instruction from air traffic control, or if one or other misheard or is mistaken.


Most media are drawing comparisons to 1987, when in the September of that year, Korean Air Flight 007 from Anchorage, Alaska to Seoul, South Korea: was shot down by a Soviet fighter jet. American President Ronald Reagan, according to the Global Post had just called the Soviet nation an 'evil Empire', and the American government had announced the development of the Star Wars missile defence system. American spy planes, specifically Boeing RC 135 aircraft, which are similar to civilian airliners, had been deployed to patrol the specific part of the world that the Korean Air Flight 007 had been in. Flight 007, the Global Post relays: was 200 miles off course into Soviet territory and the Soviets shot it down after firing tracers and receiving no response but not contacting the crew via radio. 269 people on board including a Georgia, USA American Congressman lost their lives in the incident.


The Global Post also relay the October 4, 2001 incident where Ukrainian forces shot down a Russian Siberian Airlines aircraft carrying 78 civilians at 35,000 feet. The craft, they relay, was downed into the Black Sea, killing all on board in an accident caused while Ukraine was conducting war games in the area.


The incident which is closest to the current incident however, shows just how much Ukraine authorities were playing God and risking the lives of the Malaysian Airlines passengers and crew. Iran Air Flight 655, on July 3, 1988, containing almost 300 people, including 66 children, was shot down by an American Navy ship, the USS Vincennes. The Americans believed that Flight 655 was an enemy F-14 fighter jet and fired a pair of surface-to-air missiles upon it in anger. 290 people were killed, in what the American government four years later, according to the Global Post: admitted was the Iranian waters.


Libyan Airlines Flight 114 from Tripoli to Cairo was shot down in 1973 when it veered into Israeli territory, resulting in at least 100 deaths. One of the copilots survived and flight path information on board suggested the pilots believed they were still in Egyptian airspace. Israeli fighter jets had signalled the aircraft to land, and shot it down when it did not.


These incidents all suggest a number of things: one of which is that it takes a trained operator to determine whether a radar blip is a spy plane, a fighter jet, or a passenger plane carrying innocents. A plane flying 300 miles off course, and at 33,000 feet rather than 35,000 feet for no apparent reason, certainly risked looking like one of the many Ukrainian military aircraft assigned to kill or assist in the killing of rebels in eastern Ukraine. These aircraft were being shot down over this exact region. Rebel forces had recently bragged that they had captured the exact missiles which are suspected to have shot down the plane, from the Ukrainian army which was positioned there to prevent Russian aircraft from entering the airspace.

Ukraine has proudly released a transcript of Ukrainian rebels believing they had shot down a Ukrainian military transport plane, and then discovering it was what their purported code word combination for a civilian aircraft is. Ukrainians also released an apparent transcript of Russian intelligence communicating with rebels about the incident. This suggests that the Ukrainian military has all access to the communications that rebels engage in. It also suggests that the Ukrainian military had evidence that the Russians were in control of events on the ground or influencing them, but has not come forward with this evidence before now. The evidence was in the form of a transcript in English not Russian, appearing in the English language Kiev Post. It also suggests that Russian intelligence is incredibly sloppy and utterly stupid to have allowed their important communications to be so easily intercepted if this is true.

Whether intentional, negligence, or a mere accident, the unusual behaviour of Flight MH 17 as instructed by Ukrainian air authorities and Malaysia Airlines: put it into clear and imminent danger. If the systems of Malaysia Airlines do not suggest that the flight was 200 miles off course as would be the truth if the press conference is to be believed, it might give a clue as to why another Malaysian aircraft of the same model disappeared just recently, likely killing all on board.

Shooting down an airliner which is not flying at the usual height, and is flying 200 miles off its usual course, is an easy mistake for an amateur or even some professionals to make if the stories about America shooting down an Iranian aircraft are to be believed. Placing that aircraft in that position when plane after plane was being shot down in the area is more than negligent, it borders on culpability. Ukraine has a responsibility to keep its airspace safe to travel in in accordance with international law. If it emerges that rebels stole Ukrainian missile technology, and fired upon the plane, it adds to the negligence of Ukraine in this scenario. The American army cannot be blamed for the Islamic State of Iraq using their weapons upon Iraqi civilians and Christians, weapons they donated to a war against the sovereign State of Syria. If Russia is supporting rebels in Ukraine, it does not make them responsible for the actions of every rebel group, although a case where America did something similar in South America might suggest Ukraine has a case in international law against Russia for damages monetarily if Russia is behind the rebellion against Kiev.

What is essential is that a proper investigation is done and that the results are not turned into ammunition for propaganda and war. Jumping the gun at this moment would land the world where MH 17 now lies.



C. F. The Global Post | 'The US once shot down a commercial airliner too' by Laura Colarusso at July 17, 2014 20:17.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/140717/4-commerical-flights-were-shot-down

C.F. The Daily Telegraph | 'Crashed MH17 flight 'was 300 miles off typical course'' by m Brooks-Pollock, and Edward Malnick at 10:25AM BST 18 Jul 2014.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10975524/Crashed-MH17-flight-was-300-miles-off-typical-course.html

#MH17 presscon: Plane had requested to fly at 35,000ft, but was asked to fly at 33,000ft due to other traffic
— TODAY (@TODAYonline) July 19, 2014

Malaysian airlines spokesman: change of altitude upon requestof air traffic controlers is not something out of ordinary
— Alexey Yaroshevsky (@Yaro_RT) July 19, 2014

Brinksmanship in the Ukrainian proto–war risks a globalised end–game destabilising many nations!

Brinksmanship in the Ukrainian proto–war risks a globalised end–game, destabilising what little world order exists today!

I pride myself on my ability to see through the fog of war. I also pride myself on not ultimately being a supporter of either side: but of peace and stability and a return to balance between the global powers. If Russia is pushed too far, the global order will certainly change and not for the better. A bit of perspective and the power of restraint is all that stands between the world we live in now and a new and dastardly highly escalated Cold War. Already the heightening of the tensions between Russia and America, has seen a massive increase in conflicts around the world, in marine expansionism by China, and a massive drop in business confidence in the future of the most populous nations of the world. An unstable world is a world where conflict and the rise of violent groups are almost assured.

Push the economy of a country to the brink, and war becomes almost inevitable. It was the sanctions against Germany which enabled Hitler to take power and keep it. Sanctions against South Africa's apartheid regime united South Africans behind the evil programme.

The Art of War, a favourite book of mine sets forth the deep importance of strategy in every action. Whether the author of the book was ever a general or ever executed the concubines of its patron: his works have guided China for over a millennium. It is utterly vital to know when to go to war and how to go about it. The American sanctions had been nothing but brinkmanship, and their escalation on issues where there was little hope of changing the mind of the Russians: has further polarised the world. If Russia has been supplying rebels with weapons, it is little different to America and her allies doing the same in Syria: except that Syria is not right next to America. The helicopters and planes which have, prior to the big event, been shot down by rebels: were transporting military personnel, or engaged in military activities against the population of Ukraine. The government of Ukraine only declared a ceasefire for just long enough to sign a European treaty, before ending the ceasefire and declaring there would not be another until rebels lay down arms or were defeated. It was a short time ago that a democratically elected Ukrainian president was ousted by armed rioting in the streets. Before this ousting however, Western media reported that Russia might invade Ukraine: when Russia had no reason as yet to do so. Western media have consistently gone with the narrative that separatists are pro-Russian and terrorists. As I have reported before: many of those fighting are not separatists and are not terrorists: they are certainly not pro-Russian either. What they are is opponents of the Ukrainian government. Whenever Russia has given them a public order to obey, they have directly disobeyed.

