Vejam só do que me fui lembrar: nem mais nem menos que a Rodily Vilches, a FRAUDE que foi estrela da reportagem "Viver com pouco", que devia supostamente ser sobre as dificuldades por que passam os trabalhadores não residentes em Macau, que vivem, imaginem só, "com menos de quatro mil patacas por mês", ou seja, mais de 400 euros, que é mais ou menos o que ganham metade dos portugueses em Portugal, por exemplo. Auferindo este salário de miséria, os TNR vivem em habitações paupérrimas, com "condições de higiene mínimas", e todos ao molho, os porcalhões. Isto segundo a autora da peça transmitida na TDM em Novembro de 2013, e que com isto ganhou o prémio de "reportagem do ano". Prémio merecido, com toda a certeza, depois de duas semanas de intensa pesquisa para descobrir qual o mais miserável dos miseráveis para fazer a reportagem, não sobraram cinco minutos para fazer uma pesquisa no Facebook e descobrir que esta "pobre de Cristo" auto-intitula-se "super modelo", e logo por azar "desde Junho de 2013", ou seja, MESES antes da reportagem ser feita. As provas estão aqui e aqui, mas e depois? Em Macau há quem considere que "jornalismo" e "verdade" são conceitos díspares, e "uma coisa não tem nada a ver com outra". Além do mais, o artigo 5º do Código Deontológico do Jornalista diz que "O jornalista deve assumir a responsabilidade por todos os seus trabalhos e actos profissionais, assim como promover a pronta rectificação das informações que se revelem inexactas ou falsas (...)". Mas isso é só para se aplicar "quando dá jeito", entenda-se.
.jpg)
E nota-se à distância que a rapariga nasceu para modelo, pá. Reparem na cinturinha estreita que ostenta nesta fotografia de 2010, semanas depois de nos ter agraciado com a sua chegada a Macau. Até parece que grita "dá-me a conhecer ao mundo!". Mas se olharmos com mais atenção...
Oh, oh! Genial. Só falta mesmo um sinal a dizer "introduza aqui a moeda". Mas desculpa-se: afinal tinha acabado de chegar lá da Parvónia, onde sorrir de orelha a orelha para o retrato mesmo com crateras lunares na dentadura não só é aceite como ainda se encoraja. Ou então era já trabalho de "top-model", pá! A moça não perdeu tempo, e na verdade isto é um reclame publicitário para um famoso dentista local. Só falta mesmo a "punchline": "Não deixe que isto lhe aconteça".
Mas esperem lá...o que é isto? Rodily Vilches a viver nas ruas? Será que a profissão de "top-model" bateu no fundo, e já nem dá para viver num apartamento onde nem uma banheira com espaço para colocar a "flute" de champanhe existe? Será isto o tal "karma" de que tanto se fala, e "cá se fazem, cá se pagam", como diz o povo?
Mas que justiça poética, que nada! Reparem nesta palhaçada, salvo seja, que não tem piada nenhuma, ao contrário dos saltimbancos, nobre e honesta profissão. Isto não passa de mais uma sessão de fotografia de um tal Richard Kasica, um indivíduo obeso que sofre de problemas mentais, e recruta empregadas domésticas trintonas ou que para lá caminham e ilude-as dizendo que "podem fazer uma carreira como modelo". Hmm...muito suspeito. Será que o fulano tem segundas, terceiras, e décimas-sextas intenções? Que nada - é só olhar para a qualidade do "material" para perceber que é apenas uma daquelas parafilias a roçar a mania das grandezas: ele convence as tristes que são modelos, e convence-se a si mesmo de que é fotógrafo - é uma tropa fandanga. Esta sessão ficou ironicamente intitulada de "quando a carreira de modelo acaba". Faltou acrescentar "depois de nunca ter começado". Contudo não consigo deixar de pensar que este é o elemento que faltou na tal reportagem da TDM para que fosse uma super-produção - ainda se arriscava a ganhar um Oscar e tudo! Nem que fosse para "Mendiga com as botas mais caras".
Mas vejam só o que o gato trouxe da rua. Agora a "top-model" dos indigentes mudou de nome e tudo. De facto "Rodily Vilchez" faz assim lembrar uma salteadora mexicana, tipo "Pepita Durango" - só que muito pior - porque não realçar as feições nórdicas (da zona norte, do Bairro da Areia Preta ou do Iao Hon) e chamar-se "Scarlett Johnson"? Não, não é Scarlett Johansson - é "Johnson". Este é um produto de marca original, pensam o quê? É como a "Panascanic" ou a "Abibas".
