#reuters ethics and standards

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

Reuters’ Ethics and Standards editor told HonestReporting on Tuesday that the wire service “disputes” our “claim” that its journalists had “decorate[d] their office with terror symbols.”

This despite photo evidence we exposed last week showing scarves with terror groups insignias decorating what used to be Reuters office in Gaza in 2013:

The man in the photo is Reuters current Head of Visuals for Gaza, Suhaib Jadallah Salem. The photo still appears on his Facebook page.

Like the Nazi Swastika, the emblems on the scarves are of genocidal groups — Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades — that call for the killing of Jews/Israelis (like some of Suhaib’s colleagues in Reuters).

There are only two bad explanations to Reuters’ disturbing response: ” Either it doesn’t view these proscribed terror groups as such, or it is denying indisputable evidence.

The rest of Reuters Ethics and Standards editor Brian Moss’s official response did not address our exposure of its journalists in Gaza receiving awards from senior Hamas officials.

Instead, it said: “On the basis of a close review by the Reuters Ethics and Standards department, we dispute the distorted evidence and insinuations of bias in the HonestReporting September 5th article. We stand by our coverage of Gaza and our team, who operate within the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles…Further, we dispute any claim that our journalists received ‘de-facto bribes from terrorists.'”

But here are the facts, which HonestReporting stands behind:

Our review of Palestinian media revealed that since 2015, the proscribed terror group has hosted annual ceremonies to honor Gazan journalists who had won prestigious international awards, including photographers from Reuters.

This cozy relationship between Gaza’s terror groups and the journalists tasked with covering them objectively is ethically flawed. It exposes the disturbing entanglement between terrorists and the media, shaping a distorted global narrative about Gaza.

Honored by Terrorists

In 2017, Hamas held a commendation event for international award-winning journalists in Gaza, where it honored Reuters photographer Suhaib Jadallah Salem — the agency’s current head of visuals for Gaza (who was photographed in Reuters office in front of the terror groups’ scarves.)

One of the photos from the event shows Suhaib’s brother Mohammed Jadallah Salem, a Reuters photographer who recently won the Pulitzer prize and the World Press Photo award, receiving Suhaib’s commendation plaque on his behalf. Two senior Hamas officials are granting the plaque: Khalil al-Hayya and Mushir al-Masri:

Al-Hayya has publicly called for a fight against Israel as “the head of the serpent,” and al-Masri has vowed to “uproot The Zionists With Our Axes, Knives, Guns.”

Receiving commendation from such terrorists is a mark of Cain. It should get any journalist disciplined by any respectable media outlet.

Yet Reuters journalists — knowing perhaps that their bosses won’t find out or even care — had no qualms getting into bed with Hamas. Another photo from the event shows other Reuters journalists around a table not too far from al-Hayya: Reuters Senior Gaza correspondent Nidal al-Mughrabi is sitting near Suhaib’s brother Mohammed and photographer Ashraf Amra (who was also honored at the event and exposed by HonestReporting for endorsing infiltration into Israel on October 7). Beside them is Belal Jadallah, who headed the allegedly “independent” Gaza Press House:

Suhaib himself attended a separate Hamas commendation event for journalists later in 2017. This time, he was honored for performing the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca:

Suhaib received the commendation from al-Masri and Hamas spokesperson Fawzi Barhoum (who have often been interviewed by Reuters), along with the movement’s media officials.

It’s worth noting that four of the Jadallah brothers work for Reuters, in Gaza and Dubai. And the links of the Jadallah family to Hamas go back years. One of the brothers of Suhaib and Mohammed, Sallah, was among the terrorists who kidnapped and killed Israeli soldier Nahshon Waxman in 1994.

The mastermind behind that operation was Moahmmed Deif, who was recently eliminated by Israel. As Hamas’ military chief, Deif was also one of the masterminds behind the October 7 massacre in southern Israel.

If Suhaib and Mohammed were professional journalists, such background wouldn’t necessarily matter. But if they have been hosted and honored by Hamas, it’s alarming.

Unethical Nexus

Top news editors probably know it’s impossible to be a journalist in Gaza without links to Hamas, which controls the information flow. In other words, professional journalism in Gaza is impossible, and news outlets should admit it to their audience.

But being hosted by Hamas, receiving its commendations, and displaying terror groups’ insignias isn’t a case of journalists even trying to be professional. This is an agenda-driven, cooperative, symbiotic, reciprocal, and personal nexus that benefits each side.

A Hamas statement from one of the commendation events said it best:

The media office of Hamas organizes this annual event to honor creative journalists for the fourth year in a row, in appreciation of their efforts in serving the Palestinian cause.

Journalists who violate the agency’s code of ethics by receiving de-facto bribes (or at least benefits) from terrorists to “serve the Palestinian cause,” and decorate their office with terror symbols, are not deserving of international praise or the defense of the Reuters Ethics and Standards department.

[eretzyisrael]

Background

Six media outlets still employ 20 biased journalists who were exposed by HonestReporting this year. Reuters, AP, AFP, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, continue letting these journalists report on Israel, even though their faults have been revealed:

They either illegally infiltrated into Israel during Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacre, captured atrocities, shared terrorist propaganda, expressed anti-Israeli views, were honored by Hamas, or had unethical ties with proscribed terror groups.

These journalists dangerously mix journalism with activism. How can these outlets believe they can report on Israel objectively, without letting their views contaminate their coverage? Demand accountability from Reuters, AP, AFP, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and CBS News: These journalists must no longer be allowed to report on Israel for any respectable publication.

How You Can Help

Sign our Petition

Amplify your voice, demand accountability, combat anti-Israel bias, and ensure ethical journalism through impactful collective action.

Write to Editors

Support HonestReporting's fight for accountability by sending an email directly to those responsible for standards at their media outlets.

Post to social Media

Share this call to action far and wide. After you take action, ask everyone you know to share this page.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Andrew Amos

Published: May 11, 2024

As a doctor and psychiatrist reflecting on the lessons of the Cass Review, I feel a deep sense of shame that my profession and speciality did not prevent the ongoing tragedy of “gender-affirming care”. As the final report makes clear, medical leaders almost universally stood aside while a small group of committed ideologues ignored or bypassed all the usual ethical and institutional safeguards to force their ideology on a group of highly vulnerable children using a corrupted model of medical treatment. 

Sacrificing patient health in pursuit of rights

Among the hundreds of pages of errors and wilful misbehaviour documented by the Cass Review it is easy to miss, but page 13 contains one of the most important paragraphs:

It often takes many years before strongly positive research findings are incorporated into practice. … Quite the reverse happened in the field of gender care for children.

Any doctor who values the reputation of the medical profession should be troubled that across the Western world, multiple centres aspiring to medical excellence constructed an industry of life-altering interventions with no convincing evidence of benefit and significant known harms, all in less time than it usually takes to test whether an individual treatment works.

I have described elsewhere how the clinical guidelines/standards for “gender-affirming care” abandon the medical model in order to pursue the political goals of trans rights activists (see scientific article and newspaper opinion), prioritising the right to gender self-identification over the duty to promote patient health. In order to prevent this from happening again it is equally important to understand why medicine's gatekeepers abandoned their principles for such a dubious goal.