During the Cuban missile crisis John F. Kennedy was said to have informed the Russians that he did not control the American army: the Russians subsequently stood down and did not supply Cuba with nuclear weapons to protect it. While President Putin of Russia has become wildly popular through the annexation of what historically was Russian Crimea, and all the more so as sanctions have piled up: the truth is that Russia has next to no control of Ukrainian rebel forces. Russia could close the border, which has been flooded with refugees. Russia has consistently called for a political solution to the problem. Either Russia was being two-faced, and wants a major conflict right on its border: or it actually does not control what is happening in Ukraine. Russia's army, while one of the premier armies in the world: is not a uniform fighting force. There is much corruption in the Russian ranks. There is every chance that a Russian battalion fired a missile at the Malaysia Airlines flight MH 17. There is also every chance that certain elements of the Russian army have been galvanised into supplying weapons and assistance to the Ukrainian rebels. It is possible of course that Russia, with the support of Vladimir Putin is directly involved in events on the ground in Ukraine.

The problem with this is that Putin is not a king but a businessman. Russia is often connected with the concept of oligarchy. Putin has dedicated himself to improving Russia's business interests and thus his own business interests as well. Popularity is great but not essential for Putin to remain on Russia's throne. Russia could have cut off gas to Europe, it has not done so because it does not make business sense to. When JFK did not control the American army during the Cuban missile crisis: he did not publicise it but quietly informed the Russians of it. If Ukrainian rebels or Russian forces shot down the passenger jet: if anything it is evidence that Putin does not control them. The beautiful thing about countries such as Russia or China is that they are governed first and foremost by self-interest. Anything that harms Russia on the global scale is not something Russia is likely to pursue. If an airliner was accidentally shot down: as the Ukrainians in fact claim: then this is a sign that Russia does not control the rebels. Russia or Russian forces, notorious for corruption and the selling of arms: could well have supplied such weaponry, but an accidental shooting is very different from an intentional downing of an aircraft. The high likelihood, that rebel claims, that they had captured missile systems from the Ukrainian army, are factual, might suggest that a lack of Russian involvement in the conflict is to blame. If the plane was shot down by accident: it means those who were operating the missile system were not properly trained. It means that rebel attempts to get Russian forces to train them with the system, likely failed.

Just prior the downing of the aircraft, Washington had imposed essentially sectoral sanctions on the Russian economy. Massive sanctions on matters where sanctions are not effective, means that little more can be done on matters where sanctions are effective. Without already being under harsh sanctions, the business state of Russia would be unlikely to for instance invade Ukraine or for that matter Eastern Europe. If Russia is pushed into enough of a corner, it no longer has as much to lose! The more sanctions are ineffectually used, the less potential fallout Russia has should it take measures befitting the sanctions which have been enacted against it. Russia remains a powerful military and nuclear state. The actions of the Russian President Vladimir Putin have been widely popular among the population and the army of Russia. Putin essentially is a pragmatist. He loves his country but he also loves business. Putin has no interest in isolating Russia from the nations of the world. The Russian army on the other hand is driven largely by patriotism and the odd corruption here and there. Countries with weak economies are often countries which turn to violence. It is widely known that Al Qaeda has thrived in the nations which have weak economies. Fanaticism thrives among those with little to lose. Putin the pragmatist, has harnessed Russian nationalism to business ends. That same deep patriotism has seen his actions in Ukraine fully supported among Russians who might well even look favourably upon invasion not just of Ukraine but of all of the former USSR. For now Putin continues to pander to the West. Russia has not sent their powerful troops into Ukraine. Russia has not invaded its neighbouring nations and toppled the authorities there. Russia has found it beneficial to remain a part of the global community.

Sanctions against Russia now would add little to the sanctions already against Russia. Already Russia has responded by reigniting old Soviet alliances. It has punished its ally South Africa by insisting the BRICS bank be headquartered in Shanghai, China. South Africa is a non-aligned nation. South Africa has just signed a trade treaty with Europe. South Africa is the most Western nation among the BRICS, and in its home theatre of Africa itself. Russia has strengthened Cuba and reinforced alliances in South America. The old divide of the world was into three worlds: the first world which is allied with America, the second which allies itself to Russia, and the third being the non-aligned movement of which South Africa is currently a leading light. This divide is slowly reemerging over Ukraine and a few other issues.

Western politicians no doubt feel that punishing Russia for what has happened in Ukraine will bring them popularity at home. The problem is that Russia has become a business state, primarily concerned with the making of money. This is a problem which is beneficial to the world. What is problematic about it is that if you take away Russia's incentive to be a business state: you make it highly beneficial for Russia to resume its past as a Soviet state. There is a saying that when a leader survives an assassination attempt he is in power for life. Isolating Russia will only strengthen Putin among Russians. Russia, the nationstate, did not shoot down the plane, although someone somewhere did. Whoever did shoot down the plane did so in a war zone.

How should world leaders react to this scenario? Obama no doubt will fully support Ukraine as will his allies. Wiser nations such as Nigeria have called for a deescalation in Ukraine. This is the path the world needs to follow. Whether Russia is guilty or innocent of the downing of the airline: the consequences should they be punished are grave for the entire world. What needs to happen is a deescalation. It does not matter who wins or loses. Balance must be restored. The only alternative is this: a return to the conflict once called the Cold War. We as a world cannot afford to re-enter such a state. It does not matter who is guilty in the vile murder of about 300 people, or at least it does not matter as much as the consequences if their deaths lead to war and not to peace.

Russia has called for a ceasefire on both sides in the Ukrainian conflict. Perhaps if Ukraine were to offer to withdraw their forces in exchange for Russia closing the border: perhaps that would de-escalate a lot. As long as Russia are the only nation who are accountable for anything that occurs in their neighbouring nation Ukraine: it is unlikely the conflict will come to any resolution whatsoever. Putin at this stage cannot afford to lose face. He has always been a pragmatist interested in maintaining his own business interests. He does not control the rebels and he does not control Russian militia. When Germany faced massive sanctions, a government response of submission gave rise to the success of Hitler and his Nazi party. Russian nationalism is at an all time high. Foreigners are in danger on the streets of Moscow. Putin is not the enemy of the Western world but merely an opportunist. There are however plenty of enemies of the West sitting in prefabricated houses across Russia.

Brinkmanship, and standing in stadiums screaming out unlikely to be adhered to ultimatums and meeting out punishments: may well gain a lot of support among a population. What is needed now however is patience and a yearning for peace. It does not matter who shot down the plane in question, so much as it matters whether or not such a question is worth the destruction of the entire world should Russia no longer have anything to lose and should it subsequently only be able to gain its interests and the life of its people by means of war and unlawful activities.

Let us honour the dead by peace, by perhaps discovering who murdered them: but not by piling up the streets with yet more dead, through the brinkmanship of ill-advised self-serving politicians. The conflict in Ukraine must now come to an end for the sake of humanity itself and of the world we inhabit.

Has immigration reform in the Republic of South Africa been motivated by hatred of foreigners?

Has immigration reform in the Republic of South Africa been motivated by hatred of foreigners?

Are the new visa requirements being placed upon foreigners intent upon entry into South Africa: a government attempt to accommodate xenophobia, or a reasonable attempt to secure our borders?