E agora alguns de vocês devem estar a pensar: "mas ainda não te deixaste lá dessa história da reportagem fraudulenta e não sei que mais?". Têm razão, e além de fraudulenta é ainda desonesta, além da reacção ao facto de ser assente numa MENTIRA ter revelado as qualidades profissionais - ou a falta das mesmas - da parte da sua autora. Mas e depois, se ninguém lê, ninguém me liga nenhuma, e ainda me chamaram (e chamam!) de mentiroso? Portanto vou continuar a falar com a parede, se não se importam. Passar bem.
9 comentários:
"Besides, article 5 of the code of ethics of journalist says that "the journalist must take responsibility for all their work and professional acts, as well as promote the prompt rectification of information that are inaccurate or false (...)".
This fraud of a jounalist quotes non existent rules of journalism and then perpetuates the biggest load of nonsense I ehave ever read in the guise of a blog...with next to no followers I notice. If he claims that this is a review, it still does not excuse the laws of libel, misrepresentation of the facts, and breaching copyright by liftinig photographs out of context, and reproducing them complete with text and descriptioons which are a complete fabrication . As very few people with read this blog and even fewer will believe, I don't think the model ( an amateur by the way, who in the scheme of things isnt worth this idiotic personal rant by someone who seems to be nothing more than a vindictive idiot) and the photographer will not bother taking an legal action...however if I wrote crap like this blogger does, I would make sure I had a very big bank account and a team of skilled law epxerts behind me...but then again they would not allow such lunacy to be written in the first place.
While I couldn't care any less if this dribble is liquor-fueled or it's just a result of your dyslexia, I recommend (besides seeking professional help) you review the concept of "libel", since all that is written in that post can be proven beyond the narrowest shadow of a doubt. Now since I'm a good sport i'll ignore the blatant attempt to intimidate me, but you're more than welcome to sponsor the alleged "offended" parties in any legal procedure they find necessary to take - i'm sure the photographer you mentioned would love to go all over that one more time, and once again end up with his face in the mud. The journalist could have done it too, but oh my, guess why she didn't, and as for the "model" you call "amateur", though she calls herself"professional (there, there, she's an amateur toilet acrubbwr then, let's settle for that) she have made her photos public, and haven't altered any (I have added to one though, but kept her appearance unaltered so that's besides the point). As for the "unwritten rule", perhaps in your little world things work that way, but here on Earth there are boundaries - sanity ia bliss. Since your trissomic brain haven't worked out a way to find the Portuguese journalists deontological code, here's a link for you, special little guy: http://www.lusa.pt/info.aspx?page=codontjornalista There you go, now you just need to copy the link, paste it to a browser and click on the right button of your mouse to choose the option "translate into English". If you haven't got to the stage where you can handle three step tasks, you can ask for assistance - from your nurse, perhaps. As for the claim that "no one believes" in what I had cautiously made perfectly clear, I'd beg to differ, but I would just be wasting my time, plus I fear you might hurt yourself if proven wrong. Finally, regarding your "opinion", well, how will I put this in a way you'll understand…oh yeah: sod off, tosser. :D PS: Nice brush, chubby. Bite me.
I let the rational people of the world react to your well written, and very well researched article, as well as your great command of language and non biased journalistic skill, But forty years as a journalist in the real world myself says you are simply vindictive, raving stalker...and as for your answer to my comments, I hope at least your loyal followers ...all of them...yeah right? can make some sense of your insulting rant. Meanwhile I'll just forget I ever had the misfortune to have mistaken your dribbling faeces for something to be read
It seems I made the wrong approach to the subject, once your ignorance on this issue in particular is apalling. Ironically you're calling me "biased" whilst your only motivation to come up with all that crap you did in the first comment is being "friends" with the so called model. Indeed the world is full of vindictive people, like the 1500+ people who read this and either 1) took as another thing, of many things like these we see in the net and such or 2) they were slightly informed about the facts and considered my exposure maybe cruel, perhaps unecessary, but never, ever based on fraudulent assertions, unlike the TV report and the idea you have of Rody Vilches - which I assume you know only from Facebook. Well then, sir, I'm sure if you were friends of Adolf Hitler I'm sure you'd approve of the Holocaust, since you're the kind of person who sticks to his friends, stand by them for better and for worse, even all you know about them is what they let you know. But you're not the first to have expressed the discontent for this particular post, and the (few) people who have done it were either friends and relatives of one the parties, or people who justify their disapproval of my actions with a simple "even it's true, it shouldn't be told". If you agree on this, so much for your "40 years as journalist", because another 40 wouldn't be enough to teach you anything about ethics or professionalism. I'm not a reporter myself, and I couldn't care less for the number of visits, comments or approval, since I don't earn a monkey's fart with this hobby I've been keeping for almost 10 years. And this been said, the opposite also applies, since