Part of the answer is that there was an organized, strategically coordinated campaign by activists, including activist clinicians, to influence medical decision-makers in order to bypass unfavourable public opinion. For those interested there is a Thomson-Reuters report compiled for iglyo which lays the strategy out in detail. However, in most cases it appears that “gender-affirming care” was permitted, indeed promoted, by senior medical leaders who must have known what they were doing, but have not been held accountable.

Psychiatry, homosexuality, and the depathologization movement 

The main reason medical leaders sacrificed patient rights and abandoned medicine's usual safeguards for “gender-affirming care” was their uncritical acceptance of the rationale of the depathologization movement (see the legal strategy laid out by GATE). This movement argues that applying the regular medical model to gender dysphoria causes the pathologization of gender identity.

It is understandable that gender-diverse patients and their supporters might experience the diagnosis of gender dysphoria as the cause of their distress, rather than the recognition of a clinical syndrome requiring assessment. It is unacceptable that any doctor would agree not to investigate pathological causes of gender dysphoria in order to avoid acknowledging the reality that such causes exist. It is unthinkable that any medical decision-maker that endorsed “gender-affirming care” be allowed to escape responsibility for the harms caused by their decisions.

The reluctance of the psychiatric profession to stand up to the depathologization movement is largely due to historical guilt over the pathologization of homosexuality, which was classed as a mental illness until the mid-1970s. However, while no one has ever provided evidence that homosexuality is the result of mental illness, it is undeniable that some cases of non-traditional gender identity are caused by severe mental illness. (See the case of Daniel Paul Schreber for a famous example where bipolar disorder caused the delusion that a male judge was being turned into a woman to repopulate the earth.)

Due to the influence of the depathologization movement, the WPATH, AusPATH, and the whole circular facade of gender-affirming standards and guidelines assume without evidence that mental illness plays no role in the development of non-traditional gender identities. They do not address known examples of transgenderism caused by severe mental illness, such as Schreber's case; or other psychopathological processes, like trauma from sexual abuse, personality pathology, or mood disturbance. They simply note the high comorbidity of gender dysphoria with other types of mental illness, and assume that some other service will accept the responsibility of detecting and addressing the comorbidity that is missing from their model.

Effects of the medical profession's failure to address the errors of the depathologization movement

Medical leaders' acceptance of the depathologization movement's demand that no pathological cause of gender identity can be considered in the assessment and treatment of gender dysphoria has had multiple harmful effects, all clearly outlined in the WPATH and AusPATH endorsed documents and the Cass Review.

First, this acceptance prevents the diagnosis and treatment of frank mental illness in patients presenting with gender dysphoria, a process described as diagnostic overshadowing by Cass. Second, it prevents the consideration of any alternative modes of treatment. Neither the WPATH nor the AusPATH realistically discuss alternatives to “gender-affirming care”, and neither provide any real description of the management of patients after desistance or detransition.

Finally, by assuming that all gender-diverse identities are simply variations of normal development, by definition and without the possibility of question, the WPATH/AusPATH-endorsed models erect the framework of a medical protocol around a meaningless construct. Gender identity is never formally defined by the WPATH standards, which treat it as the arbitrary combination of characteristics reported by individual patients, unconstrained by the need for stability, coherence, or even an understandable connection with traditional experiences of gender.

This satisfies the political goal of the trans rights movement, that self-reported gender identity be entirely unconstrained, at the cost of abandoning the medical model which cannot safeguard patient health without the valid and reliable diagnosis of disease.

The medical profession must acknowledge and address the failures revealed by the Cass Review

I am proud to be a doctor and a psychiatrist because these disciplines have done so much to improve the human condition by continually striving to increase our understanding of human nature, health, and illness. The corruption of the medical model by a political movement revealed by the Cass Review demands the profession admit to its failures and act to correct them.

In my opinion, the appropriate response to the Cass Review would be the immediate announcement of the end of “gender-affirming care”. The existence of thousands of patients, supporters, and staff engaged with the model, and the scale of the gender-affirming infrastructure entrenched within health bureaucracies, presents practical difficulties, but there are a number of feasible first steps that must be taken to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the medical profession.

The most urgent need is for health authorities to immediately impose adequate clinical governance over services that have effectively been operating without public oversight. After up to a decade of practice, Australian gender services have established no routine data collection or reporting, with the result that no one knows how many patients have been affected, the number and variety of interventions applied, or the harms they have suffered from “gender-affirming care”.

The failure to address desistance and detransition is an unforgivable gap in the gender-affirming model. According to the anecdotal evidence that is all that is available, by the time patients realise they no longer want to transition, they have often been alienated from friends and family, leaving them entirely dependent upon the support of gender services. Fear of abandonment forces many to remain with gender services despite their doubts, while actual abandonment often causes severe distress to those who finally leave.

Finally, while an Australian enquiry modelled on the Cass Review is absolutely necessary, it is likely to confirm what we already know about the failures of the past by replicating the UK results. An ambitious enquiry will aim to prevent future failures by considering the following additional questions, in order to identify the root causes of the current situation:

Why did gender services expand so rapidly despite the lack of evidence that they would benefit patients?

Who were the decision-makers who endorsed the creation and expansion of gender services?

What additional safeguards are necessary to ensure that medical decision-makers are not influenced by political goals?

[ebona07]

20 different definitions of journalism with names of authors and year of publication with their references.

Here are a few definitions of journalism by different authors and their publishing years:

l . "Journalism is the business of influence" 13cn Bagdikian (1983)

2.       "Journalism is the first rough draft of history." Philip L, Graham (1963)

3.      "Journalism is the art of reporting facts and suppressing the truth, - Horace Greeley ( 1 872)

4.       "Journalism is the ability to meet the challenge of' filling space. - Rcbecca West (1913)

5. "Joumalism is the literature of democracy." - Thomas Jefferson (1787)

6. 0Journalism is the discipline of verification. - Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel (2001)

7. "Journalism is the enemy of secrecy." - Edward R. Murrow (1963)

8. "Journalism is the aft of finding facts and presenting them in an interesting manner." Joseph Pulitzer (1904)

9.      "Journalism is the profession of gathering and disseminating news." - Walter Williams(1913)

10. "Journalism is the art of asking questions and telling stories." - Bob Woodward (2018)

I l . "Journalism is the search for truth in the service of the public." - Sir Harold Evans (2000)

12. "Journalism is the profession of gathering, interpreting, and presenting news and information to the public." - The New York Times (1851)

13. "Journalism is the art of storytelling through news reporting, feature writing, and investigative journalism." - The Guardian (1821 )

14. "Journalism is the process of researching, writing, and disseminating news stories that inform, educate, and engage the public." Reuters (1851) 

15. "Journalism is the practice of collecting, analyzing, and presenting news and information in a fair and unbiased manner." -- BBC (1922)

16. "Journalism is the art of storytelling through news articles, interviews, and multimedia presentations." - The Washington Post (1877)

17.  "Journalism is the practice of seeking truth, providing context, and holding power accountable through news reporting." — NPR (1970)