A few years ago the hunting industry were up in arms, releasing a bugle call through their accomplice, the media, in a desperate attempt to stave off South Africa’s still standing new firearms regulations. The industry claimed that the economy would lose at least a billion from its important GDP (gross domestic product) figures. The regulations went ahead nonetheless. South Africa very seldom bases its policy upon the interests of the various business or society lobbies.

With major international movies and television series being shot significantly, or largely, or exclusively in the Republic of South Africa, the entertainment industry, especially in the Western Cape, has seen a major boon. Like Costa Rica or Canada: South Africa had set itself apart as a cheap and easy place to film a major production, especially those set elsewhere. International actors could be quickly flown in and paid in full for the scenes they shot. Unlike Canada, where a good portion of actors have to be local, international companies seem to prefer to avoid the South African distinctive accent. For these filmings to continue we are told: these international companies should be able to continue fully importing their labour force, and merely using South Africa as staging ground. Perhaps then South Africans could have hundreds of thousands of jobs, feeding and serving these foreign actors. After all, international productions still do need lowly paid extras in nonspeaking roles and uncredited stagehands to ensure everything goes smoothly.

Just as was the case when the hunting industry made a call to arms: it is highly unlikely that the government will listen to the concerns of the film industry. The government has their own researchers and their own economists. It is rare for the government to rely on outsiders to make their decisions. Granted, South Africa is a participatory democracy. The government certainly must take account of the views of industry and civil society, but it is generally the case that the government goes with its own research. It is unlikely that any amount of campaigning will cause the government to about turn, even if hundreds of thousands of lowly paid jobs are lost.

America and Britain, similarly, have very strict visa restrictions. South Africa, previously known for the weakness or liberal status of its immigration laws has been ideal for international film corporations, who like to ship actors in at the last minute in accordance with a tight and dynamic schedule.

South Africa faces very few external threats that its intelligence organisations have not been able to snuff out quietly and effectively. What it also faces is status as a nation sometimes called the America of Africa. Immigrants from across the theatres of war which have overcome large parts of the continent, in hope to find sanctuary and safe harbour in a nation once only known as a harbour for ships: have been swift to latch onto low-paying jobs. They have always been quick as well to apply for government benefits that many South Africans did not know existed. Among the results has perhaps been the deep xenophobia that a plurality of South Africans have been diagnosed with. Most black South Africans according to recent surveys: have a deeply negative view of non-South-African Africans. This is especially so among those who struggle to eke out an un-lavish existence in rural areas and shantytowns. These people directly compete with refugees, and migrants seeking the betterment of their lives, from a place South Africans call ‘Africa’ or ‘Up North’.

Most of the temporary immigrants who come to South Africa to film are not from Africa but from Europe and America. Some critics have pointed out that simply applying stricter visa regulations to immigrants from Africa: would prevent the movie industry experiencing massive losses.

There is very little xenophobia among South Africans for people from anywhere but Africa. The same regulations in their laxity which have allowed the film industry to blossom: have also been a godsend for destitute refugees fleeing to South Africa.

As I have stated many times: GDP is a false indicator. Lumping all parts of a population together, and counting the wins of a small part as though they were the wins of all the population: is an artificial measure. Likewise: jobs which are lost are sometimes somehow replaced with better jobs.

It is easier for us who do not compete with foreigners for low-paying entry-level jobs: to condemn the xenophobia of those who do, and it is those who are best off in the economy who have the least proportional demographic of xenophobic individuals. We might well compete with foreigners on an international level. However, competition relates to something where one person bests another. That is to say that the person who is better at a thing or can do it cheaper succeeds over another who is less of an asset to those who consume the services of these individuals, while the less efficient, less cost saving or less effective competitor fails. The South African government did not step in to save the textile industry, when it allowed cheap imports from China and similar massive job losses were incurred. The government did not step in to save the hunting industry and the sports weaponry industry when it introduced new gun regulations.

South Africa is struck by a unique dilemma: to compete with other destinations for the filming of international media productions: these productions must hire foreign staff who are brought in through easy visas. Competition will always exist for South Africa. South Africans cannot do the jobs of these foreigners to the satisfaction of the foreign film companies. These visa restrictions make it harder for these productions to hire foreigners. As a result of which the industry believes it will fail. The industry does not believe that South Africans could do the same job as these foreigners do. It is therefore begging the government to allow foreigners to take jobs in South Africa: because it does not believe that if South Africans had to be relied upon as the labour pool for these organisations: that the industry could compete with other international destinations.

The industry has a very free-market approach as opposed to the protectionism that a visa affords. Ultimately a visa is almost always a protectionist measure. A government does not desire its own citizens to have to compete with the best in the world. As a result such a country becomes less competitive on the global scale and less attractive to business.

It is highly likely that the government is seeking to combat things such as human trafficking, drug smuggling, and many other criminal enterprises. It is equally likely that the government desires at least some of the roles of productions filmed in South Africa to be removed from foreigners who are brought in and that the desire of those in power is for these jobs to be placed in South African laps.

The argument of industry is ultimately this: international productions would not want to film in South Africa if they were forced to use South African actors. The visa regulations are likely largely in response to the massive rise in xenophobic attacks across South Africa. When lives are at stake in the mind of the government, a couple of job losses usually take a secondary position of importance. Whether the easy influx of foreigners and deeply liberal immigration laws of South Africa are the reason for the xenophobic attacks, or whether an alleged culture of violence and a deficit in the devotion of resources to security forces and to those engaged in policing are to blame: the new visa requirements no doubt will be welcomed most gleefully among the poorer parts of South Africa who have seen jobs they once made a living out of being taken by desperate foreigners who would do their job for far less.

World War I was not started by a single bullet or by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.

World War I was not started by a single bullet or by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.

It is about this time every now and again, upon the anniversary of the fateful beginning of things, that news media love to claim that a single bullet changed the history of the world forever. This approach is not however an entirely honest approach to an entirely complex matter. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was no more the catalyst of the First World War than September 11, 2001 was the catalyst for the American invasion of Iraq. The American invasion of Iraq was based on the false premise, upon the propaganda, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The First World War was created through a similar opportunistic propaganda coup. Just as the September 11 was readily made use of to make war more palatable for the American cafeteria of voters, the powerful empires that went to war, merely used the assassination as an excuse to expand their own overwrought power upon the theatre of the global stage.

Certainly, with tensions stoked high, and alliances between empires holding a ready importance in a world prior to the United Nations, the assassination played a role often overstated in the beginning of the global war. But in truth, it was merely a convenient tool which the allies of the Duke used fully to their advantage.

Could the assassination of John F. Kennedy have been used as a pretext for America to invade Russia? Could any amount of assassinations by radical groups validly be called the cause of a war? What caused the First World War was not a bullet but a premeditated utilisation of a propaganda coup which ingenious opportunists found in the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand.

A single bullet is never the cause of a war. A single missile, or even a nuclear bomb is never to blame. The cause of the war is the decision of those high up in government to make a war. It is the decision not only of those who go out to war and invade another nation, but also the decision of those others to intervene or defend such nation. The assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand certainly could have further stoked tensions.

Those tensions were already past breaking point. There is a difference between a cause of something and a convenient scapegoat upon which to launch a campaign into the bowels of Hades. A refusal to accept recompense or negotiation, a refusal to lay down arms or find a solution, an attitude aimed at war are far more to blame than the bullet which ended Ferdinand. It was the choice of the nations of the world to escalate a small event and to continue to escalate ever growing tensions, with bullet upon bullet causing the war, each bullet like the ticking of the clock: each bullet continuing the war, each bullet the cause of the war for that moment in time! One bullet did not cause the First World War. A thousand bullets did.