I have nothing to lose, why not telling it as it is? And then I do, but either it's just opinion - which I make perfectly clear - or when it's something like this I won't do it without having the conviction that everything I'm putting in there, even a stop sign it's the truth and nothing but it. And normally don't care about any crap the media, internet, animal rights advocates or other causes that would have all others killed and turned into fertilizer except theirs, but this has meddled with something it shouldn't, and for commodity purposes I'll be more than glad to explain you, since your rant against me is purely based of pointless gentlemanship, and the fact you suggest I'm incurring a crime such as a libel insults me. But it's not your fault, as like I said you're standing in the wrong side of the fight just because you haven't got the choice of which army to enlist (to be continued)
The "rational people of the world" do not consist entirely of the friends of Rodily Vilches or the journalist or even you, the unaware knight in shinny armour for the dame that is actually the wicked witch in disguise. This been said, the only thing you could tell the judge to support your hypothetical yet impossible case against me would be: "Your honour I don't like it because it's true and it makes me look bad because I thought everyone else was stupid and I could get away with it". I'm not the shinniest penny in the fountain, it's just that everyone else thought it was not worth bothering about it: "oh just another report on poor ppl and how they stink and live like pigs...seen it. Not that i'll give a cent or anything, that's SOCIETY'S job". However, this had something to do with me directly, and though I normally don't waste my time denouncing every single fraud I see - then I wouldn't have time to sleep, eat or work - this one had cause me such disgust I can't even start telling you how - but i'll try anyway. (to be continued)
On the night of the 13th of November last year there was a huge fire in a building right behind this halley where I used to live, practically next door to Rody Vilches, which I know but not as a neighbour - I found that out only later. Four people died in that fire, all Non-Resident Workers (NRW), our local version of immigrants, who enjoy little benefits and normally come from countries whose economy make it more profitable to work here as a domestic helper or a waitress than as a skilled professional in there. Don't know if you knew this, but that's the reason Rodily is here, as a "domestic helper", not as a "model currently based in Macau". That's already bases enough for fraud, but that's not what bothers me at all. She can claim to be the heir to the throne of Britain for all I care - given she doesn't cause me or my close ones any hassle of course. In this fire, which started around 2 am when victims, neighbours and almost the entire neighbourhood were soundly sleeping, one dear good friend of mine lost her life- 35, widowed, 9 year old kid, indonesian who was working at the clothes shop in the floor below the one she was sleeping. Now it's kind of hurtful to recall all this again and again, since I already exposed my reasons in other posts rather than the one that insults not you, but your "friend" hence you too, sounds confusing I know, but I insist you should know, and let me get there later. First this caused me a tremendous void, mostly because i've moved from that area a few months before, and we were not seing each other as often as we did. And I think I should make clear our relationship by then and always has been just friendship, and unlike some I believe this works without having to worry about feeling tempted to jump into each other's pants, but I understood when my wife felt surprised by my display of emotion regarding her loss. Don't know if you ever had anything like it, but when someone close to me dies, I regard that person in the good times, and some of the bad, and I do this as a mechanism to make death and solace a little bit more bearable. In this case I couldn't think of any moment that wasn't good, or any other reason to balance the only thing I could feel: loss. I'm not fabricating anything to soften you up since I don't need your support but I found in your initial comment a whole lot of despaired attempts to turn around something you just thought you should to show support for a "Friend" who you don't know at all. Funny how Rodily - and i'm sure she knows about it - haven't confronted me with my "libel", "vindication" or whatever you call it. Matter of fact I'm just one more person she finds easy to manipulate and fall for her crap. She's actually pissing her pants with the idea of having to face me (to be continued)
So straight to the point now. I knew that after this there was going to be a whole lot of people jumping in the bandwagon of dissent taking a back ride from this tragedy, and it doesn't take a genius to guess the first thing would be the conditions in which NRW live - and to no surprise, there were the usual heads of those migrant workers associations asking for more money to "improve their living conditions", when everyone knows they would eventually send that money to their countries instead. For you to understand this better you'd have to be aware of the realty market situation here, where there is huge speculation and you end up paying 3/4 times more than what the flat is worth. I made this all clear in several occasions, including on the weekly column I write for a local paper, that 60 to 70% of the population live in exactly the same conditions as the victims, and the same thing would have happened to them. Still I had no choice to watch the vultures parading, well, afterall they have a point, tho I curse their souls to hell - but that's only me. Now the report, which I assume you haven't seen, because if you did probably you wouldn't be defending Rodily. I take as