Journalism's secret civil war.

Someone sent me this article from Armstrong Economics (from Martin Armstrong, who has an interesting history) pondering whether CNN is trying to instigate a civil war in the US. (I also suggest reading this article about the Fairness Doctrine as well from the site), and asked for my thoughts on the notion.

It is not just CNN who is trying to instigate civil war in the US. It is the entire mainstream press.

You do not bombard your public for the last couple of years with flat-out war propaganda and then claim innocence.

But this is not the typical war-mongering we are used to seeing.

This is war. It has been bloodless so far, and if the Middle Class wish not to have their lives implode in bloodshed, they would be best to ignore it, and not get drawn into choreographed frenzy.

So the war began when Donald Trump, who would have never been in the position to run for president if the mainstream press didn't drool all over him for the last few decades, declared he was going to run for president. The press thought it was funny and that he was some sort of gag candidate, and the Hillary Clinton was going to win.

Trump bypassed the press entirely. He used Twitter and proved that journalism was dead. He won the game, the battle, and the war.

Journalists have no one to blame for their demise but themselves. You want to ride a horse and buggy in a world of electric cars, go ahead, but then do not complain that no one wants to ride in your buggy because the high tech cars are more convenient.

Like bullies on a playground who all gang together to create a fiefdom that is rigged to favour their decrees, the press, for decades was used to setting the narratives on how we see complicated issues and events. This is who is the hero. This is who is the enemy. This is acceptable thoughts, and anyone who questions us is to be ridicule as they are painted as insane, stupid, and evil.

Trump bypassed all of this to become president. 

This is a shock the press has never gotten over.

And from the moment they were neutered and neutralized, they are determined to regain their lost clout, regardless of the consequences.

That the collective has become irrational is an understatement.

If it takes making a civil war to regain power, they will do it.

The press is pulling out all of the stops, using every logical fallacy and stratagem to manipulate a public into giving up all of their freedoms and free thought to go back to the horse and buggy.

It won't happen.


Because the wired mindset has been untamed for far too long. The Internet did not just allow people to bypass the press, but it has changed habits in how we process information, and it has done it in such a way that its rigs clash with what journalism still clings on to and demands from the public.

You have a generation or two that grew up with the Internet. Their habits and wiring are set.

It is far more fun to be the bully on the playground via Twitter than give that power up to journalists. Stimulus-response is the core of behaviourism. Twitter has suffered losses, but it is still a thing.

Until someone starts not rewarding bullying from the troll scroll, makes no apologies to the puritanicals or the press, and keeps saying and doing whatever they please because they believe in freedom and free will.

Journalism has been turned into spiteful and self-serving propaganda with no facts, only gossip and sour grapes.

It would have been far simpler if journalists had seen the writing on the wall, looked at how they were failing, and then worked on integrating with the new medium and the new ways of thinking it was cultivating.

It didn't. When I began as a journalist, I had editors and reporters insist to me that it was some sort of fad.

And the little people would come crawling back. It was like a spouse who knows their mate is having a fling with a good-looking young thing, and is convinced the mate will come to their senses and come back to being lectured, nagged, patronized, and controlled.

Except that good-looking young thing doted on that mate, praising them, showing them the power they had, loved whatever silly musing the person thought up, and made the person, for the first time in their lives, fell important, loved, free, and in control.

And the nagging and arrogant spouse got kicked to the curb.

So yes, the civil war has been raging for the last couple of years. The way controlling dumped spouses like to wage it -- making everyone squirrelly and miserable until everyone just gives in to the demands that we all go back to what the jilted spouse wanted: all the control and power.

But even if the fling and the ex part ways, a new habit is formed: and the next lover is not going to be the distant memory spouse.

But someone more respectful and kind. The fling may not have worked out, but the affair opened a door to a different world.

And you don't look back.

We are seeing the death throes of the profession. I always said the Internet was a transitory medium: the step of adjusting collective mindsets to a different kind of paradigm before a more stable medium takes shape. It has more in common with radio than with print or television: radio got people adjusted to a more dynamic medium that paved the way for television to be accepted so quickly.

Journalism wasn't always this arrogant. They did just fine with print. They embraced radio. They did gangbusters on television...

And then got stupid when it came to the Internet because it was the first medium that turned audiences into competition and rivals.

It turned unnatural one-way communications into natural two-way communications.

And the rigs of the previous three medium no longer applied in the new reality. They turned from assets into liabilities.

Journalism was we know it, is done. 

It is burning itself out.

But it doesn't mean we do not replace it with something that takes the new mindsets into its core so the world can bask in getting informed again...