Each bullet drew the war further in. Each charge, each digging of a trench, each launching of an aircraft, each poster for propaganda caused the war. A war is like a fire, it is a hungry thing and does not burn itself. A war must be constantly maintained and carefully stoked at every moment. The natural state of man is not war but peace. It takes courage and resources to fight a war. It does not simply happen. Human beings make a choice to go to war: a brave choice or a foolish choice, a good choice or an evil choice: a choice nonetheless. Archduke Franz Ferdinand did not cause the war. It is the world who decided to go to war, each single individual which fought. Treaties and the words that are of politicians are but that, they are words. It is not words alone or stylistic and useful events, but actions which sustain a war. War is not a natural disaster, it is a human choice. Wars do not naturally happen, people have to make them occur and it is people that are needed to keep the fires of hell well stocked with human remains. The death of one man did not cause the deaths of thousands by chemical weapons and bayonets, and through starvation and disease in the man-made trenches dug by those sacrificed by the empires whose rulers' propaganda gleefully put them there in pursuit of opportunity and loss.

Those who fought and died for their kings and for their countries, for the empires which they held dear: these men caused the First World War and continued fighting it bravely. Their sacrifice is a far more potent cause than the extremism of the wayward assassin. May the men and women on both sides of the devil's own war be remembered with the high and sombre, deep and lasting respect and honour which they no doubt deserve, may they rest in peace knowing that they served their countries whatever the motives of their leaders. It was not the assassination but that which preceded and followed it which undoubtedly was the cause of so many deaths of a plenitude of honourable men and women. May they rest in peace.

Discovering truth without losing trust. A guide to the soft science of conducting a sensitive interview.

Who will this article be of use to?

This article might be of some use to individuals engaging in fact finding, to journalists desiring to gain the truth out of an interviewee, to lawyers who are interviewing their own client or a potential witness, to people who desire to know how to interview or interrogate another individual in order to find the truth in a manner that is not rude or too cumbersome.

How to read this article to gain what is most useful to you? This article is written from the perspective of a lawyer interviewing their client or a potential witness, the second part relates to signs of falsehood or problems, while the first part of this article consists of advice on how to conduct an interview so as to enable the second part to be of use. Parts of this article are geared more towards the law, but can be easily adapted in substance or spirit to use in other professions. What is essential in the first part is how to take positive steps to avoid preventing the second part from being nullified by a lack of good interviewing in the first part. If you are not physically interviewing a person then the procedural steps to assist such would be of little use. In that case skip to the second part of this article below.

Why did I write this article?

I wrote this article to assist people who desire to effectively, courteously and efficiently enquire of the truth from another individual. It is designed to assist the person to gain specific clarity as well as some indication as to the real world value of what has been communicated to them verbally and nonverbally.

An introduction.

One of the first things they teach you at law school is not to confuse the law with your own moral standards. Saying that something is terrible or immoral does not get you marks in legal essays. I shall start with how you should not interview a client.

The origin of the modern lawyer in South Africa is not what you might think. In Great Britain matters were settled by duels to the death. At some stage champions were permitted. People were hired to fight duels for other people. Gradually the fighting became words. The words became arguments. The arguments became opening and closing statements mixed amongst the interviewing of relevant witnesses. A lawyer is a practical thing: they are an expert in fighting with the words. Their advice on whether or not an argument might result in victory or defeat is essential to a client. Like a good translator a good lawyer tells the truth and then advises a client on their best and other options based on the truth. The service you go to a lawyer for is remarkably different from the service you go to a barman or a psychologist for. It is also remarkably different from the service you go to a friend for and the service you go to a priest or pastor for. Lawyers used to be paid by the word: now lawyers tend to be paid by the hour or by the activity they engage in or by their results. When writing an essay for a lecturer an ordinary person might waffle. The art of interviewing a client consists of getting exactly what is needed from the client and nothing less than that while not wasting the client's time. While the interview of a client to gain instructions should by no means put off the client, it should certainly gain the facts as they actually are in order to assist the client and not hinder them. There is a fine line which legal practitioners must walk: between a good bedside manner which is appealing to a client and good for business, and the necessity of gaining information which will be of use to a client. Both of these aspects are essential and are not disparate but can be made to become complimentary. I often found that a client appeared to me, to be saying one thing until I properly interviewed them, and it is only upon this proper interview that the truth in such a case sometimes emerges. Clients also might not realise that they are protected by both legal privilege and confidentiality: it often takes proper interviewing skills to discover the real situation on the ground, which the opponent would certainly bring up in court, but which can be dealt with properly if the legal practitioner is properly informed.

Empathy can be useful, but too much empathy can prevent the truth from coming out and leave the client disenchanted and without a solution to their problem.

When I worked in the family law and divorce unit at the University of the Witwatersrand Law Clinic, I would always try to bring tissues with me for the client. I would also be certain to treat my client with human dignity. This is the useful type of empathy.

There is a different type of empathy that lawyers sometimes display. They might listen to the client go on and on about a story saying that something is 'terrible': all the while not understanding at all what the client's actual problem is.

An effective lawyer should ask incisive questions, questions which discover the truth of what the client intends to convey. You could well listen to your client speaking for half an hour about the problem while charging them all the while for the time: as they remain no closer to solving their problem. Make no mistake I advocate therapy and assistance for a client should they require it: but a lawyer is not a psychologist. Yes, have empathy. Yes, do not judge a client harshly. However, what a client goes to a lawyer for is not a shoulder to cry upon: it is a champion to fight a battle or a wise guide to assist them on the path forward.

Questioning a client and clarifying what they are saying while narrowing down on what their actual legal problem is and whether you can assist them with it can save both your time and their time. If you do not get the full story from the client it could be very embarrassing on the witness stand for both you and your client who might subsequently face perjury charges. The job of a lawyer is to find the truth and then advise their client as best as they can based upon this finding of truth. Have empathy, but make sure that you ask direct questions of your client which have direct answers. If your only words to your client are 'go on' or 'that is terrible' then your client could get the same service for free from their local barman. A client comes to a lawyer for legal advice that is what they expect. There are many things which you would tell your doctor which you would not tell any other individual. If your doctor asks you personal questions you are liable to give honest answers because these questions are necessary for them to assist you. Yes, a doctor with a good bedside manner is a good thing: yet that bedside manner should not get in the way of them healing you. This is the same fine line that lawyers must walk.

Lawyers are creatures of instruction.

Lawyers are creatures of instruction. If I sit across from a client and hear their story and write up their instructions about what the predicament is, there is a reason why they came to me. A person goes to a lawyer for advice and assistance. What type of advice am I to give them?

Some people might look at their client and tell them that they would be stupid to follow a certain path. Such a practitioner might well inform clients that they are making a major mistake and to follow their advice, shouting the client down like an angry father.