granted that someone like you, who claims to have 40 year experience in journalism, would not take as fact someone who parades herself in social networks claiming to be, and I quote "a professional model", who has "sold photos to UK magazines", behaves way, but oh man, waaaay above her potential, which is none, often getting in conflict with other delusional maids and waitresses who buy from Kasica, a derranged lunatic, and yes, this one with several libel cases and even more potencial charges (people want to settle this with him as men do, and he HIDES!, like he did with me once BEHIND SOME BUSHES!). But without drifting from the main point, you, as a journalist, would accept that this person goes in front of a camera sobbing while claiming she's "poor", "hungry", lives in a pigsty and takes one meal a day, at work, and by the 15th of every months she has not one single penny to spend. I might be talking to the hand here, you might "not care", but that's the difference between where you stand, on the quicksand, and where I stand, in solid ground. I just feel I need to expose this AGAIN so that for future memory "rational people" take their own conclusions. Oh and joy, I'm the webmaster in this joint "no one reads", so i'll keep the thread for "no one" to read and "take their own conclusions". But oh there is more, oh yeah (to be continued)
The journalist have done this report around one year before the tragedy, and I have missed it at the time, but saw it when it was (unexplainably) revived, and the minute after I finally set my eyes on that INSULT, I immediatelly reported as such. I was actually on my way out to Thailand with my wife, and left just the essential on my repulse, and once I was back a few days later I wrote an extensive article in full detail explaining exactly what bothered me. And the ONLY THING I have said that can be understood as derrogative about the report was: "that person does not represent the people who are living with difficulties". Matter of fact some of these ppl feel shy to go on TV and tell the world they're miserable, when they actually have way many more in worse conditions than themselves, and they know it. Rodily was acting, poorly too, and knowing her in person and NEVER having any personal issues against her, I still dislike her as a person, in which stance she is not worth knowing/befriending/feeling sorry for, even if that was legitimate. Which it wasn't. Seen by some, a round of applauses but "so what?" life goes on. A few days later I find out - oh the humanity - that on the top of that shitty cake which took advantage a tragedy and human losses, the cherry was awarding the report with "report of the year". If you check the veracity of my claims, which will show nothing else than my complete accuracy on every detail - no need to be talented, just tell as it is - you'll probably be thinking journalism made is here somewhere between "bollocks" and "fumegating horse manure". Everyone would I know. Knowing this, what did I do? Contacted the journalist, congratulated her and pointed out the flaw in her work, which by NOT AN UNWRITTEN RULE, like you claimed, she has THE DUTY to repair. Didn't ask her to accredit me or anything, just repair it, since as I know the TRUTH and it offends me for reasons I have made clear, just fucking correct and try to be more cautious next time. "Twenty days to prepare that report", says she, didn't have 5 minutes to check FB and see if that person was not, say, an eccentric millionaire pulling her leg? It would be funny if it was, but the truth is actually not funny at all (to be continued)
This is the last part. So, what did she do after that? Said "sure, and thanks", or did she say "crap, how couldn't I think of that"? By doing this I wouldn't get any ego boost for finding where the teacher hided the candy, but I wanted her to be humble, and kind of try to balance things, and if you have followed me so far, there's a lot of turbulence on this flight as it is to consider it "balanced". But no, she ignored me, thinking that like many other things in here (again, you have no idea what this place can turn into) people would ignore it or, as it happened too, say "she won the award, so it couldn't be as I say it is" - impossible". Being "impossible" my middle name when I get introduce to mr. Bullshit, I tell you what "impossible" means: "impossible" is what I thought be to see her, the journalist, going on TV after knowing she won the award (which means nothing, but that's besides the point) claiming people who live in those condition Rodily is living are something like "the bottom of the barrel" and a small bathroom means they live "under minimal hygienic conditions". So I guess the water that runs from the bathroom in her unecessarily expensive apartment with 100 m2 for two people is rose scented, while in flats like Rodily's, where 5/6 ppl share 40m2 or less, it's cats piss that runs from the tap. They don't even have a bathtube large enough to bare a flute of champagne! How can anyone live like this??? Let's film it and call "the poorest people ever, and they smell funny too". Outrageous, and on the top of ignoring my approach, first the diplomatic, and then the 1 (one) more post explaining in full detail what was going about and at the same time proving I'm not a liar, like some suggested, she kept pretending she doesn't know what's cooking, and have sent emissaries to confront me. If it makes you feel better, their arguments are in some cases worse than yours. Now I leave it to you, if I'm still "vindicating", as the only thing that bothered anyone was the simple truth. Needed to be told, really? I did, and I'd die for your right to do the same, regarding it was the truth and you could back it up, even I didn't like it. I don't like flies either, but they play an important part in the ecossystem and I definetely do not want them extinct. Regards.
Enviar um comentário