So when people make the assumption that I called this A Dangerous Woman based on the song, I say, “NIce try, you dumbass motherfucker. I predate it by three years.”
I am not impressed with people assuming that I am the follower, just as I am not impressed when people talk about there not being a feminist Intercept when I had it years before the actual Intercept.
So Grande is not only unoriginal, the “dangerous woman” label nowhere near fits the goods.
There was a terrorist attack during her concert in Manchester, she didn’t explode herself or show anything other than timidity.
A dangerous woman would have not just produced a “fuck you” album, she would have done a lot more things to upset the Establishment.
She gets disrespected at Aretha Frankin’s funeral and just took it. She should have whacked him one, and reminded him, “R-E-S-P-E-C-T” or he’d find out what happens when you fuck around with a dangerous woman.
And as an aside, when my time comes, and someone does something disrespectful to you at my Viking funeral, please kick them in the balls as hard as you can, and call them “motherfucker” from the top of your lungs, even if we were besties and my death wounds you deeply, and the whole wide world is watching. You can even give them the finger. Calling them an asshole or picko jedna for good measure is a classy and dainty touch. I will be wholeheartedly cheering you on from Eden if you do. Don’t use my death as an excuse to allow bullshittery to go unpunished. Fuck that shit.
But in the communications industries, what you see on the label isn’t what you actually get: you are told this entity represents X, when it represents Y.
We see this in the entertainment industry, especially when they proclaim to have “strong women” or “feminist” characters. It is utter and total bullshit. You cannot have a singer who is rail-thin, in a mock Playboy bunny outfit, and living up to every stereotype of a typical starlet be a “dangerous woman.” She defies no conventions. She adds nothing new to the discourse. She creates no new genre or message.
She isn’t a dangerous woman. She is a popular singer. She can carry a tune. She may be ambitious, but you do not have to be a feminist or a dangerous woman to be ambitious.
But it isn’t just Hollywood that misdirects attention with bombast and empty promises.
It is journalism, too.
Because journalism is trying to fight for its existence a day late and a dollar short, they are going for a melodramatic propaganda campaign that is holier-than-thou and self-aggrandizing.
Just like the psychopath ex you dumped who tells you that you cannot live with them.
There is a lot of gaslighting and a narrative where they are the selfless martyr who has to risk their lives for you, even though there is no evidence of it.
I doubt this will be their propaganda campaign in 2019 because it is not working.
But let’s break down how journalistic gaslighting works as their is the least sophisticated version of it.
And to keep things even simpler, let’s take a look at CNN’s journalistic meta-propaganda tool, a show about journalism called, ha ha, Reliable Sources, which is anything but reliable.
Mind you, once upon a time, this was a very good show. When Howard Kurtz and Bernard Kalb were hosting it. They actually did take a critical look at their own profession, had very smart and good interviews, and had good information and perspective.
Now, it is just plain garbage and bullshit used to propagate a self-serving narrative that journalism is the abusive ex you cannot live without.
So what propaganda is Reliable Sourced puking?
Well, the episode I saw today was the martyr bullshit story about how it was a “record” year of threats against journalists, which is nonsense. There really isn’t any reliable stats out there. After all, as a journalist, I got my share of various threats, and not one made it to any list of database, and we have had years where people such as Daniel Pearl, Chauncey Bailey, and Jill Dando were killed on the job as a direct result of doing their job.
Even if we were to look at stats, let’s not fall into a confirmation bias of looking at a single profession in a vacuum.
I bet it is more dangerous to live in Chicago than be a journalist.
Or someone on a cruise ship.
Or an aid worker in a war zone.
Or a US high school student.
I bet more nurses in Hamilton get harmed on the job in one year than the entire profession of journalism in a decade.
Or firefighters, police, and high school teachers because while I never met a reporter who got assaulted on the job, I know several teachers that did. I had a student in one of my college classes that I found later had beat another professor. I witnessed a classmate in the second grade throw a desk at my teacher and broke her leg.
How many first responders died on 9/11, compared to a single photographer who was killed by falling debris? (there were a few non-journalists who worked for broadcasters who were killed, but they weren’t targeted per se or killed covering the event — and you cannot compare them to the people who died saving others).
So when we start to do apples to apples comparison, journalism comes off as a very safe profession. Covering the sex life of Ariana Grande is not actually dangerous.
So it is safe to say journalists aren’t sticking out their necks for you.
They may be sticking their necks out lying, and their editors get fired for it when it gets exposed, yeah.
It isn’t as if journalists don’t die, but it is often from a domestic meltdown, a murderer who knows nothing of their profession, illness, or a drug overdose.
That happens to everybody.
But that is not the only sneaky things we see: trying to discredit critics by accusing them of having “fake” complaints" is rich and a typical gaslighting ruse.
I wonder if Fixpoetry is so cocky now that they ignored my warnings from the latest book and their nation’s most well-regarded newsmagazine published a whack of lies for years.
And no, Haaretz, journalism’s problems have nothing to do with “technological” shifts or having a hand’s off approach to so-called “rising stars”: they just never bothered with empirical methods. You don’t need an army of fact-checkers: you need empiricism. If you read my first book, you would have seen how many cases of fraud there was in all sorts of times and places — whether or not there was a photographer present.
There was a photographer present for this lie, Haaretz.