A better approach might be to inform the client of all the practical options including their nonlegal options such as mediation or dropping the matter entirely. The practitioner might then inform the client of the consequences which might come about from each of the actions and the legal principles which might govern their path forward. It would be advisable to inform a client both of the legal and the practical consequences of whatever path forward they choose. The difference between the first and the second approach is that in the first approach it is the lawyer who is instructing the client. In the second scenario the client is instructing the lawyer in an informed manner. It is the job of a lawyer to guide a client, not to parent a client. Clients have parents just as they have barmen, psychologists, and other professionals who are best able to assist the client in that manner. The lawyer is merely a guide, it is the client who determines their own path forward. A lawyer can always recuse himself from a client at an early stage if they believe it would be inadvisable to take the case further. The advantage of advising a client of the different options is that it covers a lawyer in the event that the client subsequently decides to litigate against them. If a lawyer believes the client is making the wrong decision they can inform them of this quietly and respectfully by informing them of the consequences of the decision and the likely outcomes: both verbally and in writing. In that event then the client if they go ahead with an ill-advised course, cannot say that the lawyer did not inform them of the consequences of their actions. There is a vast difference between informing a client of the consequences of their actions and making decisions for a client in contrast to the will of the client. The lawyer is a creature of instruction. A lawyer is a servant of the client. Yes, a lawyer is also an officer of the court and is bound by the ethics of the profession. The case is the client's case not the lawyer's case.

Thou shalt not deceive the court.

It is not entirely rare in South Africa that a client might bring a problem to a lawyer for the enforcement of something unlawful. A lawyer is an officer of the court. A lawyer may not deceive the court. If there is no legal solution to a client's problem the best approach is to inform the client of this, and why this is the case. Sometimes then a nonlegal solution might emerge to assist the client. If the client is in an illegal relationship it might be possible for the client to leave that relationship. Mediation might assist a problem where the law cannot enforce something.

However, assisting a client in deceiving the court is not only risky and unethical and patently illegal: it also prevents other lawful solutions to a problem from being pursued. The appropriate dispute resolution mantra has caught much ground in South Africa lately. Where there is a potent solution to a problem that does not waste the time of the court: a client should be made aware of this.
Lawyers have been punished by the courts for the action of taking matters which should have been mediated before a judge.


You're an officer of the courts before anything else.

Every now and then a client emerges, who believes that threatening a legal practitioner will get what they desire. Lawyers are protected by international law precisely because so many lawyers are executed or injured by untoward parties. If a client is unsatisfied with your advice then in that event the best approach is simply to be polite to them and cordial, and to advise them as any other clients might be advised. If they choose to leave as you are unwilling to compromise your integrity, politely allow them to do so. In addition it might be best to write the client a written version of your advice in case they subsequently become ill-advisedly determined to litigate against you.

There are also clients who might consider your good legal advice to not assist them in their cause, who might inform you that you have not assisted them afterwards: where there's nothing that you as a lawyer can do to assist them. The best approach is to be polite to the client, to wish them well on their way and to cover yourself in the event of litigation, by giving the client a written form of your opinion if necessary.

I stated that the first part of this work would focus on what not to do with the client. While I certainly stated what you should do with the client also: the purpose was to display the type of behaviours which would be inadvisable to engage in.

The second part of this work is about truth finding. It is essential in interviewing your own clients and witnesses that you discover what the truth actually is. A good understanding of the real world is a good start in discovering this. How far can a person see at night with perfect vision when an event occurred 100 feet away? What is the likely response of a person to another individual pulling a gun on them? How is a person likely to act after a trauma has occurred? How likely is an event to have occurred? These are all points upon which additional questioning might be necessary. If something does not feel right to you: it is often that your subconscious mind has discovered a hole in testimony. Discovering whether or not something might be a falsehood: does not mean for certain that it is a falsehood. For instance: pigs fly, they do: in the cargo holds of aeroplanes. What is essential is that if something comes up which might be a cue to your discovering a relevant deception: that an additional effort is placed on a particular point in order to wring out the truth of the matter. It is always advisable to ask enough questions and to clarify enough in order to gain a good mental picture of the events which might have taken place. It is also essential to ask what did not happen, and other such questions which a truthful person might easily be able to answer. Remember to trust your gut instinct: the gut instinct is often the working of experience and your picking up upon subconscious cues that something is not right.

Micro-expressions. There are only between 20 and 30 expressions which the human face is capable of making. You may observe images of these expressions from various studies. There are less than 10 simple expressions such as anger or contempt, and the combination of these universal expressions: such as surprised and angry or surprised and scared or surprised and happy: make up a mere 20 to 30 expressions. While most human beings have a good control of their own expression of emotion: these expressions nonetheless often appear for split seconds when a person is deceiving another as to their emotions. With practice an individual can catch micro-expressions. If a person should be feeling contempt for you but they are feeling anger at you: if a person should be feeling love for you but they are feeling contempt for you: or for another individual: this might go across their face for a moment at a time: and it certainly is an important cue to question the individual more on the aspect that they are speaking upon.

Consistency of a story. There's nothing more consistent than a madman's delusion. If he says that everyone is out to get him and you say: why don't we ask them if they are out to get you: he shall say that people in a conspiracy will generally not admit to the conspiracy. I read this logic problem years ago in the works of Chesterton. Looking for an internal consistency in a thing can certainly be helpful but it can also be distracting. If something is internally consistent it does not mean that it is true. However, there is a different type of consistency: whether something survives becoming big. For instance: why would these individuals have a conspiracy against the madman: that is to say how did this come about and to what purpose. Things such as motive and opportunity and the means to perform an action might certainly discount a false but consistent story. The desire of liars to tell consistent stories certainly assists in another matter further on, and getting a liar to tell the story in such a way that inconsistencies emerge certainly can be advantageous. It is the big consistency of a statement: whether it holds up in the real world that determines whether it is simply a false model of the world or the real thing that is being described.

Falsehood is generated in a different part of the brain than truth is. It also requires more mental energy than simply telling the truth. For some reason human beings do not like lying. A person is more likely to equivocate or avoid a question than lie. Often a liar might therefore take the approach of attacking the person who is attempting to discover the truth. They might also attempt to implicate someone else or else otherwise throw an unprepared or naive person off their track and onto a false track created for their own purposes. This approach is similar to the approach used by military forces to avoid tracking parties sent to discover their position: a false trail is set out quite clearly, so clearly an uninformed person might follow it into an ambush. Picking up the real trail sometimes requires more skill, experience and additional effort. A liar might also tell the truth in such a way that they know they will not be believed. This false sign of falsehood is intentional and there to mislead. When a person does lie it often causes emotions of guilt, sadness, powerlessness, shame, or other such negative responses within the liar. Lie detector tests are designed to detect fear via the autonomous systems of the human body. Not every liar experiences negative emotions as a result of their lie. Some liars might feel contempt, display superiority, or otherwise enjoy telling a lie. There are two approaches to lying which are generally adopted by liars: one which sees it as a last resort, as something necessary in order to avoid some evil or gain some good when honesty would not gain such a result. Such a person might feel weak in their lying. They might consider themselves to have been forced to resort to force. Such a person would be experiencing negative emotions. In contrast a liar might enjoy lying, they might take great glee out of misleading and manipulating other individuals. Such a liar might in fact unintentionally show positive emotions that should not be present or lack of negative emotions where these should be present.

While this is only a small model of the world and I am told it would not be comprehensive for psychological purposes: it is useful to turn emotions into mathematical models. Happiness objectively speaking should refer to a gain while sadness should refer to a loss. Fear should refer to the possibility of a loss or a lost opportunity while anger could well be a response to either loss or fear of loss: when an individual believes another is responsible for this situation. Frustration in contrast might refer to a situation similar to anger but where the other individual is not considered guilty but simply an obstacle. When an individual tells a story and their emotions do not match with what objectively should be there: this might be a sign that additional interrogation of a witness or additional instruction taking from a client is required. These sorts of emotions not only appear in speech and body language but additionally they also appear on the face of an individual by their micro-expressions in many cases.

