Dear Shareen, I regard Ground Up with scepticism, because they say on their website that they will not publish content that contains challenging of the notion of anthropogenic climate change (through carbon emission) and of germ theory in contemporary virology. This setting of the boundaries for what are 'legitimate' viewpoints is not only unscientific but carries within it the spectre of totalitarianism when it is also reflected in the mainstream media. I have read broadly and deeply the critiques of germ theory including the arguments against the existence of viruses and am slowly uncovering the scientific positions that question whether global warming is driven by carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas) or by solar radiation cycles. For the record, my position (based on considerable reading) is that global warming is anthropogenically-caused, and with respect to viruses, that neither the HIV nor the (so-called) coronavirus (and all the others in between) have been isolated according to the four protocols of the famous German virologist Robert Koch - I also treat my health according to alternative and integrated medicine and avoid anti-histamines and anti-biotics unless I am suffering a serious, life-threatening condition, and I have successfully nursed my own inflammations for the last 10 years. Ground Up is headed by Nathan Geffen, a key figure on the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), and I think it is funded by inter alia the Bertha Foundation. It would be interesting to research Ground Up's funding in depth, and similarly for the TAC. regards, Paul.
I have found Ground Up's work generally good. I am surprised about the issues you raised. I have not scrutinised their funders but appreciated their disclosure. I shall revisit this once the elections are over and results are out.
Great article Shareen, I share your sentiments totally. I also became concerned when the focus left investigations and turned to global news. Then the war in Ukraine came, and suddenly it seemed DM had turned into a Ukrainian mouthpiece for NATO and the US Empire. And then, after Oct 7, the genocide was ignored for so long I seriously contemplated just ignoring them completely. Fortunately they are slightly understanding the need for audience trust, but they have a lot of rebuilding to do.
Just a small correction, Alan. I was never involved with the Consultative Business Movement, they were too ultra conservative, uninteresting and not worth joining. :)
Hi Shareen. Nice to receive this. A few thoughts if I may. This isn't the first attack of this sort I've seen on the Mills/Hartley axis with suggestions that they shouldn't be allowed to publish because of their reactionary perspectives and their links with the Brenthurst Foundation. I don't really share that view. I find their columns to be ultra conservative, uninteresing and not worth reading. Having looked at the headlines of their pieces, the content is predicable and sure to be lacking insight. So my solution is simple. I almost invariably don't bother to read them. The identity of the institution that pays their salaries is always disclosed for those who may be unaware of it. So we know whose interests they may be representing. If indeed they do. I have often wondered whether the management of the Foundation ever wonders whether they couldn't perhaps find better employees who might put forward more compelling articles that would better spread whatever word it is that they want spread. I'm not surprised at Ray Hartley, who peddled similar views when he was a senior person at the Sunday Times. I have been disappointed in him, carrying as I do the burden of persuading Business Day to employ him in his first job in journalism back in the 1990s. He came from the Consultative Business Movement, which actually played a constructive role in South Africa's early 1990s political negotiations. So I expected more from him. Greg Mills was more interesting when he was an academic at the South African Institute of International Affairs. Anyway, their work today is dull and lacking in any worthwhile insight. However, I'm not inclined to have DM ban their work. If the Brenthurst Foundation funds Daily Maverick (to whom I pay the same monthly contribution as you do) and does so on condition that Mills/Hartley columns are published by them it would be nice were they to declare that. But I'm not inclined to boycott DM for that reason. They also publish their share of ultra-left material too (which perspectives are sometimes also predictable), so it can't be said that they are in the Brenthurst Foundation's pocket. And also carry quite a lot of material that makes for worthwhile reading. Anyway, I'd rather treat the Mills/Hartley stuff with simple disdain, rather than get het up about it. It's not worth the emotional energy.
Thank you so much Alan. I went into detail about Brenthurst Foundation and Mills background because I have a sizeable following on X who do not know that history. I am not suggesting a boycott at all. If my piece comes across as giving that impression - I will look at it again.
Dear Shareen, I regard Ground Up with scepticism, because they say on their website that they will not publish content that contains challenging of the notion of anthropogenic climate change (through carbon emission) and of germ theory in contemporary virology. This setting of the boundaries for what are 'legitimate' viewpoints is not only unscientific but carries within it the spectre of totalitarianism when it is also reflected in the mainstream media. I have read broadly and deeply the critiques of germ theory including the arguments against the existence of viruses and am slowly uncovering the scientific positions that question whether global warming is driven by carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas) or by solar radiation cycles. For the record, my position (based on considerable reading) is that global warming is anthropogenically-caused, and with respect to viruses, that neither the HIV nor the (so-called) coronavirus (and all the others in between) have been isolated according to the four protocols of the famous German virologist Robert Koch - I also treat my health according to alternative and integrated medicine and avoid anti-histamines and anti-biotics unless I am suffering a serious, life-threatening condition, and I have successfully nursed my own inflammations for the last 10 years. Ground Up is headed by Nathan Geffen, a key figure on the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), and I think it is funded by inter alia the Bertha Foundation. It would be interesting to research Ground Up's funding in depth, and similarly for the TAC. regards, Paul.
I have found Ground Up's work generally good. I am surprised about the issues you raised. I have not scrutinised their funders but appreciated their disclosure. I shall revisit this once the elections are over and results are out.
Great article Shareen, I share your sentiments totally. I also became concerned when the focus left investigations and turned to global news. Then the war in Ukraine came, and suddenly it seemed DM had turned into a Ukrainian mouthpiece for NATO and the US Empire. And then, after Oct 7, the genocide was ignored for so long I seriously contemplated just ignoring them completely. Fortunately they are slightly understanding the need for audience trust, but they have a lot of rebuilding to do.
Just a small correction, Alan. I was never involved with the Consultative Business Movement, they were too ultra conservative, uninteresting and not worth joining. :)
Hi Shareen. Nice to receive this. A few thoughts if I may. This isn't the first attack of this sort I've seen on the Mills/Hartley axis with suggestions that they shouldn't be allowed to publish because of their reactionary perspectives and their links with the Brenthurst Foundation. I don't really share that view. I find their columns to be ultra conservative, uninteresing and not worth reading. Having looked at the headlines of their pieces, the content is predicable and sure to be lacking insight. So my solution is simple. I almost invariably don't bother to read them. The identity of the institution that pays their salaries is always disclosed for those who may be unaware of it. So we know whose interests they may be representing. If indeed they do. I have often wondered whether the management of the Foundation ever wonders whether they couldn't perhaps find better employees who might put forward more compelling articles that would better spread whatever word it is that they want spread. I'm not surprised at Ray Hartley, who peddled similar views when he was a senior person at the Sunday Times. I have been disappointed in him, carrying as I do the burden of persuading Business Day to employ him in his first job in journalism back in the 1990s. He came from the Consultative Business Movement, which actually played a constructive role in South Africa's early 1990s political negotiations. So I expected more from him. Greg Mills was more interesting when he was an academic at the South African Institute of International Affairs. Anyway, their work today is dull and lacking in any worthwhile insight. However, I'm not inclined to have DM ban their work. If the Brenthurst Foundation funds Daily Maverick (to whom I pay the same monthly contribution as you do) and does so on condition that Mills/Hartley columns are published by them it would be nice were they to declare that. But I'm not inclined to boycott DM for that reason. They also publish their share of ultra-left material too (which perspectives are sometimes also predictable), so it can't be said that they are in the Brenthurst Foundation's pocket. And also carry quite a lot of material that makes for worthwhile reading. Anyway, I'd rather treat the Mills/Hartley stuff with simple disdain, rather than get het up about it. It's not worth the emotional energy.
Thank you so much Alan. I went into detail about Brenthurst Foundation and Mills background because I have a sizeable following on X who do not know that history. I am not suggesting a boycott at all. If my piece comes across as giving that impression - I will look at it again.