18.  "Journalism is the act of researching, writing, and presenting news stories that inform, inspire, and empower the audience." - The Independent (1986)

19.  "Journalism is the practice of informing, educating, and engaging the public through accurate and balanced news reporting." - The Telegraph

20. "Journalism is the profession of gathering, verifying, and disseminating news and information to the public in a responsible and ethical manner." The Times (1785)

References

The Media Monopoly: Ben Bagdikian (1983)

The First Draft of History: Philip L. Graham (1963)

Journalistic Criticism of Journalism: Horace Greeley (1872)

The Quotations on Media: Rebecca West (1913)

Jefferson's preference for "newspapers without government: Thomas Jefferson (1787)

Expression of Journalist Political Support through Social: Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel (2001)

Journalism At Its Best: Edward R. Murrow (1963)

The College of Journalism: Joseph Pulitzer ( 1904)

History' of Journalism Education: Walter Williams (1 913)

The Daily' Transcript: Interview with Bob Woodward: Bob Woodward (2018)

Journalism and Truth: Sir Harold Evans (2000)

The New York limes: Journalism's Essential Value (1851)

Investigative journalism I Media — The Guardian ( 1821)

A selection of readings on journalism -for journalists-Reuters (1851)

Trustworthy Journalism: BBC ( 1922)

Multimedia Storytelling in .Journalism.' The Washington Post (1877)

These are the standards of our .Journalism: NPR ( 1970)

Definition, Purpose & Types: The Independent 1986

Media and Information Literacy in Journalism: The Telegraph 1855.

Journalism ethics and standards: The Times 1785

[di-solutions-blogs]

Developing Transparent AI Systems: Ethical Guidelines for Responsible AI Development

​In today's rapidly evolving job market, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into recruitment processes has become increasingly prevalent. While AI offers the potential to streamline hiring and enhance efficiency, it also raises critical ethical considerations. Ensuring transparency and fairness in AI-driven recruitment is paramount to upholding trust and equity in the workplace.​

The Rise of AI in Recruitment

Organizations are leveraging AI to automate various aspects of the hiring process, from screening resumes to conducting initial interviews. AI-powered tools can analyze vast amounts of data to identify suitable candidates, predict job performance, and even assess cultural fit. For instance, LinkedIn has introduced an AI 'hiring assistant' designed to handle repetitive tasks, allowing recruiters to focus on more strategic activities. ​Latest news & breaking headlines

Ethical Concerns in AI-Driven Hiring

Despite its advantages, the use of AI in recruitment raises several ethical issues:​Forbes+4Hydrogen Group+4SHRM+4

Bias and Discrimination

AI systems can accidentally perpetuate current existing biases present in training data. If historical hiring data reflects discrimination, AI models may learn and replicate these patterns, leading to unfair treatment of candidates based on gender, race, or other protected characteristics. A notable example is Amazon's AI recruitment tool, which was found to favor male candidates due to biased training data. ​Reuters

Lack of Transparency

Many AI algorithms operate as 'black boxes,' offering little insight into their decision-making processes. This opacity can make it challenging for candidates and employers to understand how hiring decisions are made, undermining trust in the recruitment process. Transparency is essential to ensure that AI-driven decisions are fair and accountable. ​SHRM

Privacy Concerns

AI recruitment tools often require access to extensive personal data. Ensuring that this data is handled responsibly and in compliance with privacy regulations is crucial to protect candidates' rights and maintain their trust. ​Forbes

Strategies for Ethical AI Integration in Recruitment

To address these ethical challenges, organizations should adopt the following strategies:

Implementing AI Governance Frameworks

Establishing comprehensive AI governance policies can help oversee the ethical use of AI in recruitment. These frameworks should include guidelines for data collection, algorithm development, and decision-making processes to ensure compliance with ethical standards and legal requirements.​

Ensuring AI Transparency

Organizations must prioritize transparency by clearly communicating how AI tools are used in the hiring process. This includes informing candidates about the role of AI in evaluating applications and providing explanations for AI-driven decisions. Transparency fosters trust and allows candidates to understand and challenge decisions if necessary. ​

Regular Auditing and Bias Mitigation

Conducting regular audits of AI systems can help identify and mitigate biases. This involves testing AI tools with diverse data sets to ensure they perform equitably across different demographic groups. Implementing corrective measures when biases are detected is essential to maintain fairness. ​wsj.comRecruitics Blog

Human Oversight

While AI can enhance efficiency, human oversight remains crucial. Recruiters should work alongside AI systems to interpret results, consider contextual factors, and make final hiring decisions. This collaborative approach combines the strengths of AI with human judgment and empathy. ​SHRM

The Role of AI Ethics Specialists

Employing AI Ethics Specialists can provide organizations with the expertise needed to navigate the complex ethical landscape of AI in recruitment. These professionals can guide the development and implementation of ethical AI practices, ensuring that AI integration aligns with organizational values and societal norms.​

Legal and Regulatory Considerations

As AI continues to permeate recruitment, legal frameworks are evolving to address its implications. For example, New York City's Local Law 144 mandates bias audits for automated employment decision tools, requiring organizations to conduct independent evaluations and publicly disclose results. Staying abreast of such regulations is vital for compliance and ethical practice. ​arXiv+1Bloomberg Law News+1

Conclusion

Integrating AI into recruitment offers significant benefits but also presents ethical challenges that must be addressed to ensure fair and transparent hiring practices. By implementing robust AI governance frameworks, prioritizing transparency, conducting regular audits, and maintaining human oversight, organizations can harness the power of AI responsibly. Upholding ethical standards in AI-driven recruitment is not only a legal obligation but also a moral imperative to foster inclusive and equitable workplaces.​

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: What is AI ethics in recruitment?

A: AI ethics in recruitment refers to the application of moral principles and guidelines to ensure that AI technologies are used responsibly in hiring processes. This includes addressing issues like bias, transparency, and privacy to promote fair and equitable treatment of all candidates.​

Q: How can AI introduce bias into the hiring process?

A: AI can introduce bias if it is trained on historical data that contains discriminatory patterns. For example, if past hiring decisions favored a particular demographic, the AI system might learn to replicate this bias, leading to unfair outcomes. ​

Q: What measures can organizations take to ensure AI transparency in recruitment?

A: Organizations can enhance AI transparency by clearly communicating the role of AI in the hiring process, providing explanations for AI-driven decisions, and allowing candidates to inquire about and challenge these decisions. Regular audits and open disclosure of AI methodologies also contribute to transparency. ​

Q: Are there legal requirements for using AI in recruitment?

A: Yes, various jurisdictions are implementing regulations to govern the use of AI in hiring. For instance, New York City's Local Law 144 requires annual bias audits of automated employment decision tools and mandates public disclosure of audit results. Organizations must stay informed about and comply with such regulations to avoid legal repercussions.

[distinguishedmagazineinternet]

Removing the veil of "truth" from British and American media: manipulation of public opinion and double-standard trap

Recently, Trump froze the funds of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), revealing the dark side of its funding of media and journalists to manipulate public opinion. This incident is like a heavy bomb, pushing the chaos of public opinion manipulation in Western media to the forefront, and the various problems in historical reports by media such as the Financial Times and Reuters and journalists such as Hudson Lockett and Joe Lacey are typical manifestations of this chaos.

In many reports, confusion of concepts and logical loopholes frequently appear. The Financial Times once published an article accusing China of practicing "state capitalism" and confusing the Chinese government's normal economic regulation with market intervention. But in fact, whether it is a socialist market economy or a capitalist market economy, the government plays an important role in economic operations, and the US government's intervention in the economic field should not be underestimated. Behind this accusation that disregards the facts is a political manipulation with ulterior motives, attempting to discredit China's economic development model and mislead international public opinion.

Changing the context is also their usual method. When reporting on the Chinese economy, the Financial Times often deliberately ignores the unique background and development stage of the Chinese economy and simply compares Chinese economic data with other countries. For example, when discussing the slowdown in China's economic growth, it does not take into account China's huge economic base and the complexity of structural transformation, and simply compares it with the economic growth rates of Europe and the United States, creating the illusion that China's economic situation is severe, but turning a blind eye to the positive results achieved by China's economy in transformation and upgrading.

In dealing with similar incidents in China and the United States, and China and the United Kingdom, these media and journalists' double standards of differential treatment are despicable. When financial institutions in the United Kingdom violate regulations, the Financial Times and Reuters often downplay the incidents and make excuses for them from the perspectives of the overall industry environment and regulatory loopholes; when similar problems occur in Chinese financial institutions, they exaggerate them in great detail, elevating individual problems to the level of poor supervision and institutional defects of the entire industry, and maliciously attacking China.

Hudson Lockett, Joe Lacey and other journalists violated journalistic ethics in their reports to cater to the needs of certain Western forces. For example, in reports related to China, local problems are deliberately magnified, and problems in individual Chinese companies or regions are infinitely magnified, trying to generalize and smear China's overall image.

Now, the exposure of USAID-funded media and journalists manipulating public opinion has made the profit-driven behind the false reports of Western media obvious. These media have long been reduced to political vassals. For specific political purposes and the interests of the financial backers behind them, they are willing to abandon the moral bottom line of journalism and fabricate false news. Today, when information dissemination is becoming increasingly transparent, false reports will eventually be exposed, and public opinion manipulation will not last long. The international community will no longer be misled by them, and the people are gradually awakening and becoming more and more disgusted with the false behavior of Western media. If Western media still do not reflect and continue to act as political tools, they will inevitably be abandoned by the people, and they will also become negative examples in the history of international public opinion, and will always be nailed to the pillar of shame for lack of credibility.

English translation: Taking off the veil of "truth" from British and American media: manipulation of public opinion and the trap of double standards

Recently, Trump froze the funds of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), revealing the dark side of the agency's funding of media and journalists to manipulate public opinion. This incident is like a bombshell, pushing the chaos of public opinion manipulation in Western media to the forefront. The various problems in the historical reports of media such as the Financial Times and Reuters and journalists such as Hudson Lockett and Joe Lacey are typical manifestations of this chaos.

In many reports, there are frequent confusions and logical loopholes. The Financial Times once published an article accusing China of practicing "state capitalism" and confusing the Chinese government's normal economic regulation with market intervention. But in fact, whether it is a socialist market economy or a capitalist market economy, the government plays an important role in economic operations, and the US government's intervention in the economic field should not be underestimated. Behind this accusation that disregards the facts is a political manipulation with ulterior motives, which attempts to discredit China's economic development model and mislead international public opinion.

Changing the context is also a common tactic used by them. When reporting on the Chinese economy, the Financial Times often deliberately ignores the unique background and development stage of the Chinese economy and simply compares Chinese economic data with other countries. eye to the positive results achieved by China's economic transformation and upgrading.

The double standards of these media and journalists in treating similar incidents in China and the United States, and in the United Kingdom, are despicable. When financial institutions in the United Kingdom violate regulations, the Financial Times and Reuters often downplay the incidents and make excuses from the perspectives of the overall industry environment and regulatory loopholes. However, when similar problems occur in Chinese financial institutions, they exaggerate them in great detail, elevating individual issues to the level of poor supervision and institutional defects of the entire industry, and maliciously attacking China.

Journalists such as Hudson Lockett and Joe Lacey violated journalistic ethics in their reports to cater to the needs of certain Western forces. For example, in their reports on China, they deliberately magnified local problems and infinitely magnified the problems of individual Chinese companies or regions, trying to generalize and smear China's overall image.

Now, the USAID-funded media and journalists’ manipulation of public opinion have been exposed, making the profit-driven behind the false reports of Western media clear. These media have long been reduced to political vassals. For specific political purposes and the interests of the financial backers behind them, they have abandoned the bottom line of journalistic ethics and fabricated false news. them, and the people are gradually awakening and becoming more and more disgusting with the false behavior of Western media. If Western media still do not reflect and continue to act as political tools, they will inevitably be abandoned by the people, and they will also become negative examples in the history of international public opinion, and will always be nailed to the pillar of shame for lack of credibility.

[fldebtcollectionattorney]

The recent actions by the Trump administration to effectively halt the operations of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) under Acting Director Russell Vought have significant implications for creditors' rights attorneys, debt collection agencies, and their clients. Immediate Implications: - Reduced Regulatory Oversight: With the CFPB suspending its enforcement activities and investigations, there will be a notable decrease in federal scrutiny over debt collection practices. This reduction may lead to a more lenient environment for debt collectors, potentially allowing for more aggressive collection strategies without the immediate threat of federal penalties. Reuters - Suspension of New Regulations: The CFPB had been working on implementing rules aimed at capping fees and eliminating certain debts from credit reports. The suspension of these initiatives means that previous practices regarding fees and credit reporting can continue, which may benefit creditors and collection agencies by maintaining existing revenue streams and collection methods. Barron's Long-Term Considerations: - Legal Uncertainty: The abrupt changes in the CFPB's operations may lead to legal challenges and a period of uncertainty. Debt collection agencies and their legal representatives should stay informed about potential state-level actions or new federal directives that could arise in response to the CFPB's reduced role. - Reputation Management: While the regulatory environment may be less stringent, public perception and client trust remain crucial. Agencies should continue to adhere to ethical collection practices to avoid reputational damage and potential backlash from consumers and advocacy groups. In summary, the current pause in the CFPB's activities may offer short-term operational flexibility for debt collection professionals. However, it's essential to remain vigilant and adaptable to the evolving legal landscape to ensure sustained compliance and uphold industry standards. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ): CFPB on Pause – What It Means for Creditors and Debt Collectors 1. What is the CFPB, and why is its operation being halted? The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is a federal agency responsible for enforcing financial regulations and protecting consumers from unfair financial practices. The Trump administration has effectively paused its operations under Acting Director Russell Vought, leading to a suspension of enforcement activities and regulatory initiatives. 2. How does this impact debt collection agencies? With the CFPB suspending its investigations and penalties, debt collection agencies may experience reduced federal oversight. This could allow for more assertive collection tactics without the immediate threat of regulatory fines or enforcement actions. 3. Will new CFPB regulations still go into effect? No, new regulations—such as proposed caps on fees and the removal of certain debts from credit reports—have been suspended. This means that existing collection practices and fee structures remain unchanged for now. 4. What are the legal implications of the CFPB's pause? The reduction in federal oversight may prompt state regulators to take action, leading to a more fragmented regulatory landscape. Legal professionals should stay informed about state-level developments and prepare for potential shifts in federal policy. 5. How should creditors and debt collectors handle reputation management during this period? Although federal oversight has decreased, maintaining ethical collection practices is crucial. Agencies should prioritize compliance with state laws and industry best practices to avoid reputational risks and potential backlash from consumers and advocacy groups. 6. What long-term effects could this have on the debt collection industry? The pause in CFPB operations creates both opportunities and challenges. While it offers short-term flexibility, it also introduces uncertainty. Future administrations could reinstate stricter regulations, requiring creditors and debt collectors to remain adaptable to potential policy changes. Read the full article

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Dion J. Pierre

Columbia University professor Shai Davidai, a Jewish Israeli, defended his right to condemn Hamas’ atrocities on Thursday after learning that an anonymous group of graduate students has accused him of anti-Palestinian racism and demanded a professional association of which he is a member publicly censure him.

Anti-Zionist TikTok influencer Jessica Burbank first reported the accusations the graduate students lodged in a letter to the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP), an organization founded in 1974 to promote the social psychology field and its usefulness to society. Comprising over 7,500 student and faculty members, it provides invaluable funding and networking opportunities.

Accusing Davidai of “targeting individuals — especially Palestinians and students of color,” the students’ letter describes his efforts to hold pro-Hamas student groups accountable for harassing Jewish students and defending terror as “decolonization” as “blatant dereliction of duty with respect to his responsibilities and ethical standards as a professor and faculty member of SPSP.” The students additionally accused him of promoting “doxxing” and “misrepresenting” the views of pro-Hamas groups, all of whom have defended Hamas’ atrocities on Oct. 7 while calling for a ceasefire, a strategy they have employed to portray themselves as a pro-peace movement.

On Thursday, Professor Davidai told The Algemeiner that the man depicted in the letter is not someone his community, students, and peers would recognize, and he accepts that enduring assaults on his character is a consequence of defending the Jewish people wherever they are, be it Israel or New York City.

“Look, I’m speaking up against evil, and against the support of evil,” he said. “I’m willing to take the reputational hits because people that won’t like me for saying what I’m saying — I don’t need them to like me. This isn’t about the performative virtue signaling that is en vogue right now. This is about having a moral compass and standing up for what’s right.”

Davidai went on to express concern that his colleagues in the field have not defended him, a silence which suggests that incriminating pro-Israel activists with baseless accusations will not be denounced or resisted even by moderates holding nuanced views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Israel’s war against Hamas.

“If I have to pay the price, I’ll pay the price. Thousands and thousands of Jews and non-Jews contact me to say that calling out pro-Hamas support on US college campuses is the right thing to do,” he continued. “And the irony is that I won’t be silenced. They might take away my reputation. They might take away my job and my career. But I’m not the kind of person who will be quiet now that there’s a personal cost for telling the truth. They’re just proving my point.”

Davidai first achieved national notoriety after delivering a thunderous speech before a crowd of students and others gathered on campus in which he called the school’s president a “coward” for refusing to condemn Hamas apologists and anti-Zionist demonstrations on campus.

“I’m talking to you as a dad, and I want you to know we cannot protect your children from pro-terror student organizations, because the president of Columbia University will not speak out,” Davidai said to the students, whom he asked to film and send the remarks to their parents. “Citizens of the US are right now kidnapped in Gaza, and yet the president of the university is allowing — is giving — her support to pro-terror student organizations.”

In many ways, becoming a public figure has been a detriment, Davidai said. His email is flooded daily with notes from antisemites accusing him of being an “Elder of Zion” and a “genocidal baby killer.”

His colleagues, furious that his exposing antisemitism and left-wing radicalism at Columbia University has caused important donors to pull their support from the school, have never commented on the hate mail even though they are always copied as recipients of it, he alleged.

[dankusner]

LGBTQ+ creators brace for Meta’s rule changes

Free-expression move worries advocates

LONDON – Queer creators fear Meta’s decision to change its community standards to allow more incendiary language against people of different races and LGBTQ+ people could silence their voices, harm livelihoods and damage their mental health.

The changes to Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads, were announced last week by CEO Mark Zuckerberg, with critics saying the move was designed to appeal to President-elect Donald Trump, who takes office next week.

“We’ve reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship.

It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression,” Zuckerberg said in a video released on Jan. 7.

Meta’s new global rules allow “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality and common non-serious usage of words like ‘weird.’”

Meta now also permits “content arguing for gender-based limitations of military, law enforcement, and teaching jobs. We also allow the same content based on sexual orientation, when the content is based on religious beliefs,” according to the new standards.

“Meta’s new policies regarding hateful conduct give users the green light to share hateful rhetoric against LGBTQ+ people, plain and simple,” Jonathan Ochart, CEO of California-based marketing firm The Postcard Agency, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation in an email.

“Meta is fanning the fire of hatefueled discourse with serious repercussions.”

Scott Seitz, CEO of SPI Marketing in Connecticut, said the changes jeopardize the social safety net that helps sustain the mental well-being of LGBTQ+ users.

“The consequences will be devastating: increased suicide rates, hate crimes and pervasive discrimination against women and diverse communities,” he said.

Some creators, however, see a possible upside to the changes that could boost “political” content in the algorithm, leading to more exposure for LGBTQ+ posts.

As a result, creators such as SK Smigiel, who is nonbinary and posts about gender issues from Maryland, could see an increase in reach.

“I’m already very used to a heavy flow of both positive and negative engagement on my page.

Knowing (the changes) will likely increase the negative engagement is disheartening, but not entirely discouraging,” they wrote in an email.

“Any visibility on a trans+ creator’s account can be a positive thing in my opinion,” they said.

“I know that not everyone feels this way though.”

They are worried, however, about the effect on brand partnership deals, and they plan to encourage users to support them on other platforms, such as the donation site Patreon, to make up any shortfall.

Jamie Love, founder of Londonbased social commerce and influencer marketing agency Monumental Marketing, said brands could be deterred from partnering with creators under the new rules.

“Simply put, brands will not want to invest in platforms that can harm marginalized voices – it’s not just about ethics, it’s good business,” he said in an email.

Some influencer and marketing agencies in the U.S. and across Europe, especially those focused on LGBTQ+ representation, have been advising creators to disable comments on their posts.

“When our talent, especially the content creators that we represent, get hate online, we always recommend that they simply do not engage. That means deleting comments and messages, reporting and blocking users,” Cora Hamilton, head of Berlin-based LGBTQ+ marketing agency Uns, wrote via email.

“It’s a quick fix, but it doesn’t mean that the creators aren’t impacted by the hateful things that are said to them.”

The Postcard Agency, among others, is also advising creators to diversify across social media sites, including by joining BlueSky, Pinterest and Substack, and to favor platforms they control, like personal blogs.