If you watch movies on television you might notice that characters are separated by physical obstacles when they are at odds. A character who is weak might be portrayed as shorter. This type of visualisation plays upon basic human animal psychology. People have a desire subconsciously to separate themselves from their enemies and to associate themselves with those whom they like. This probably comes all the way from primitive man who had to avoid his predators and competitors, and gain advantage from his allies, and sought to bring himself closer to his prey items. A person who is lying might attempt to distance himself from the truth finder at points where they lie. They might attempt to avert their gaze, or place a physical object between them and the truth finder, or separate them from their self via the gestures of their hands. Expressions might also appear on the face of a liar at this point. A high-pitched voice has been known to be associated with the loss of control, while a voice which goes below its ordinary pitch suggests that an individual is attempting to keep control of their self. Again looking at basic psychology of human beings and animals: a liar is the enemy of the truth finder as far as the liar is concerned. They might very well be lying for the sake of the truth finder. However, their voice might betray this evolutionary response in as much as the placing of an object or averting of eye contact can be a cue as to falsehood in some instances. Direct eye contact suggests a lack of a barrier between two individuals. Language also picks up on this basic psychology. If someone is an enemy of yours you might refer to a task you did together as a task done by 'enemy and I' rather than as a task done by 'we' or 'us.'

Parts of speech are also vital in detecting a lie. A truth teller is more likely to refer to himself or herself in a sentence. A truth teller is more likely to use the word 'I' or the word 'me.' The liar is more likely to refer to others than themselves. A truth teller might say that they locked the door. A liar however is more likely to distance themselves from their own actions. The liar might say the door appeared locked or the door was locked. The liar therefore is not in their false story which makes the liar feel more comfortable about telling the lie. If an individual equivocates or is vague it might be a sign that the equivocation itself or the vagueness itself is truthful but that there is more to the story which they desire to hide from the truth finder. If an individual attempts to divert attention such as via an intentional approach of answering a question via another question or by attempting to alter the topic or through avoidance or attack this might be an indication of deception. A liar not only attempts to distance themselves from the false story they are informing you of, they are also more likely to express negative emotions in the telling of their story in order to mask their own negative response to their own act of lying whether consciously or subconsciously, this can be discovered through the use of negative adjectives in the description of how an individual was feeling in a moment.

The tense in which a story is told can also be an indicator of deception. The part of the brain which relates to memory when accessed: usually comes to be expressed in the past tense. The part of the brain which relates to deception: however operates in the present tense. A person who is engaging in falsehood might tell a story all in the past tense until such points where they are telling a falsehood. A person also might accidentally through their use of the past tense reveal their belief that a missing person is in fact dead. Watching carefully and at all relevant times for the tense in which an individual person explain something in can often reveal a point which requires more interrogation or better instructions in, in order to avoid embarrassment at trial. A liar is also more likely to use simpler sentence structure: the lie itself takes up a certain degree of mental acuity which is then not available for the use of more complex sentences. For instance a liar is more likely to use basic action words such as 'walk' or 'go' or 'run' and less likely to use words such as traverse, or sentences such as 'I missed the bus and thus had to proceed on foot.' A truth teller is more likely to inform you of what did not happen. Words such as 'but' or 'however' which relate to what did not occur are far more likely to be used by a truth teller. For instance: 'I took Fourth Street rather than Fifth Street because there was a traffic jam on Fifth Street!' It is more difficult to lie about what did not happen than to lie about what did happen. The lie by its very definition is a false small model of the world. The lie might be very consistent within itself by the ingenuity of the lie teller. A lie or falsehood however is small by its very definition because it is a model of the world rather than a retelling of actual events within the real world. It is because of the vast brainpower demanded to create such a small model of the world with consistency: that liars sometimes contradict themselves and use simpler language and simpler stories. The mere consistency of the lie can sometimes reveal it to a focused truth finder. The liar needs to remember their lie and therefore requires a degree of consistency and simplicity in their story. A lie therefore often involves a scarcity of important detail. A truth teller might relay a full inventory of their senses. They might refer to the smell of something and the taste of something, the colour of something, the size of something and so forth. The liar has to be careful in how much detail they give. Practised liars might intentionally give detail in order to appear not to be working off a false model of the world. The false truth in such a case can often be brought to contradict itself through intelligent and thoughtful interrogation or gathering of instructions. As most people do not have perfect memories, their lies are often something which can be dug out and discovered.

Human beings often lie throughout the day. A lawyer is bound by their ethics to be a truth teller. A witness on the stand is likewise is bound to tell the truth. It is not a favour to a client to allow them to get away with the lie to you only to find that your opponent on the stand has succeeded in causing your client to visibly perjure themselves. It is essential that a lawyer discovers what the actual truth is. A proper but respectful interview of a client as to the facts is therefore essential. Awareness of signs of falsehood, and proper interviewing skills are an important part of the lawyer's profession. It is better to be prepared for bad news and to be able to better control the narrative, than to be caught surprised in cross-examination.

I find it essential to know the type of subject which emerges in a specific type of case. There are certain types of questions which you are required to know the answers to: to proceed with a specific type of case. Euphemism can at times be essential, but it can also create false impressions in the mind of the practitioner. Bedside manner is essential, but if it prevents proper fact-finding: it is not a service to the client but a hindrance to their cause.

These are just some of the techniques I use to come to the truth of a situation. The first part referred largely to the type of interview approach and bedside manner which is or is not acceptable if you desire to properly gain instructions which will be useful moving forward. The second type referred to fact-finding and discovering the truth, it is better that a client to be embarrassed in front of you than in front of the entire world on the witness stand. A non-judgemental but intelligent and honest attitude when you have discovered a falsehood the client has revealed to you could go a long way in preventing the breakdown of a relationship between you and your client.

In the information technology business in most cases what a client desires and what the client is delivered is not congruent. In law the same could also happen if a client is not properly interviewed. Clarification is essential, and discovering facts relevant to the case which need to be dealt with in a different way than other facts: is essential. It is better that your client admit to some weakness to you than have it discovered on the witness stand and your client be exposed to an opponent and possible jail time.


Parts of speech such as 'his' or 'her' or their can also cause a lot of problems.

Whenever an individual is speaking about an issue it is important to determine what objects are involved, what people are involved, and what part each person and each object plays specifically and separately from all other objects and people involved. While parts of speech such as 'he' and 'she' do in fact assist in detecting falsehood, it can be very necessary to ask a client to clarify. For instance: a client might say that a person known as 'he,' shot another individual. One might assume that he is a specific individual, it is advisable however to clarify who that individual is and how they relate to the events and to the client in question. If the client has personal animosity towards the person in question and a reason to lie on the stand: it could well destroy your case against that individual.

If something a client says does not make sense make sure to ask more about it.

If a person's story is not consistent this is often because they are attempting to hide something or brush over it: the thing they are attempting to hide may or may not be as bad as you think it is, but it is essential to discover what this thing is as it might have a bearing on the moving forward of the case.

When interviewing a client it is of great importance to not only get their full contact details and to verify these details with the client, but to get alternative contact details for the client, and the details of an individual they trust who can get hold of them if they are not available. It is also essential to gather the right information for pleadings, to satisfy statute, to satisfy the rules of court, and to satisfy the government statistics office. I find it especially useful to ask yourself the question: does what my client is saying make sense? If it does not make sense to you, you cannot expect to make sense to the court.

