Topic: big media
Just how unreliable is the big media?
Very it seems.
Even the simple interpretation of a global media event can't be accurately described.
In the now (in)famous assertion that Wendi Deng acted like a tigress to protect her mogul husband Rupert from a pie thrower, the facts just don't bear that out.
Upon re watching the incident on youtube here:
it is quite clear Deng came in AFTER the pie man was intercepted by another woman in grey (next to and to the left of Deng) using a left arm basketball style forward stance. Then AFTER general alert in the room and crucially for the pie thrower the lost element of surprise, Deng either seeks to consolidate the interception or less charitably to seek revenge.
The woman in grey is simply not Deng, who is in pink. Both women have black hair but that's the only similarity.
Consider these two pictures of the event which makes it quite clear the woman in grey is not Ms Deng.
We suggest the former possible intention by Deng would be lawful, the latter a defence to unlawful assault by Deng of the pie thrower due to provocation, to add to the pie thrower's unlawful assault of old Rupe. Deng is clearly shown here in the pink:
Not so cut and dried as the big media are posturing this last week. And arguably two wrongs don't quite make a right, though any judge would be likely to dismiss it for provocation. Certainly Deng is not the tigress surrounded by coppers on the move. The woman in grey surely is.
To reinforce the point about how hopeless even the best of the big media and big politics can be about this otherwise trivial posturing:
1. On reconvening the committee a member of the parliamentary select committee tries to smooth things over by commending Wendi Deng for a great left hook. Trouble is it was her right hand, not left that threw the punch.
2. Have a look at this re-enactment on youtube which airbrushes the woman in grey power suit out of the picture and puts a man next to 'hero' Wendi Deng. Talk about rewrite history. Pathetic really. It's here