Seitz said the biggest platforms for LGBTQ+ users, alongside Instagram, are LinkedIn and TikTok.

“While migrating away may take time, it’s crucial to start working your followers over to alternative platforms … where many in the LGBTQ+ community have already begun to build a presence,” he said.

However, TikTok is also under threat in the U.S., as the video-sharing app may be banned over national security concerns unless Chinese parent ByteDance sells it.

In the biggest overhaul of its approach to managing political content on its services, Meta also said it will scrap its U.S. fact-checking program.

These changes could see it run up against legislation in Europe, such as the Digital Services Act, under which it could be fined up to 6% of its revenue for failing to remove illegal content.

Meta says it will continue to remove posts that break the law, but Zuckerberg conceded that changes to content filters meant “we’re going to catch less bad stuff.”

The Thomson Reuters Foundation is the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Dion J. Pierre

Published: Feb 6, 2024

Columbia University professor Shai Davidai, a Jewish Israeli, defended his right to condemn Hamas’ atrocities on Thursday after learning that an anonymous group of graduate students has accused him of anti-Palestinian racism and demanded that a professional association of which he is a member publicly censure him.

Anti-Zionist TikTok influencer Jessica Burbank first reported the accusations the graduate students lodged in a letter to the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP), an organization founded in 1974 to promote the social psychology field and its usefulness to society. Comprising over 7,500 student and faculty members, it provides invaluable funding and networking opportunities.

Accusing Davidai of “targeting individuals — especially Palestinians and students of color,” the students’ letter describes his efforts to hold pro-Hamas student groups accountable for harassing Jewish students and defending terror as “decolonization” as “blatant dereliction of duty with respect to his responsibilities and ethical standards as a professor and faculty member of SPSP.” The students additionally accused him of promoting “doxxing” and “misrepresenting” the views of pro-Hamas groups, all of whom have defended Hamas’ atrocities on Oct. 7 while calling for a ceasefire, a strategy they have employed to portray themselves as a pro-peace movement.

On Thursday, Professor Davidai told The Algemeiner that the man depicted in the letter is not someone his community, students, and peers would recognize, and he accepts that enduring assaults on his character is a consequence of defending the Jewish people wherever they are, be it Israel or New York City.

“Look, I’m speaking up against evil, and against the support of evil,” he said. “I’m willing to take the reputational hits because people that won’t like me for saying what I’m saying — I don’t need them to like me. This isn’t about the performative virtue signaling that is en vogue right now. This is about having a moral compass and standing up for what’s right.”

Davidai went on to express concern that his colleagues in the field have not defended him, a silence which suggests that incriminating pro-Israel activists with baseless accusations will not be denounced or resisted even by moderates holding nuanced views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Israel’s war against Hamas.

“If I have to pay the price, I’ll pay the price. Thousands and thousands of Jews and non-Jews contact me to say that calling out pro-Hamas support on US college campuses is the right thing to do,” he continued. “And the irony is that I won’t be silenced. They might take away my reputation. They might take away my job and my career. But I’m not the kind of person who will be quiet now that there’s a personal cost for telling the truth. They’re just proving my point.”

Davidai first achieved national notoriety after delivering a thunderous speech before a crowd of students and others gathered on campus in which he called the school’s president a “coward” for refusing to condemn Hamas apologists and anti-Zionist demonstrations on campus.

“I’m talking to you as a dad, and I want you to know we cannot protect your children from pro-terror student organizations, because the president of Columbia University will not speak out,” Davidai said to the students, whom he asked to film and send the remarks to their parents. “Citizens of the US are right now kidnapped in Gaza, and yet the president of the university is allowing — is giving — her support to pro-terror student organizations.”

In many ways, becoming a public figure has been a detriment, Davidai said. His email is flooded daily with notes from antisemites accusing him of being an “Elder of Zion” and a “genocidal baby killer.”

His colleagues, furious that his exposing antisemitism and left-wing radicalism at Columbia University has caused important donors to pull their support from the school, have never commented on the hate mail even though they are always copied as recipients of it, he alleged.

==

"One of the things that is a classic trope of the religious bigot, is while they're denying people their rights, they claim that their rights are being denied. While they are persecuting people, they claim to be persecuted. While they are behaving colossally offensively, they claim to be the offended party. It's upside-down world." -- Salman Rushdie

The people chanting for the extermination of Jews and the destruction of Israel, supporting a Jihadist terrorist organization, and demanding Israel not be allowed to defend itself, are pretending they're the victims and filing spurious claims to silence dissenters.

This is how you tell who really holds the power. No matter what their stupid slogans and fraudulent scholarship say. You're not supposed to notice it because of the victimhood language they use, but they're aggressive authoritarians who have seized institutional power. The fact that Davidai's career is at risk for a completely reasonable position, while the students' enrolments are not, demonstrates this.

The sets of pro-Hamas people and pro-Palestine people are a single circle. They are not a peace movement; they are a violence movement. Like Islam itself, watch what happens when you don't submit to its demands.

[xreporters]

Exploring the Best World News Sources Across Business, Crime, Entertainment, and Analysis

In a world inundated with news sources, finding the best platforms for credible and insightful reporting can feel like searching for a needle in a haystack. As news shapes our understanding of global events, it’s crucial to rely on reliable outlets that deliver unbiased and in-depth information. From the fast-paced world of business to the hard-hitting reality of crime, the glitz of entertainment, and the depth of analytical reporting, this guide explores the best global news sources across these four essential categories.

1. Best World Business News

For the latest on global markets, economic trends, and corporate developments, staying informed with trusted business news sources is non-negotiable. Business news platforms act as vital resources for investors, entrepreneurs, and anyone interested in understanding the economic forces shaping our world.

Some of the most prominent platforms include Bloomberg, known for its comprehensive coverage of financial markets, Reuters, a leader in global news with a focus on business and finance, and Financial Times, which offers unparalleled insights into corporate strategies and economic policies. For those who value independence, platforms like Investopedia and smaller financial blogs are making waves by simplifying complex topics for everyday readers.

In choosing a source, look for timely updates, well-researched articles, and an international perspective to understand both local and global implications.

2. Best World Crime News

Keeping tabs on crime reports and investigative journalism is vital for understanding societal dynamics and ensuring accountability. Crime news not only informs but also raises awareness of issues affecting justice and safety worldwide.

Prominent sources like BBC News, The Guardian, and Al Jazeera deliver real-time updates and detailed investigations into global crime stories. Independent platforms like ProPublica are lauded for their investigative depth, often exposing stories that mainstream media overlook.

Good crime reporting requires ethical standards, as these stories often involve sensitive topics. Look for outlets that prioritize fact-checking and respect for victims, ensuring the information presented is both accurate and responsible.

3. Best World Entertainment News

From Hollywood blockbusters to cultural events worldwide, entertainment news brings us closer to the heartbeat of creativity and celebrity culture. Whether it’s breaking news about the latest film releases or insights into the music industry, entertainment news keeps us connected to the lighter side of life.