While paying due accord to the value of bedside manner in interviewing a client or a witness, it is important to make sure that the information gleaned is not only accurate but reliable and useful in further pursuing the matter with the client.

Lawyers might often simply make a summary of what they believe the client was saying to them. In some ways this is useful, but only if the summary is made in addition to extensive word for word notes. Systems such as Teeline shorthand notation, good typing skills, and the use of good interviewing skills can allow the making of a good record of exactly what the client actually said which can then be reviewed and investigated to ensure the client is served to the best of your abilities. A summary accompanying this would only be an asset adding to it, but the original instructions which the client actually gave might contain vital information that a summary missed altogether to the detriment of the client's case.

At all times a lawyer must realise that they are the servant and the tool of their clients: there is not a place for their own ego but only a place for their own integrity in dealing with a client. Staying objective on a matter rests upon this principle.

I hope that this article has been useful to you. It could be useful both to a practitioner of the law and to anyone hoping to discover the truth. An interview with a client needs to be a combination of truth finding and good manners and good courtesy and etiquette.

Thank you very much for reading this article. I hope it assists as a reference work for you in your pursuit of better interviewing clients and witnesses and engaging in fact-finding. These techniques are methods I've used both in law and in journalism. In law they are all the more important: the consequences of making a mistake can end your career for ever.

About the author and disclaimer.

At present I am not a practising attorney, nor am I a practising advocate. In accordance with South African definitions of what the lawyer is: I am a lawyer. A lawyer is everything from a paralegal to a judge, it refers to anyone who engages in providing legal services within the law. My time at the Witwatersrand University Law Clinic was as a student counsellor under the supervision of an admitted attorney. This entailed interviewing clients, writing documents and pleadings, and relaying advice to clients and so forth but while under the watchful eye of an admitted attorney. My experience of interviewing clients at present is mainly gained from journalism and from my time at the University of the Witwatersrand Law Clinic over a period of about a year and additionally of three weeks as part of compulsory practical coursework subsequent to my graduation, as a compulsory part of the Legal Education and Development programme of the Law Society which replaces a year of articles with six months of coursework and exams. I took this position at the University of the Witwatersrand Law Clinic essentially twice: one day per week for about a year as part of a compulsory subject in my final year at Wits and subsequent to this I took the same position at the Witwatersrand University Law Clinic for a much shorter second time as part of a course requirement when I was completing the statutory postgraduate six-month practical legal training course at the Law Society. I hope to write the board exams in a month or two. Nothing I've stated is legal advice, nor is it advice on the ethics of the profession. It is simply the way in which I believe an interview should best be completed. Nothing I have said is to compare myself to other lawyers or individuals practising any type of legal service. I do not state that I'm better or worse than any other legal practitioner, I am merely relaying methods which I believe might well be effective in the correct circumstances. I do not guarantee that these methods are effective or the best course of action. I do not accept liability for harm incurred in following the above methods. This article should not be considered to encompass all aspects of an interview and is merely meant to add to your own extensive interviewing knowledge. External verification methods are still an important aspect of verification of witness statements.

Danger: Why you should reconsider using AirBnB and crowdsourced services.

We have emerged from a world of the Venetian masked ball, to our current world where some people wear masks with their own face upon the mask. Simply because some people act in a trustworthy manner online and appear to have their own face upon the mask, does not mean that the same characters who previously used anonymity do not use the anonymity of a false identity to engage in the same activities.

AirBnB, and other applications are crowdsourcing all things from accommodation to lift clubs. To many this is a new era in social media, founded upon trust, transparency and open honesty.

The core of this entire movement however comes down to one word: that word is trust. People apparently use their real identities and thus are accountable.

Unfortunately in many cases there still exists a world of trolls, sociopaths, false profiles, criminals masquerading and other such things online. If credit card details are not safe, then systems using banking details to verify a person are not safe. If identity numbers or social security codes are not safe, nor are systems which use these to identify a person. As it is most systems use aspects such as a person's Facebook account to verify a person. It is very easy to set up a fake Facebook, and just as easy to populate it with false friends. In fact, studies show just that: a massive portion of Facebook accounts are set up by cybercriminals and untoward characters. Another important detail is that many people use weak passwords. Often genuine social media accounts are compromised and then used for nefarious activities.

We have emerged from a world of the Venetian masked ball, to our current world where some people wear masks with their own face upon the mask. Simply because some people act in a trustworthy manner online and appear to have their own face upon the mask, does not mean that the same characters who previously used anonymity do not use the anonymity of a false identity to engage in the same activities.

It is the same people who are honest and used anonymity as a protection who have come out of the woodwork and have decided to utilise their own birth names. The criminals, trolls and other undesirables have not determined to follow the same path necessarily. I certainly am not engaging in activities such as air B&B. The Internet remains a wild wild West: crime only continues to increase online. Such a movement comes down to one word: and that sole word is trust. Trustworthiness is an entirely different matter.

If companies hire individuals to write good reviews of their products online, and bad reviews of their opposing forces: why would criminals not do likewise? Due to a false sense of security individuals are opening up their homes and motorvehicles to complete strangers. Even relatively honest people steal towels from hotel bathrooms, or run off with scented shampoos: this is why hotels only offer tiny shampoo bottles. Gated communities create a similar false sense of security, which is why crime statistics show these to be high crime areas, criminals simply buy a house within the community or rent it and suddenly have access to unknowing victims. Holidaymakers have a similar false sense of security and are thus favourite targets for criminals.

Just as classifieds are used to post fake job openings to facilitate rape and murder, these other movements are inviting to criminal psyches.

The CIA has joined Twitter...

listen to ‘The CIA has joined Twitter... ’ on Audioboo

With an ominous start, the Central Intelligence Agency waded into the social media:

We can neither confirm nor deny that this is our first tweet.
— CIA (@CIA) June 6, 2014

Thank you for the @Twitter welcome! We look forward to sharing great #unclassified content with you.
— CIA (@CIA) June 7, 2014

That is all for now... And they seem largely just to be following their own government for now... Binding their time before tweeting anything actually excitingly declassified (a.k.a. Wikipedia minus the Snowden and Wikileaks leaks common knowledge stuff?)... Oh well!

In South Africa, Unions have become intertwined with terrorism and organised crime? #NUMSA #Bombings

 The Roman Democracy became a dictatorship because of the force of unions. The Plebeians would stop working and strike until their demands were met. To appease them the office of Tribune was constituted, the very office which would one day become that of emperor. Unions can be a great force for good if they look after worker rights, and interests while not destroying the employers of these workers financially, or the very economy of the country.

However, when unions begin to make unreasonable demands and to use murder and violence to achieve these, they have ceased to be unions, and have become an other.

 For years major unions have used intimidation to force workers to turn on their employers and strike. Streets would be filled with garbage, motor vehicles burnt, people would be beaten to death, children would be harmed and dragged out of school classrooms... but with the AMCU NUM war which started with murder and continues Today, and following that the Marikana clash between police and AMCU members, something has changed.

Something has become more violent. Reports from Rustenburg have the miners wanting to return to work but absolutely terrified to do so for fear of being killed by AMCU enforcers, by people who did not fear to cut police officers and security guards into little pieces with machetes, and who ran at a police line armed, and unto death.

