Axios whines about 1000 reporters losing their jobs in one day. It is more than just an responsive business model. It is an industry that refuses to change to reflect reality.

Axios is a useless publication.

Here is a stupid article they puked out:

More than 1,000 media jobs lost in one day

So what? When everyone is reporting on the same things using the same narrative, why do you need those redundant 1000 people?

When people can bypass the filtering of a gate-keeper and say their piece on social media, why do you need those 1000 people?

When you do not report on important relevant matters in an empirical way to provide usable facts that a public and academics can use, why do you need those 1000 people?

When you are nothing more than celebrity-drooling, political partisans who are no different than an average citizen doing the same on the Troll Scroll, why do you need those 1000 people?

You don’t.

Read my book.

It spells it out in black and white, and the cover is red all over.

latestbbok.jpg

And don’t be stupid: Europe’s archaic ways are not going to save their journalism because (a) they have the same problems, and (b) their media outlets have lost credibility with two major newsmagazines having reporters who flat-out lied in dozens of articles, causing two scandals that a tax will not help because if there are two bad reporters, there are far more.

Read my other book.

dbi.jpg

That’s the reason journalism collapsed.

Your industry is corrupt.

And you couldn’t afford to be that corrupt.

You need to replace journalism because it couldn’t be saved.

You whine and wallow, trying to emotionally manipulate and frighten people into trusting you.

That ship has sailed a long time ago.

And whenever someone points out why you collapse, you get uppity, either ghosting and dodging the facts, or coming up with flippant putdowns hoping to discredit critics.

So 1000 unresponsive people are facing the consequences of that collective temper tantrum.

That is the inevitable conclusion to a rotten industry’s arrogant attitude.

Deal with it.

Online Rage isn't so? You don't say, New York Post! Didn't you get the memo on my site last October?

The New York Post is, like, so behind. Outrage is hyped by the press?

You don’t say!

Axios was trying to spin some journalistic propaganda about how America was becoming “radicalized”, but I called out the bullshit story way back in October.

Memo to dumb fucks who think they are “Woke”: when a corporation starts co-opting a message, they are doing it to sell worthless shit to morons. They don’t actually give a flying fuck about your worthless and fake “morals.”

We don’t think you are actually enlightened or outraged: you’re just a bored meddler and control freak who doesn’t want to pay attention to your corner of the world.

We know already. We get it.

Stop doing free advertising for billionaires who are not paying you loser to do it.

Because that just makes you an asshole and a ditz…

The re-launching of Chaser News, Part Five: Jim VandeHei, it's not the simple. Journalism is dead because of advice like yours.

JIm VandeHei, CEO/Co-Founder of Axios, proffers ridiculous advice in this babble:

4 ways to fix "fake news"

Considering what drivel Axios is, let us take a line by line of the four simplistic and passive window-dressing his majesty suggests:

  1. Politicians: Stop using the term "fake news."

Yes, politicians lie to the public. Tell the little people that those antiquated and un-empirical arrogant slobs are real news.

reuters_fakee3e.png

That up there is just one example of fake news disseminated by the press (and one I found on one of my old computers that died on me a few years ago, but I recently retrieved my files on it and that was one). I wrote books on how fake journalism has become news.

Politicians should call out journalism what it has become: trash.

Notice how advice #1 is passive and expects some group of They to keep their mouths shut?

2. Media: News organizations should ban their reporters from doing anything on social media — especially Twitter — beyond sharing stories. Snark, jokes and blatant opinion are showing your hand, and it always seems to be the left one. This makes it impossible to win back the skeptics. 

Notice again that Mr. VanderHei is obsessed with optics, not any substantial changes. He is telling reporters not to express their opinions because then they are exposing their liberal bias.

I hate to break it to the sheltered Mr. VanderHei, but it is obvious in their work. They are not that smart to hide their true intentions.

3. Social media companies: Radically self-regulate, or allow government regulation to stanch, the flow of disinformation or made-up news: Lovely, he is again issuing a demand to another They to be censors and go against the original intent of social media of allowing regular citizens the right to express their realities.

Once again, this is shallow window-dressing that does nothing to actually address and fix what is wrong with journalism to the point it collapsed.

4. You: We all want to fault others, but each of us is very much to blame. Quit sharing stories without even reading them. Quit tweeting your every outrage. Quit clicking on garbage. Spend a few minutes to verify the trustworthiness of what you read: Now, he issues decrees to readers what they can and cannot do. Dude, you are not the people’s editor. You cannot control 7.4 billion people.

This is the very reason why journalism died: you have Mary Sues who don’t see they destroyed the profession by being shallow.

And this is as shallow as it gets.

That is why there is no saving journalism. They are like the religious fanatics who take life-saving measures off the table, and then are shocked that they cannot be saved.

And that is the reason I am taking my approach to both F.R.E.E.D. and it vehicle Chaser the way I am: I am telling you that I am a radical centrist and political atheist. Deal with it.

That is who I am whether I reveal it or not.

This way, I am being blunt and brave as I am being honest with you. We are drowning in lies already, I am not going to add to the pollution.

It is bad for the intellectual environment.

