So you wanna be a journalist? You must be a slave to scripts. Columbia Journalism babbles nincompoopity. Again.

Columbia Journalism Review represents everything that is wrong with journalism: bullshit narratives with no empiricism. They have a piece of garbage article that isn’t worth reading, but it’s sunny spinning rot is worth noting.

Journalism collapsed, and what is needed is a swift kick out the door.

And a replacement to rejuvenate information dissemination.

As in new methods and mandates. Empirical methods and narrative-free and propaganda-free structures that are matriarchal and epistolary. It should have been reinvented to do away with partisan garbage, demonization and deification once and for all.

Even if the reality deniers want to pretend journalism isn’t dead, the fact that has been in decline with no end in sight for decades should be enough for people to want to do something new.

So CJR is propaganda and has a vested interest in luring future j-school suckers and steal their dough.

And the only ones who would fall for such a ruse are the script followers and the cowards who do not innovate.

Whoop di do…

Adlibture: the stream of inspiration that will take you to the strangest of places. Follow your instinct, not the script.

I

14646388_bodyshot_300x400_zpsb4509935.gif
11518666_bodyshot_300x400_zps868869ed-2.gif
14646388_bodyshot_300x400_zps6b575371.gif
11518666_bodyshot_300x400_zps0d3dbe85.gif
11518666_bodyshot_300x400_zpsd7e6d362.gif

II

neo2_zps1dd966d7.gif
11518666_bodyshot_300x400-14.gif

III

Reading journalists whining is a real pain in the ass. Shut the fuck up.

Stop spinning a narrative overtly or covertly. What is done is done.

When you ignore people like me, expect the same treatment in return from the public.

Because no one is listening.

For a reason.

Journalism is following old scripts. The new kids are all frauds who are cribbers. Fuck them. They are riding on the coattails of the old and broken antiquated models.

If the profession wanted to be reborn, then they have to start from the very beginning.

And learn Adlibture, not scripture.

IV

The first step is anarchy, and with anarchy comes adlibture.

Follow your instincts, no matter if people disagree with you or think you are strange.

You take risks, not gambles.

You find inspiration wherever you wish.

For me, I have many, but let’s talk about one: my adoration for a comic book character who is seen as Steve Ditko’s other bug-themed superhero.

Ted Kord the Blue Beetle.

He is what every person should be: a person whose word is their bond.

You make a promise. You keep that promise.

The end.

He made a promise to a dying man where no one else heard him.

He did not have superpowers, but he was smart and made the technology.

He was inconvenienced. A police officer dogged him convinced he killed the civilian who was the original Blue Beetle.

But a promise is a promise.

He may have been rich, but he used his wealth for good. He could laugh. He could fight.

But most of all, he could absolutely be trusted to do the right thing.

I have the entire Charlton run in my office.

For a reason.

Because I have an affinity for the character, I have no problem being inspired in different ways.

Make use of what you have. Keep your promises. Help other people. Don’t forget to have fun.

And I did that all while having to deal with cancer.

And it took me out of very dark places. The Kordian System is a resounding success, and who cares if it came in a comic book?

Wisdom lurks everywhere.

That is the reason journalism’s collapse is an enigma.

But it is a selfish profession that hordes in anarchy, stealing scripts.

Not creating adlibtures that make you fluid and adaptable.

Because once you prove that you can be absolutely trusted in anarchy, you are on to the next step: alchemy.

Turning lead into gold.

Because alchemy is the emotional science that takes those adlibtures and puts them to good use.

You can improvise and assess on the drop of a hat.

And then, when you have your personal gold, you share it.

The third step of altruism.

You do not tell people how moral you are: you show.

No virtue-signalling or teeth-gnashing.

You give. You give credit where credit is due. You do away with pecking orders. You are not petty or jealous, let alone vindictive or closed-minded.

Your adlibtures begin to create new worlds on their own — and if you do it right, long after you breath your last.

People patronize me, ignore me, bully me, and dismiss me.

But they can never stop me.

I made a promise a long time ago.

And I keep my promises.