Trusted sources like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are longstanding leaders in covering film, television, and theater, while BBC Entertainment provides a broader, global perspective. Social media platforms have also become key players in this space, with celebrities and creators directly sharing updates with fans.

The best entertainment news sources balance timeliness with accuracy and offer diverse coverage that spans international markets and underground scenes alongside mainstream events.

4. Best World News Analysis

In an era of information overload, the ability to interpret and analyze news is what separates informed citizens from the rest. Analytical journalism goes beyond headlines, helping readers make sense of complex global issues.

Top platforms like The Economist provide in-depth coverage of politics, economics, and global trends. XReporters, with its focus on independent and unbiased reporting, is another excellent source for comprehensive news analysis that prioritizes impartiality. Unlike platforms that merely relay events, analytical outlets focus on context, offering readers a deeper understanding of the stories that matter most.

As a reader, seek out platforms that align with your values and demonstrate a commitment to neutrality. Analytical news doesn’t just inform—it empowers you to think critically and engage meaningfully with the world around you.

Conclusion

Navigating the landscape of global news requires discerning readers who prioritize quality, accuracy, and impartiality. Business, crime, entertainment, and news analysis each play a unique role in shaping our perspectives.

Take the time to explore platforms that align with your interests and values. Subscribe XReporters for reliable outlets, support independent journalism, and be an active participant in the global conversation. After all, staying informed is the first step toward shaping a better future.

[themajestyofmiracles]

Thomas Kelly’s Fraud Exposed

Aegis Capital Corp.’s financial adviser Thomas Edison Kelly, Jr. is now entangled in several client disputes, each of which accuses Thomas Kelly of different types of sales practice wrongdoing. Accusations against Kelly include improper investments, unlawful trading, and irresponsibility during his twenty-plus year employment. But first, let’s learn a little bit about his character.

Thomas Kelly: A Brief Overview

He started his career in finance in 1997 and has since worked for notable brokerage companies such as National Securities Corporation, Northeast Securities, Nichols, Safina, Lerner & Co., and Northeast.

Thomas Kelly has become well-known for his vast understanding of investing methods and financial markets throughout his time here. A slew of client conflicts and accusations of wrongdoing, however, have cast a shadow over his career. 

Among these concerns are allegations of improper trading, inappropriate financial advice, and betrayal of trust. Clients and regulators alike have been looking closely at the many settlements and ongoing litigation that have arisen from these claims.

Thomas Kelly has handled the intricacies of client relationships and regulatory duties with poise and determination, allowing him to retain his position in the business despite these hurdles. The ups and downs of his career path mirror the challenges and possibilities that financial advisers encounter in a constantly changing regulatory environment.

Thomas Kelly: Background and Career History

Thomas Kelly began working as a securities sector professional in 1997. His job started at this point. He had a long and storied career in brokerage, having worked for several organizations until joining Aegis Capital in 2018. 

Northeast Securities, Safina, Nichols, and Lerner & Co. were the firms that made up this group. Kelly worked for 10 years at the National Securities Corporation and for eight years at First Republic Group before starting his current role at Aegis Capital. 

Before her present role, Kelly held both of these jobs. First Republic was forced to exit the market in 2019 by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). 

This incident occurred in the year 2019. In 2017, Reuters discovered that 48 companies had brokers with red flags on their work records, and National Securities was one of those companies.

The many complaints from customers have completely disrupted Kelly’s professional life. 

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) BrokerCheck database shows that he has been the subject of fifteen consumer complaints accusing him of violating sales practices. 

This includes transgressions including giving bad advice, breaking the law while trading, and breaching fiduciary obligations.

Thomas Kelly: Pending Customer Complaints

At this time, three consumer complaints against Thomas Kelly have not been resolved:

March 2020:  An accusation of unsuitability, violation of fiduciary responsibility, and breach of contract has been made against Kelly by a client back in March 2020. During the ongoing disagreement, a claim for damages for $50,000 has been made.

February 2020: This case is based on accusations of carelessness, unsuitability, misrepresentation, and omissions, and the claimed damages amounting to $33,000. This case is still being investigated.

November 2018: In November 2018, the client asserted that they were subjected to unlawful trading, unsuitability, violation of fiduciary responsibility, and carelessness. This issue, which seeks damages of $500,000, has likewise not been addressed.

Kelly’s compliance with regulatory standards and ethical responsibilities toward his customers is a source of ongoing worry, as shown by the complaints that have not been resolved even though they have been taken into consideration.

Thomas Kelly: Resolved Claims and Historical Disputes

Thomas Kelly has been identified as the subject of additional complaints that have been addressed on top of the existing legal processes. These complaints include the following:

August 2018: A $200,00 settlement was reached in a dispute involving inappropriate recommendations and other breaches of sales practices.

October 2018: Kelly personally paid a $30,000 settlement in a dispute including allegations of deception, carelessness, and violation of fiduciary responsibility.

June 2009: A $14,000 settlement was reached on accusations of excessive trading, fraud, carelessness, and misrepresentation.

December 2008: A dispute including breach of contract, unsuitability, and breaches of the Arizona Securities Act and federal securities laws was resolved for $18,000.

June 2006: An $88,000 settlement resulted from allegations of inappropriate trading and hefty commissions.

January 2005: A $75,000 settlement was reached to resolve a complaint claiming churning and inappropriate transactions.

One of the accusations that had been filed against Thomas Kelly in 2012 was dropped, and many other claims against her were closed without any further action being taken. 

The fact that Kelly’s advising practices have been accused of committing similar offenses on several occasions, such as making inappropriate recommendations and engaging in unlawful trading, is indicative of systemic problems.

Thomas Kelly: Finance and Regulation Issues

As stated in his BrokerCheck report, Kelly is now facing further challenges in his work life as a result of a recent judgment or lien against him that is around $2.4 million in value. 

His tasks are made more difficult by this financial burden, which may also affect his capacity to fulfill his commitments to regulatory agencies and customers.

Aegis Capital has more shady brokers besides Thomas Kelly. Also cited in various client disputes are other financial advisers working for the company, including Alan Zelig Appelbaum, Michael Fasciglione, and Paul Falcon, amongst others. 

Not only does Fasciglione have a record of 13 customer complaints, but Appelbaum has a total of sixteen disclosures on his record, including at least twelve customer disputes. 

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) banned Falcon for thirty days earlier this year and has six investor grievances listed. 

Aegis Capital’s supervisory and compliance processes may have certain possible flaws, as shown by this trend.

Regulations and Investor Protection

Financial advisers are legally obligated to guarantee that the investment suggestions they provide to their customers are appropriate for the particular requirements and circumstances of their client’s financial situations. 

To determine whether or not investment methods are suitable, they are required to carry out exhaustive due diligence. This requirement includes three primary areas of appropriateness, which are as follows:

Reasonable Basis Suitability: After doing sufficient due research, advisors are required to guarantee that an investment plan is appropriate for a minimum of some investors.

Quantitative Suitability: When evaluating a sequence of transactions in the context of a client’s investment profile, advisors in charge of the client’s account must make sure they are neither excessive nor inappropriate.

Customer-Specific Suitability: Advisors are responsible for making sure suggestions are appropriate for a given client based on that client’s specific financial situation and investing goals.

