New York Times spews garbage and is not the feminist paper of record: How journalism failed women and still do in 2019.

The New York Times is pure garbage, and this bullshit article can be classified under Too Little, Too Late, Assholes.

Why do we have psychopaths get elected? We absolutely know these hypocrites lie to the public, have affairs, take bribes, and do all of the things that they proclaim they find morally reprehensible.

I know this because I worked as a journalist and hung around the halls of various public offices and saw the floozies get passed around various politicians who then gave them patronage appointments — and journalists saw this up close every day and said nothing.

Journalists also play those games as the Times’s own Ali Watkins did…and faced no consequences for it.

So to all of you women who are upset about the oppressive and illegal anti-abortion laws, here is the memo:

Journalists could have exposed these con artists before they ever got elected. They could have told you about their mistresses, lies, hypocrisy, and every other immoral, illegal, and shady thing they do out in the open. They could snap pictures of their drug use, casting couch antics, and everything else, but they keep quiet.

In other words, it is the sin of omission.

So let us not pretend the press is a friend to women. It never was, and it never will be.

They could also expose the lies and cons of far Right activists by exposing their affairs and how they snag their man by getting knocked up before marriage. They could expose these charlatans with ease.

So if you want to know how to break the iron grip of a lunatic fringe, start by demanding that newspapers such as the Times reveal all the dirty little secrets they are keeping from the public.

It will sicken you. It will shock and appal you — but by now, it should never surprise you…

Atlantic tries to spin the rotten state of journalism: No, Sharp Objects knows precisely how your cabal operates. And it is ugly.

The Atlantic is propaganda for the middle class of a bygone era trying to seem learned.

It is sophistry, plain ad simple, with some simplistic, childish view of the world.

Journalists have been a lazy breed in the last twenty years, and I know as I have watched them up close, researched on it, written books on the feints and ruses, and worked as a journalist so I could observe them.

It was a disgusting job watching the numerous hacks and cheats used, and then reporters crowing in front of rolling cameras about how hard they work.

Except for covering garbage news, like reality shows.

And cribbing from press releases.

And attending canned events.

And liberally using PR firm spin without telling their audiences who inculcated them.

And hanging out with partisans and political parties, and currying favour in the hopes of patronage appointments should they lose their job.

My first book, Don't Believe It!: How lies become news, chronicled all of the fake news reporters presented as real. As in, never verifying obvious cons.

My second book, OutFoxed!: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism, showed how on particular outlet slanted coverage, from the kinds of guests they booked, rigging perceptions, to issuing memos on how the news would be covered.

My fourth book, When Journalism was a Thing, chronicles how all of these deceptions brought down a profession.

There is no wiggle room to deny it.

But journalists keep denying it hoping people are really that naive.

The Atlantic keeps trying to present journalism as some sort of noble profession, but that crown was lost a long time ago.

They are taking umbrage at Sharp Objects, a show that shows a female protagonist who is a journalist behaving like many in the profession behave.

Vulture calls Amy Adams' character, the world's worst reporter, but typical is the actual reality.

Elle also is griping about the accurate portrayal, but it is right on the money, but considering how Elle merely spews whatever fashion houses decree should be worn by women, they are not ones to opine on the matter. They are advertising for celebrities and upscale retail, so butt out.

The manipulative spin here is trying to say the show is somehow sexist because the bad protagonist is a woman.

Nice try, but women didn't improve journalism. They played the same game as the men.

But The Atlantic list of grievances is particularly humorous:

She  multiple potential sources. She’s permanently inebriated. She breaks ethical boundaries and lies to her editor about them. She rarely documents any of her interviews. (In the picture above, observe that she’s apparently listening intently to someone and yet her notebook is closed.) Even worse: At the end of the most recent episode of Sharp Objects, “Falling,” Camille slept with someone who’s 18 years old, a murder suspect, and one of her primary sources.

These are things that routinely happen in journalism. Sobriety is a problem in journalism, and I wrote about it in Editor and Publisher. I have even dealt with inebriated editors and reporters while they were on the job.

