Paying finews media to suppress their negative stories

Here it is how Marc Clapasson & Jon Turnes did to remove their negative coverage on Ruvercap Investment scandal

In recent years, the relationship between news agencies and the subjects of their reporting has become increasingly fraught. One issue that has received significant attention is the practice of paying news agencies to stop publishing negative articles/suppress the negative articles about a particular subject. Such payments are controversial because they raise questions about the independence and integrity of the media.

Recently, I observed and analyse the Ruvercap Investment and their founders Jon Turnes & Marc Clapasson had paid hundred of thousand of dollars to a news agency like finews media and their editor to stop writing negative articles/suppress the negative articles about the ruvercap and them. This revelation will sparked a great deal of discussion and debate about the ethics of such payments.

On closely monitoring we found that finews media wrote many articles about ruvercap investment scandal and their founders[Jon Turnes & Marc Clapasson] but surprisingly none of their articles appear google search. Dang ! How can that be possible, hmmm.

Only possible if the owner/editor would prohibit the google bot/bing bot or any other search bot to crawl their links. And if you read their articles on ruvercap and their founders Marc Clapasson and Jon Turnes, you would notice that only initials of their names are used on every single article. You could see the snapshots here:

One of the primary concerns about these kinds of payments is that they can compromise the independence of the media. If news agencies are being paid to withhold negative information about a company or individual, it becomes difficult to trust the information that is being reported. The public relies on news agencies to provide accurate and unbiased information, and when payments are made to suppress negative coverage, it erodes the public's trust in the media.

Another concern is that these payments can contribute to the spread of misinformation. If news agencies are being paid to withhold negative information, it can create a false impression that a particular subject is more positive than it actually is. This can mislead the public and make it more difficult for people to make informed decisions.

Additionally, the practice of paying news agencies to suppress negative coverage can harm the reputation of the company or individual that is involved. If it becomes public that a company or individual has paid to suppress negative coverage, it can create the impression that they have something to hide. This can damage their reputation and erode the trust that the public has in them.

In conclusion, the practice of paying news agencies to stop publishing negative articles about a particular subject is controversial and raises serious concerns about the independence and integrity of the media. While it is understandable that companies and individuals may want to control their public image, these payments can have negative consequences for both the media and the subjects of their reporting. It is important for the media to maintain their independence and report information accurately and without bias, and for the public to demand transparency and honesty from all parties involved.