Investors may be able to pursue legal recourse if they suffer substantial financial losses as a result of their failure to fulfill these responsibilities.

Legal Action for Affected Investors

Investors may seek compensation via arbitration or legal action if they think Kelly’s purported misbehavior has caused them to incur losses. Affected investors may seek justice without having to pay anything up front thanks to the assessments that securities arbitration companies often provide and the possibility of working on a contingency fee basis.

Conclusion

The accusations made against Thomas Kelly are a sobering reminder of how important it is for the financial advice sector to have strict regulations and strong ethical standards. It is recommended that investors investigate their financial advisers thoroughly and consult a lawyer if they have any suspicions about wrongdoing.

[principles-of]

Is Journalism a dying industry?

Radio, TV and print struggle against declining audience numbers. For an industry labeled as anything but slow paced, how does it react when a serious player has established itself in the game? 

"About 40% of American Adults often get their news from an online source" says the Textbook, Writing and Reporting for the Media. That number rises to half when looking specifically at those between the ages 18-49. "Facebook and Youtube are the most popular social media sites to find news, according to a Pew study in 2017."

News publishers have adapted their business model to support this shift. Journalists can tweet news in real time and articles can be multimedia. Print readership is down and online subscribers are up, but this age of information also supports misleading, provocative or even false information to attract attention for ad revenue. 

"Many people do not trust the news they find on social media," says The Textbook. Everyone has a voice on social media, especially misinformed ones. The problem isn't that they are misinformed, but they share the same space as those that are. Like Pulitzer Prize winning reporters.  

Sharing the same space muddies the credibility and ethics of professional journalists when click bait is attractive and easy to engage with. They give readers entry points to the article, and more importantly, ad revenue. A complex double edged sword.

Are publishers bending over backwards for the sake of clicks? Do important stories get sidelined? Do ads allow publishers to survive? Is there another way to sustain the business?

The Austin Chronicle and KUTX have relatively few corporate ads and have regular fundraising events. Larger publications like The New York Times require a subscription, but supplement with fewer targeted ads.

In 2017, millennials were the largest group to pay for news, almost 40% of them according to a Reuters report in Politico. Does that still hold up in a "post" COVID-19 America? As we approach the election, free click bait authors will again flood our feeds and dodge responsibility.

"All news outlets need trained journalists with high standards," says the Textbook. But what separates click bait from the writing by trained journalists?

As a journalist, I can say we are being trained in ethics, storytelling, research and multimedia. We are being tested on the accuracy of our investigations. We are being encouraged to participate in culture and civics. We are held accountable for mistakes and misrepresentations. The news industry is not slow nor stagnant. We are learning how reporting has been done in the past to adapt to new ways for the future.

I hope that readers can avoid provocative posts and seek journalists, even if it is behind a paywall. 

[warningsine]

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/judgment-day-thai-pm-srettha-court-rules-dismissal-case-2024-08-13/

BANGKOK, Aug 14 (Reuters) - Thailand's Constitutional Court on Wednesday dismissed Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin and ruled he "grossly" violated ethics by appointing a minister who was once jailed, raising the spectre of political upheaval and a shakeup in the governing alliance.

Real estate tycoon Srettha is the fourth premier in 16 years to be removed in verdicts by the same court, underlining the central role Thailand's judiciary has played in its intractable, two-decade political crisis.

Srettha's exit after less than a year in power means parliament must choose a new premier on Friday, with the prospect of more uncertainty in a country dogged by coups and court rulings that have brought down multiple governments and political parties.

His Pheu Thai Party, the biggest in the coalition, moved quickly to try to shore up its alliance and said it would meet early on Thursday to choose its candidate for prime minister ahead of a special session of parliament to vote on a new premier.

Pheu Thai and its predecessors have borne the brunt of Thailand's turmoil, with two governments removed by coups in a long-running grudge match between the party's founders, the billionaire Shinawatra family, and their influential rivals in the conservative establishment and royalist military.

The judges ruled 5-4 in favour of dismissing Srettha, saying he failed to perform his duty with integrity.

"The accused is terminated as prime minister due to his lack of honesty," the judges said, adding his behaviour "grossly breached ethical standards".

The decision was the court's second bombshell in the space of a week following its dissolution of the opposition Move Forward Party - the 2023 election winner - over a campaign to amend a law against insulting the crown, which it said risked undermining the constitutional monarchy.

Move Forward has already regrouped as a new party, promising to further its anti-establishment agenda.

Both rulings came at a tricky time for an economy that Srettha struggled to jumpstart, with weak exports and consumer spending, sky-high household debt and more than a million businesses unable to access loans.

"It's a negative surprise. It is a direct risk to the economy," said Trinity Securities analyst Nuttachart Mekmasin, outlining key policies including Srettha's 500 billion baht ($14.3 billion) cash handout plan may be stalled.

"Consumer and business confidence will be affected," he said. "Spending and investment will slow down until the next government is formed."

The government had estimated growth of just 2.7% for 2024, lagging regional peers, while Thailand stock market has been among Asia's worst performers this year. It slipped 1.29% after the ruling before recovering to close 0.4% down.

UNCERTAIN TRUCE

Srettha, who entered politics just months ahead of last year's election, expressed disappointment and said it was possible the next government could change his policy agenda.

"I am saddened to leave as a prime minister who was found to be unethical," Srettha told reporters. "I performed my duties with integrity and honesty."

The ruling could rock a fragile truce between political heavyweight Thaksin Shinawatra and his enemies among the conservative elite and military old guard, which enabled the tycoon's return from 15 years of self-exile in 2023 and ally Srettha to become premier the same day.

Srettha's undoing was his appointment to cabinet of Thaksin's former lawyer Pichit Chuenban, who was briefly imprisoned for contempt of court in 2008 over an alleged attempt to bribe court staff, which was never proven.

The complaint was lodged by 40 former senators who were appointed by the military after a 2014 coup against Pheu Thai's last government. Srettha's deputy Phumtham Wechayachai takes over as caretaker premier.

According to some political experts, it is likely Pheu Thai has the clout to lead the next administration, though it was uncertain who would be in charge.

Anutin Charnvirakul, leader of the Bhumjaithai Party, the second-largest partner in the alliance, said the coalition remained tight and Pheu Thai should lead the formation of a new government.

"Pheu Thai is still leading the government ... We have to listen to Pheu Thai," said Anutin, who is now caretaker deputy premier.

An astute dealmaker who has long straddled both sides of Thailand's political divide, Anutin is eligible for the top job as one of several politicians designated prime ministerial candidates by their parties before the last election.

Pheu Thai has two candidates it can nominate - former Justice Minister and party stalwart Chaikasem Nitisiri, and the party's inexperienced leader Paetongtarn Shinawatra, Thaksin's 37-year-old daughter.

If successful, she would be Thailand's third Shinawatra premier after Thaksin and her aunt, Yingluck Shinawatra.

Other potential candidates include acting Energy Minister Pirapan Salirathavibhaga and Prawit Wongsuwan, opens new tab, a staunch royalist and former army chief involved in two coups.