Drug use is a real issue, and the reason why so many newsrooms had drug testing at one time or another.

Reporters tell lies so often that I wrote an entire book on it -- and was careful to use acknowledged instances; so there would be no denying it later on.

Many reporters don't document their interviews, making up quotes and then denying they made it up, and when challenged, cannot even produce notes. I had once been accused of making up a quote, and merely handed by tape recording of the interview.

It should be noted the person who made the charge was an editor of a daily Canadian newspaper. Why try that gambit unless you know the chances are great the reporter didn't bother recording the interview?

Reporters constantly break boundaries. It has become the norm.

And they have bedded sources. Ask Ali Watkins. It was recent, and she is a New York Times reporter.

Oh, and female.

So why the Atlantic is trying their hand of bad damage control is obvious: they are trying to lie and pretend they are offended by reality being presented.

They want to try to sweep all of the rot under the rug and pretend they are the avatars of morality. Not a chance.

Sharp Objects is an excellent and accurate portrayal of a typical journalist, male or female.

Women are not above being called out for their moral lapses.

The Atlantic is serving as their professions own propagandist -- but reality keeps getting in their way...

The New York Times loves their journalists unethical.

It was exposed that one of their journalists Ali Watkins had an affair with a source -- and that is a serious conflict of interest when she was with another publication, and when it broke out in public, the New York Times, shuffled and dawdled, and then "reassigned" her to another beat with the condescending promise that the adult woman with be assigned a "mentor."

So the Times does not just employ the immoral, but stupid, too.

The story would have made a passable porn flick twenty years ago.

If the Times stoops to have to assign babysitters for their journalists, they are nothing more than a farce.

But the Times always had a penchant to stand by their unethical ones -- meaning what they produce is mere partisan lip service, nothing more...

How unprofessional are journalists? Let's ask Ali Watkins.

I have said two things for a very long time: (A) journalists's Trump-hate is personal, and (B) Trump knows exactly who the news media happen to be as he knew how to play them for years as he got great publicity from them once upon a time.

When he realized he can bypass the news media, he ditched them, and then unleashed, letting the world know who they really were, and the press never forgave him for speaking the truth.

If journalists were in a stronger position, they would get back at him for telling the world how rotten they are. 

I won't recount New York Times' reporter Ali Watkins' horrific ethical missteps mixing business with having affairs with political sources. Of course, she succeeded at a faster rate than the more honest variety of reporter. You can get the memo herehere, here, here, and here, with a pathetic attempt to spin this as a "chilling effect on journalists" narrative here -- and with BuzzFeed once again proving it has no resemblance to an ethical news outlet as it knew all about it, but kept that transgression to themselves.

This episode is beyond bad. It is unprofessional and cannot be #MeTooed. It cannot be deflected in any way because a journalist cannot bed a source. It corrupts the journalist and rightfully calls into question their motives and angles.

It also gives the government the absolute right to snoop into the faux reporter's emails, notes, and phone records. We do not allow judges to bed witnesses because it would taint the trial beyond repair.

And Watkins tainted her product beyond repair in a different way, but for the same underlying reasons.

Journalists are now seriously worried about the optics -- and as the Washington Post confessed:

Yet this particular reporter-source relationship was also a romantic one, a twist that introduces questions about journalism ethics and could buttress Trump's characterization of reporters as creatures of the Washington swamp who will do anything for scoops.

Not could. Did. 

This proves that journalists are untrustworthy and have underlying motives for doling out positive press -- and negative press.

Watkins is not the only one. She was just stupid enough to get caught. That she is a New York Times reporter sullies the Times and gives them no clout to go after others because they allowed it to happen. They should have caught the liaison and promptly turfed out Watkins on her backside.

But they were too busy focussed on hate rather than facts. While they were outlining their nemesis's every sin, they blithely ignored their own when they were in no position to do so.

This scandal doesn't just make the profession vulnerable to governmental enslavement; it merely reinforces what alienated audiences believed all along...