Dr Shinichi Suzuki fraud claims slammed by music teachers as ‘scandalous’ – Sydney Morning Herald

Shinichi Suzuki

Cover of Shinichi Suzuki

Following on from yesterday’s most popular blog, entitled Violin master Shinichi Suzuki ‘the biggest fraud in music history’ – Sydney Morning Herald, thanks to the eagle eyes of Seymour Lightman, at Probe Forensics, I am sharing the follow-up story of the Sydney Morning Herald.

via Dr Shinichi Suzuki fraud claims slammed by music teachers as ‘scandalous’.

Seymour simply advised:

No idea what’s what here, but maybe worth flagging this revisionist piece: apparently posted as a late update to the original story?

Both stories are well worth a read and some reflection. For me I really admire the Sydney Morning Herald for publishing both sides of this story. The point is that irrespective of whether the Dr Shinichi Suzuki fraud claims are genuine, his contribution to music has been outstanding and should stand separately to the questions about his early years.

Sadly, the mainstream media are often too quick to show just one side of the story. Take Israel and Gaza, for example, where the media is generally regarded as biased against Israel.

When I was a youngster, I thought that newspapers reported the news honestly and it was for editorials to share their political bias. I soon learned that I was naive.

Let me share another reflection on the same thread. Last night I was at dinner with a friend who had recently retired from a forty-year career at the BBC – he was involved in news operations, viz. delivering the news. I offered that their was too much bias in the mainstream media. My wife gave an example of a headline completely at odds from the main story. Our friend responded that the headline was an editorial decision – so the headline can give a pointed or political message, irrespective of the underlying story. He then moved to my blog and suggested that I was providing editorials of the news.

This started me thinking that with Twitters’ 140 characters, headline were these days much more important than the underlying story.

Any thoughts on bias in the mainstream media and, in particular, editorial decisions on headlines?

One response

  1. Dr Alf I think knows the answer to his own question.
    I track up to 125 websites for news and compare it with what I see,things I learn from people who are more knowlegeable and what the BBC,CNN,Fox,ITV,RT,Al Jazeera and others put out.
    I look at You Tube and compare what these different sources say on the same subjects.
    With the BBC I compare what someone says today with their version of events a week,a month,3 months and a year from today and earlier.
    The resemblance between anything that remotely looks or sounds like the truth is practically nonexistent unless the BBC is reporting an ongoing hostage seige or live event.
    To understand what is being reported you need to be able to understand hand movements,the use of NLP and different body language to rubbish interviewees in the minds of the audience,the use of shapes and sigils to create a mental state and the BBC’s use of repetition.
    It uses the phrases “force of nature” and “climate change” heavily and in a tone of voice that suggests that every event known to mankind from an ingrowing toenail,to gales,traffic congestion,someone committing crimes by the light of the full moon,feral cats and horsemeat in burgers can all be laid at the door of these 2 things.
    When you understand all of that plus the use of drumming and the process of zooming in to the motionless face of the presenter as the drumming reaches a crescendo then you understand the process of anchoring the audience to every word that is said.
    The colours used on the set and the way people dress is not accidental either,nor is the composition of panels used on Question Time and the composition of the studio audiences.
    A good rule of thumb is to assume that 80% of what you are told is misleading nonsense,lies or incomplete data and that 20% more closely resembles the truth.
    To get to that 20% you have to apply critical thinking,commonsense a knowledge of history and geography and understand where people are coming from.
    Which in turn means you cannot simply take them at face value.
    With reporters unless they are mavericks like the left wing Australian Jon Pilger or are honest seekers of truth from the Daily Telegraph hunting for corrupt and shysterlike MP’s you have to assume they are peddling a Government line or something they have been told.
    In one broadcast the BBC had a reporter standing in front of date and banana trees who said in a clear voice “I am standing here reporting to you live from Baghdad”,
    “Saddam Hussein has been captured”.
    Date and banana trees produce fruit in and around July and the summer months yet Saddam Hussein was captured we are told,in December even though the man they caught did not totally resemble Saddam Hussein in that the dictator had eyes set widely apart and the captured man had eyes closely set in his head.
    The second shot of the moment of capture of Saddam could not have been taken at the same time as the first shot of the reporter by the date and banana trees which of course cast shadows inconsistent with the purported timeline.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: