Media Watch Thread - "I pay you cash instead"

Never Mind the B*ll*cks
21

Yes I am, when what they produce breeches the ethical standards that all journalists are supposed to be committed to. In short, truth, balance and integrity.

Me not clicking, which I don’t, doesn’t solve the issue of a press that manipulates public opinion by outright lies, lies of omission, presentation of opinion as fact, failure to hold power to account, failure to fact-check claims and a dozen other daily, intentional acts in furtherance of the accumulation of wealth and the agendas of cunt owners.

Democratic instutions and human rights are being eroded because journalists are no longer held to account for brazen lies in service of partisan owners or greedy rich fucks.

You might be OK with that, I’m fucking not.

4 Likes
22

You forget to mention giving platform to Nazis.

23

On News.com at the moment:

“Ex Socceroo to captain Sky Blues”

I mean technically correct but not exactly how I would have put it

24

Clearly if there’s an absence of any other weaponry, Limited News are happy to use a stick to beat football with.

1 Like
25

  1. They’re not wrong. Short of COVID running through a Socceroos camp it’s unlikely Grant will get any more Caps unless we’re desperately short on Right Backs.

  2. It’s a positive news story about the A-League

  3. It’s a news story about the A-League.

DON’T JINX IT!

1 Like
26

I suppose it can be spun positively. I just don’t trust News an inch, though, especially when it comes to football. It isn’t one of “their” sports.

27

On the other side, if he got done for drink driving, he’d be a socceroo for sure

1 Like
28

I keep seeing new versions of this article pop up every month or two. Every single one of them has an utterly idiotic example of where or why banks are failing. While I’m sympathetic to banks being fuckwits at some point how can you blame a bank for just how stupid you’ve been?

In this case the woman got cold called by someone claiming to be a rep from ING - months later she deposited 1.6 million (ONE POINT SIX FUCKING MILLION) into a Westpac account - for an ING term deposit - and the money “vanished”.

Each article I’ve read has had an example just like this one. What kind of journalist would use that as their case study? And what kind of idiot editor would ok it? What is the fucking motivation behind it. They cant be big click getters surely?

29

You clicked it. And if you’re clicking it (as a regular person who isn’t a fucking wet mop of a human), imagine all the morons that are clicking…

I wholeheartedly agree though. Part of me hopes it sin an aim to educate people of the dangers that lurk around every corner (if you’re an utter dumb cunt). Sadly, I’m pretty sure it’s just for advertising clicks.

30

100% agree that this is on people being stupid. The only thing I would suggest, is banks should flag weird transactions of individuals once they hit a certain age. If there’s strange movement, they should call to confirm the reason etc. Once you’re older and sicknesses like dementia etc are setting in, it becomes harder and harder to understand what the go is.

We had family friends that were older, years ago, get contacted by people back in Poland. They would hit up older Poles in Australia and claim they were calling on behalf of someone, using generic names, in the hope that they get a hit. They would ask for money as they’re in hospital etc. My parents even had a moment of belief, but dad was smart enough to get into direct contact with the person in Poland to find out it was a scam.

31

Love this quote

The onus continues to be on the customer to avoid being scammed against malignant forces over which they have no control

They literally do though. It’s called due diligence.

She was in contact with this person for months, and at no point stopped to confirm their identity or that she was dealing with an actual bank.

She also says the money was to be distributed to family members, but was seeking a term deposit? For how long, a month? Sorry but that does not add up at all, ING will give you 5.05% you lock in for a year. You can get 4.75% from Macquarie with zero term requirements (on up to a mil, mind you) - sounds like she was being greedy, has completely shit the bed and refuses to take responsibility for it.

32

I mean she’s 95 years old… There’s only a certain portion of this that can go onto her. At 95 i’d love to see how with it you would be

Scratch that, sorry it was the 95 year old’s daughter… That’s just dumb in that case.

Although even in their 60’s, we’re finding both the in-laws and my parents are getting more and more susceptible to scams. Especially email based ones where they click on wrong links etc.

1 Like
33

I thought it was the mum who was 95, but it was the daughter who was doing all the moving of money?

34

That was my understanding, but it also says she died 10 days ago - so maybe it was the old bird who did it and not the daughter.

If it wasn’t the daughter (as I assumed), I’m a little more sympathetic.

Edit: no it was the daughter. So she can fuck off.

3 Likes
35

https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/1dmfqxa/harriet_lost_16_million_to_a_scam_she_wants_the/

Month old story apparently, and whilst I haven’t fact checked this, one of the comments on reddit

She even admits the bank queried the request and that they told her that the real ING isn’t offering a deposit rate that high, and that it was not right that they asked her to transfer it to westpac. But she did the transaction anyway because they wouldn’t match the interest rate that the scammers were offering her.

1 Like
36

Ahhh thank you.

So this person is an utter cunt blinded by greed. Not sure why ABC have taken the angle they did on this.

37

Funnily enough, the story linked on the reddit post is from the abc a bit over a week (not a month) ago. I reckon the scammed person is desperately charging around the media hoping westpac will reimburse her to shut her up

38

The bank warned her that ING did not offer that rate, and it was unusual to transfer it to a completely different bank (westpac) if she was moving the money to ING.

Case closed, blinded by greed because boomer.

39

The media is frothing over all of these bank scams lately (looking at you “The Project”).

There’s a lot of associated pearl clutching going on, such as:

Why don’t the banks do more to prevent this!?!?

Well, they could in the sense that nothing is ever perfect, and there’s room for improvement in absolutely anything

Banks should be liable and reimburse the poor consumer!!

Cue citations about the UK where both banks involved in the transfer are each 50% liable etc.
Banks already do reimburse if they’re at fault, so the question is less about reimbursement and more about attributing fault…and the bank’s stance here is pretty clear: you initiated the transaction, we just followed your instructions.

Banks should stop/block transactions to accounts that the customer has never transacted with before!

And then what?
Lets say I’m buying a second hand car of someone I’ve never met before. How is the bank supposed to “authorise” this, over and above my word for it?

I called my bank, they said they could ‘see’ the transaction but they couldn’t do anything to reverse it!?!

Lets say I’ve now successfully purchased that second hand car.
What’s to stop me driving around the corner and immediately asking the bank to reverse the transfer because “scam”? The same reason we don’t accept personal cheques for this sort of exchange…

The consumer can’t possibly be at fault, because the scams are getting so sophisticated

How many years has the advice has been “if you get cold called from <anyone - banks, ATO, Microsoft>, hang up and call back on the number on their website”.

You don’t need to be a technical expert to follow this advice.

tHeY sEnT TeXt MeSsAgEs iN tHe SaMe ThReAd As My BaNk!!!111!!!

I love this one, because to non-technical people it just seems so egregious that a scammer could somehow infiltrate your bank’s message thread.

It’s clearly not that hard to spoof the sending phone number of a text message, and all your phone is doing with message threads is grouping messages by sender.
A scammer only needs to trivially determine what number the bank messages would normally come from.

I totally agree that ultimately people need to take responsibility for their own actions.

3 Likes
40

Would be very cumbersome even for receiving end banks to validate incoming funds - even a hold for 48 hours could easily be circumvented by scammers to build that into their scam.

Something like PEXA might work, but again you’d just have them looming to scam amounts under the threshold.

Still a bit miffed there are that many bozos out there.