We cannot say for certain that the deaths of people who get in the way of AMCU are done with official sanction, but the union certainly benefits from each death and seems uninterested in opposing the violence done in their interests. Now, NUMSA (or their affiliated or unaffiliated enforcers) have taken a similar approach. Non-striking workers' houses have been bombed, and their cars burnt, in ten attacks against workers not participating in the NUMSA strike.

Post by Business Report.

When a group commits bombings against people who do not obey it, is it not terrorism? When a group attacks people to inspire terror, is it not terrorism? When unions are used to blackmail employers: that those in charge must be obeyed or their staff will be terrified away from work, is that the intention of the law or is that closer to organised crime and blackmail under the guise of the law?

Perhaps it is time that the government stops pandering to such forces, which seek to kill, terrorise, ruin the very workers they claim to support...

Perhaps it is time the government finally heard the voices of business and world economists and change the laws relating to labour: to make it easier to rely on contracts with workers, to hire and fire... globally such freedom has caused other nations to spew out employment for the masses. Perhaps it is time government started treating South Africans as an asset to corporations rather than as a burden that companies must bare. Perhaps then foreign investment would not be so terrified as to avoid so much as touching South African deployment of funding.

An Error with our news topics Twitter service!

I just noticed now that a number of our news topic twitter services have not been publishing their contents. I hope this is now resolved. Please contact the twitter you subscribe to and inform us if this happens again.

Justin Bieber supports KKK in video obtained by The Sun.

listen to ‘Justin Bieber supports KKK in video obtained by The Sun.’ on Audioboo

One Less Lonely Girl... has had a remix, by its creator Justin Bieber, in which he changes the lyrics to 'One Less Lonely N@$$!#', and in which video he also suggests he would like to join the Ku Klux Klan, a white supremacist group.

The Canadian born singer is often labelled a punk, and is thought to often emulate the gangster culture often associated with so-called 'African American' rap music artists in his adoptive nation, the United States.

The ungrateful brat's mentor is a black man, and his former girlfriend is of mixed white and Latin American race. Justin Bieber has also been involved in alleged reckless driving, drinking, drug use, and multiple assaults on people in his proximity.

The punk singer just recently apologised for another racist video in which he used the same word and where he graphically fantasized about a black person running for their life away from a chain saw, something he found hilarious. His black fans and friends have come out strongly in support of Justin Bieber, perhaps showing just how little the Civil Rights Movement has come to mean to many in his adopted country, The United States. A cookery show host was recently dismissed for using a similar word decades ago, it is unlikely anything whatsoever will happen to Justin Bieber, who seems quite impervious to the rules governing ordinary men.

Source: The Sun 'Watch Bieber’s sick Ku Klux Klan N-word vid ' by RICHARD WHITE, Chief Showbiz Reporter at 12:47PM BST 05 Jun 2014

Why Ukraine changes everything and nothing at once

listen to ‘Why Ukraine changes everything and nothing at once’ on Audioboo

I have always had a natural dislike of America's very badly done foreign policy, ever since they invaded Iraq on false pretences and proved that we were all wrong about them. When Al Jazeera came on South African Television, and we all discovered they were not the devil, many of us altogether swore off allegiance to the global conscience and its so-called and self-imposed smaller than it sounds 'international community'.

With my journalism work I began studying propaganda channels. I studied RT believing it was just that based on American portrayal of the channel. It reported on ethnic cleansing in Georgia and Russian troops going in to stop a genocide. Western media mocked this, until BBC news night investigated and found it was 100% the truth. Something similar was admitted with Syria: that it was a civil war from the start not protests. But by then I had realised that the Russians were not lying on Syria. In fact the Russian state media have won awards for unbiased coverage time and again. Whenever America goes into conflict mode, their media backs their politicians 100%. What was okay for America is wrong for other nations.

I had thought as a consolation prize that perhaps it was not just America permitted such freedom but Russia as well. Alas, it is not so. America created a coup d'état in Ukraine, overthrowing an elected President because the president supported Russia. What happens? A monstrous crackdown on free Ukrainians or anti-Coup protesters to use Western language, becomes an 'Anti-terrorist' operation. Putin is compared to Hitler for refusing to accept and endorse a coup. Russia has sanctions against its economy and dignitaries. And American media join the fray just as strongly as they did against Iraq, with no consequences. Like Justin Bieber's racist video, drink, drugs, theft, periodic assault of innocents proving that in American terms he is above the law, in the same sense American gunmen also are.

I guess what really is on display is that America and her allies can do any evil deed, and be forgiven instantly. They can spy on all of us. They can blackmail, they can lie, they can betray. They can call the sky red and green, and have it reported as so. They can get away with everything, because they are powerful, and because so many media outlets are nothing but their cute little fans, believing all the way. We live not in God's world, but America's world... no wonder America spends so much time and money trying to reduce the population of every nation but their own... think about their expensive initiatives for population control in the third world for a moment. We in Africa are not worthy of an opinion, or our own culture, or own point of view. We are not even worthy of democracy as Egypt and Somalia prove. Only Western nations have these rights. Like Justin Bieber, they are immune to criticism. We cannot say a single word that would have any impact on the pseudo-divine West. If they want to overthrow a government, it is those who support democracy who get sanctions, and criticism, and hateful treatments... It is Putin who is the bad guy... not Barack Obama the conqueror, who sees every non American life as not worth a mention in his foreign policy. Was the assassination of Osama Bin Laden not an extra-judicial killing? What right in the name of Heaven and Hell does America have to utter a single word criticising any nation on the planet for doing exactly the same with their own claimed enemies? After all, if extra-judicial killings or overthrows, or collateral damage, or bombing women and children with drones or other means is wrong or right: it must be due to principles, not due to the expediency of a nation that only ever looks after its own interests, and drops its allies like flies the moment they are no longer useful.

Ukraine changes everything in that sense. America does not keep its double standards with only weak pariahs. It has exactly the same game with world leaders such as Russia. And the 'world media' continue to believe they only exist to justify its every choice, the ultimate type of yes man crew.

Why I myself would really and truly not want to work at Google at any future point.

Maybe it is because I am African, but to me when I burn the midnight oil... when I work, that is what I want to be doing. I would rather have that money spent on my future, my career development, or tools to better assist me to do my job.

I love to read business articles on the LinkedIn network. I really enjoy to read about all the sort of things executives do to improve how their business works and to advance their own career. What I find strange is the obsession certain groups of people have with Google, as though they were some kind of perfect employer, rather than one with a few gimmicks that distract from the sort of benefits an individual might better enjoy in the long run.

I certainly would not want to work at Google, and not simply because I am in law and journalism. My reason is simple enough: all of these 'great things' Google employees get to access are in their very essence like a politician's promise.

Free food? I would rather make more money. I could then eat better gourmet food elsewhere.

Sleep at work? No thanks, I would rather take a nap at home.

If you truly desire to use money on resources to aim at my motivation: You can put that extra bit on my pay cheque thank you, or better yet on the time it takes to give extensive feedback on my performance review. That way I can do my job even better and grow as a human person.


Such an approach of respecting employees as adults truly improves their actual position in the world. Bean bags at a work place do not.

We could even spend it on better technology and training to make me even better at my job.

Maybe it is because I am African, but to me when I burn the midnight oil... when I work, that is what I want to be doing. I would rather have that money spent on my future, my career development, or tools to better assist me to do my job.

All of these sorts of ideas about playful perks at work, seem to confuse work and play. If I am at work I want to be at work. Sure... have a nice coffee machine, but I would rather be doing something important and gaining something important than be catered to as though I were in kindergarten.