I have no trouble telling people off.

But I also have no trouble being inconvenienced to help someone when they are down without them ever knowing that I did.

That’s what should have been journalism. It should have been a noble profession.

Why?

No alibture.

And hence, no way of getting on track to altruism where it could freely create castles and gardens of gold without losing anything in the bargain…

The Old Narrative was that Legacy Media's Business Model was broken. Now Digital Media has collapsed.

I

ekcfcs7owsa21.jpg

II

220px-Sex_and_death101.jpg

III

ja6.gif

IV

CJR has a funny article about how digital journalism has imploded. Duh:

The digital winter turns apocalyptic

Yeah, no kidding.

Journalism collapsed.

Did you really think online versions of the archaic model would save that profession?

No.

A web site writing about 8-tracks is not going to take Internet by storm.

It does not matter which direction we look — Print, Radio, Television, Internet — journalism has collapsed.

beige-designer-stencils-stencils-fs040-64_1000.jpg

Because it is not about a faulty business model, Donald Trump, Russia, Facebook, white supremacists, being called “fake news”, or the other hundred and one things reporters always blame.

I outlined the reasons in my latest book, but whenever it’s mentioned, those who want to be in denial merely resort to gurning rather than thinking.

The delusions of grandeur do not play in a world where everyone else can indulge in delusions. They prefer their own delusions to yours.

The collapse of digital media is disturbing for the press because of their incessant mantra that “digital is the future.”

No, that was the case over twenty years ago.

If you cannot see your own reality, you cannot cover the reality of others.

That’s the heart of the problem and why the profession is no longer a thing no matter what medium it uses…

The re-launching of Chaser News, Part Nineteen: Hard news for children is essential. If children are not exposed to reality, they will never find a singe truth.

When I launched Chaser News the first time, there was a series I starting about the real danger in schools.

That was a demo.

But instead of the usual are your children safe at school, I asked are you safe at school?

I had been advocating hard news for children long before then. I talked about it in my first, book, but I had tried to pitch the notion to Columbia Journalism Review years before that, and they didn’t think the idea was important.

And now they make it a career to bitch how they lost audiences. Fucking morons.

We have generations who have a narcissistic belief about their “giftedness”, yet keep scoring lower every year, with the peak of academic literacy being in the 1960s.

They are delusional, not self-aware, unoriginal, passive, ignorant, and judgmental about things they know nothing about.

I do not blame the new generations for their feral stupidity.

There are many other culprits, but journalists are near the top of the list.

They never talked about children to children about the scary things they cannot be sheltered from to live a happy and productive life.

And it is not as if children are weak. Far from it.

They have no idea about the contributions children of the past have made.

We do not have a history of children.

We may know one or two, such as Ruby Bridges, who is Person #19 on the List of People Everyone Should Know.

Four federal marshals had to escort her to school in New Orleans.

She might as well have been going to school in a war zone.

ruby_bridges_1.jpg

No child should have to go through it, but one had to go to it for a barrier to be torn down.

And we have mothers nagging teachers because their brat should get an A+ for handing it a garbage assignment.

Normal Rockwell’s iconic work was a nod to her.

Rockwell

She is history.

She was a newsmaker, but not a single media outlet at the time wrote about her to her own peers.

It was not just racism, but ageism.

But she is not the only one.

Mary Ellen Wilson is Person #20 on the List of People Everyone Should Know.

MEW.jpg

She had to testify at the trial of her adopted parents who savagely beat her.

And she was the first in the US to it.

Because abusing children before that wasn’t a crime. She had no advocates or support programs before that because no one thought about it.

No one thought about it day in and day out as she was beaten senseless, dying by degrees.

She was rescued and had to testify in the late 1800s in court.

She was a brave little girl whose abusers were convicted and she went on to live a long and happy life.

But how many media outlets back then wrote about her plight to other children in dispatches?

Zero.

How many media outlets do it in 2018?

Zero.

How many in 2007?

One.

Chaser News.

It was a feminist hard news outfit that spoke to those traditional journalism ignored.

And children are on the top of that list.