So, enough of that rambling garbage. Axios is a partisan outlet that offers nothing to the public discourse, except telling people to lie, keep secrets, censor, and follow someone else’s orders…

 

Memo to Axios: America isn't "radicalized." It's just bored. And spoiled. And mindlessly following someone else's emotional propaganda.

Propaganda. That’s not the breakfast of champions, but the junk food of a bored and spoiled American middle class who do not have specialist training, but too many shoes in their closet and way too many game apps on their godphones.

But Axios, as usual, misreads the signs of ennui as radicalization.

When you do not have genuine emotions, you look for someone else to give a crib sheet to tell you how to behave.

And Americans have been indoctrinated by Hollywood and journalism for decades; so they are not used to independent thought, or worse, independent emotion.

But now that Hollywood is unravelling and journalism is dead, they crib from the Troll Scroll, thinking they are outraged, but they are actually just bored and spoiled.

That youth did not become effortlessly rich and famous through social media has suddenly gotten them wanting a pension by demanding champagne socialism.

You do not want to put in effort and slog through numerous failures on your path to success, and you think you are a radical?

Not even close.

Throwing a temper tantrum is not being radicalized. That is being a air-headed diva.

People want the app on their smart phone that decrees them a god. They have way too much free time on their hands and do not know what to do with themselves in a democracy.

When rich white celebrities who abuse underlings and drive around in limos as they demand fashion designers give them free clothes pretend to be part of a “Resistance”, you know the “movement” is a fraud (you tell them, Rose McGowan).

And so intellectually insensitive are these rage pukers, that they haven’t notice the narrative shift in #MeToo: from women being architects of their own future, to pathetic victims and damsels who need saving.

You think maybe those rich old white men relics hijacked the movement for their own political ends, people?

Are you really that blind?

Well, yes, you are.

The Left got arrogant and lazy in 2016: they thought having window-dressing rich white woman and wife of a philandering workplace harasser as a presidential candidate made them look progressive. When she proved to be a dud, the plan was to virtue-signal and vote-shame the little people…

And it blew up in their white privilege faces.

Now they are trying to convince the little people they are “radicalized.”

No, you’re not.

You’re just sore because nobody wants to watch your YouTube channel or bother with your Instagram or Twitter dung.

Big Tech made big, huge promises to gullible and neglected youth, and like all big, huge promises, it was a lie.

And now people want someone to pay because they aren’t special.

Get over yourselves.

You are just throwing a temper tantrum. You are threatening a revolution, but can’t even handle people clapping? Who is going to do this revolution for you? Dragging grampy from the nursing home to do it for you?

You don’t actually know which level of government controls what areas of society. You don’t know your local candidates or which public relations firms have been hired to manipulate you.

And yes, PR is behind this little game in a bid to distract Americans so they do not see the obvious machinations foreign entities are conducting to make themselves rich at your expense.

And if you think it is just Russia, then you are just stupid.

America is being played because they have value, and the leeches are salivating.

But if it were to come to actual effort and work, these same woke radicals wouldn’t actually do it.

They are staring at their phones like morons, looking for some group called They to tell them what to do.

When you have a group of people expecting some mysterious They to make the changes and do the actual work, you do not have a radicalized country.

You have lazy pigs grunting as they roll in the mud.

The bad news is that 99% of the quality of your life is up to you.

The good news is that 99% of the quality of your life is up to you.

During the First World War, my grandfather was a fourteen year old homeless Croatian youth living under a bridge in Belgrade.

No government program. No basic income. No welfare. No medicare. No subsidies. No homeless shelter.

Squat, it was war.

And within a few short months, he became wealthy.

During a war. In a city where he had no connections or relatives to help out.

He didn’t look to the government. He exploited the situation. He didn’t let the situation exploit him.

He had no use for politics. He didn’t believe politicians. He was disgusted by politics and anyone gullible enough to be political. He lived a monstrously epic full life and had full control during monarchy, anarchy, and socialism that did not put a ding in his upper-class lifestyle where he hunted with royalty, won buildings in poker games, and otherwise lived it up in ways you middle class sore losers could never imagine, let alone have the guts or gravitas to pull off.

The problem will be that no matter what happens, the discontent will see they are miserable losers no matter what happens.

And then what?

It never matters who is in power. The rich are rich in capitalism and in socialism. The poor are poor no matter if government nannies them or ignores them. The middle class are middle class because they are sheeple who are willing to eat dung with a painted smile and follow their overlord’s scripts.

You are who you are.

No one owes you anything.

Why people still cling on to the fairytales of ideology and politics when they have been exposed as corrupt from both the Left and the Right shows the pure intellectual sloth of the masses.

Life is short. Radicalization is for suckers who get played by old rich people.

Those who thrive are the realists who are sensible, empirical, active, and have humility so they never get dragged on to a propagandist’s hamster wheel.

And most importantly of all, their purpose in life is not to keep looking for applause and validation from a mob…

Trojan Horse Alert: NewsGuard is old school journalists trying to fool the public by doing the same thing, only under a different label.

Steven Brill once had a very mediocre magazine about journalism called Brill's Content. It was a bust and folded. Now he is trying again, this time with a self-styled alleged "fake news hotline" called NewsGuard.

NewsGuard_Logo-2

It is nothing but a Trojan horse of a dead profession trying to regain power by means of a feint.

tgabeiwwth-e1524422184814.jpeg

Nice try.

The description of this self-appointed police state of news is a real knee-slapper:

NewsGuard, a new service that uses trained journalists to rate thousands of news and information sites, will announce that it has launched a secure, encrypted digital and telephone hotline for political candidates and members of the public to report suspected fake news sites.

"Trained" journalists? You mean the very people who destroyed their own profession and all corrupted themselves out of jobs? Those people? What? They couldn't get a job in a PR firm; so now they are going to tell the little people what to believe? Really?

You are the people who alienated millions of people with your narrative, propaganda, and personal vendettas -- we don't need you telling people what to think.

But the lunacy only goes downhill from there:

A "SWAT team of NewsGuard analysts will operate 24/7 to identify suddenly trending news sites that NewsGuard has not yet rated and assure — or warn — internet users about them in real time."

A SWAT team? Just how deluded and tyrannical are you? What are you? Some sort of whacko militia going to force people into believing you?

Who put you deluded meddlers in charge? No one.

And ratings? Based on what empirical criteria? Oh, I see, just partisan ones.

This is as deceptive as an organization can get: the reason there was a proliferation of fake news was that legacy news was so shoddy that no one could tell the difference.

And I have proof.

dbi

And more coming this summer:

jhp59ccaa956d599-2

These are the same people who polluted the information stream -- and now they want to continue meddling and social engineering by telling you what to believe. I do not care what side of that linear divide you are -- you have a right to have those beliefs. Campaign ads should be ignored -- and the best course of action is to directly visit each candidate and ask them point blank what will they do when they are elected -- and see where they stand on what you need the most.

This is just trying to get a foot in the backdoor.

Notice the violent and divisive subtext of this entire farce: they present themselves as "experts", and then set up a snitch line -- dividing people with spin, rather than merely informing with facts.

It is a Trojan horse, nothing more, and it won't work -- social media has given people the freedom to believe or not believe without anyone playing Big Brother -- or "SWAT".

Really, children? Just keep your Orwellian creepiness to yourselves...

Memo to Axios: America doesn't hate the media. They let it go because it is useless.

Someone who has some association with Donald Trump has a live televised meltdown, and the press, being the vultures that they are, not only kept the cameras running, they exploited it and made fun of a person whose mental health at that point in time for their own narratives. jim_vandehei_axios

Axios had an article about the pathetic episode with this observation:

This is one of the reasons America hates the media. Our entire industry lit itself on fire because a troubled Trump hanger-on made an ass of himself — live. 

It was more than that. No one asked questions of Sam Nunberg beforehand: was he drugged, having a mental breakdown, drunk, or was he in any condition to give actual consent to an interview.

When I was in my late teens, I volunteered as a recreationist at a psychiatric ward as I was studying psychology and I wanted more real-life experience. I would bring art supplies, and teach jewelry-making in an informal way, and brought other kinds of crafts, such as polymer clay for sculpting.

It was an eye-opening experience in many regards, but there was a Big Lesson: often, when there was a scandal or bad news on the local news, very often the person who was accountable for fixing it or ending things (such as closing a group or business because of the troubles), there was a good chance the person on television having to deal with catastrophic news ended up in that ward.

They were absolutely haunted and devastated that there was an unhappy ending, often meaning some people were out of a job, people were without an important service, and the attacks and abuse the person had to take because of it, even if they weren't to blame for the troubles in the first place.

We don't often look at the consequences of that kind of coverage, but I had seen it long before I decided to become a journalist.

If someone's mental capacity is in question, there shouldn't be an interview. He may be drunk, but he may have resorted to substance abuse for some other reason. Or he may have other issues.

It is the reason why I have always maintained that journalists should have mandatory training in psychology. You have to have some basis in real knowledge in the human condition, including knowing how to spot certain personality disorders that may cause you trouble later on because you took the information as is when you are unaware you have to verify that information a different way because the person you interviewed has skewed filters.

This is a black mark on broadcast journalists, without a doubt. They wanted to paint Donald Trump as someone who is surrounded by loons. I am certain if they circled around any president, you will find someone who had substance abuse issues, mental health issues, and the like, considering that a significant percentage of the general population struggles with mental health issues at some point of their lives.

But journalism is ignorant of psychology. They would have loved Bedlam where the general public could pay an admission at asylums to watch the mentally ill. It was entertainment until morals took over perceptions.

And the Nunberg Interview was a form of Bedlam.

But people don't hate journalism. They stopped caring. They became apathetic because there is nothing of value to them in the product.

It reminds me of marriage counsellors who prefer when couples come in arguing than when one has no connect and is apathetic toward the other. The former means there is still feelings, and with feelings, there is hope to save the marriage.

The latter means it's over. The partner has made peace that this relationship is over, and has moved on.

And that is what journalists fail to comprehend. They are no longer provoking an audience. The audience left and has moved on because they have found other ways to amuse themselves.