7.4 billion people on this planet, and journalists talk about one man: Donald Trump.

And all the children they ignore.

When Chaser relaunches, there will be the same dedication to hard news across generations: young and old.

It will be done different, but it will be done.

Where the Ruby Bridges and the Mary Ellen Wilsons are not patronized or gushed over, but given a voice to speak of all of the dangerous things children face alone, and do so the best way they know how…

Denver Post journalists run away to their own little shelter. Journalism is still dead.

Columbia Journalism Review try to put a sunny spin on an exodus of clueless scribes deluding themselves into believing they can turn their corpse around:

But there is some hope for readers who still want to see the work of these journalists in Colorado: Frank and Paul are headed to The Colorado Sun—a Civil-backed platform staffed entirely, so far, by 10 former Post employees, who will be ready to cover the midterm elections in November.

Hope? As in doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome?

The current model of journalism is flawed and caused its own destruction, but this is typical journalistic narcissism: we are not responsible for our woes; it is someone else's fault. Ergo, if we strike it out on another platform, everything will change for the better.

What journalists in North America do not have the courage to grasp is simple: if their model of reporting news had any merit left, the kinds of owners they would attract would be different.

You have either asset-strippers who make money squeezing assets out of properties and selling them off...or propagandists who wish to pretend to inform people, but always through a partisan bent, Left or Right.

And if you do not change your ways, you do not progress.

So this move is meaningless to everyone else save those in the dead profession. 

Note they wish to "cover" elections, meaning this is a purely propagandistic motive.

Journalism has decided that it is going to be a social engineering profession where they tell people what to think and what to do. When you veer that way, you are a propagandist.

You use fear-mongering to rig mindsets, and right now, that is all you see right now. No facts. No logic. No respect for other people.

This venture will not do well, of course. The core is too corrupt. This is a post-last gasp from a group of people who honestly don't see that they already lost the war, and there isn o going back...

Goodbye journalism. Hello F.R.E.E.D.

What a vile and dirty week for the dead profession of journalism.

Time magazine plasters its covers with a little distressed child they exploited for propaganda purposes, only it was revealed she wasn't separated from her mother.

Pick the child who fits the bill, Time. How hard could it be?

CBC cancels their little show On the Money because they don't have the money to fund it.

Vox just discovers that misogyny is still rampant in journalism, as "serious" male reporters who cover Important Political Stories completely ignore women who address them on Twitter.

Tell me something I don't already know, fellas. When I hear from a Serious Male Journalist, he fires a terse email to me with some complaint or directive on how I should think or write on my website.

But apparently we need a "study" to prove something anyone can eyeball all by themselves.

The New York Times is charging $300 dollars for a plain t-shirt babbling about truth, as if the Times would know about that.

It comes off as a silly culture-jamming hoax a la Joey Skaggs, but then again, becoming grifters to make a cheap buck is real possibility for those hucksters, too. To say with a serious face that you are "fighting fake news" with an overpriced rag to fund your other overpriced rag shows just how misaligned with the Truth the Times has always been.

Then Columbia Journalism Review is whining because the Washington Post won't write about the big bad warehouses of their parent company Amazon, but want their overlord to "share the wealth" and sink money into their scuttle ship.

But the worst came from the Village Voice with the writer who broke the Brandon Teena murder all those years ago trying to backtrack because she originally reported the reason the late Teena "became" transgender (not my implication) was that he was sexually abused -- but, what's this? -- because this is not the accepted narrative, somehow it was wrong to frame it this way, using the excuse that because the author was self-identifies as a "cis queer" individual, that somehow placed blinders on the simple act of gathering facts.

No excuse, cis or otherwise: you either found verified facts that flat-out showed that Teena identified as transgender because of sexual abuse -- and in that case, activist narratives are obviously not all-encompassing and hence must be bravely challenged because no one is above being called out on the carpet for PR-driven stereotyping -- or the author just drew the conclusion herself to put forth some sort of fantasy narrative to spin a yarn -- and if that is the case, she is guilty of something far worse than guessing the motives of someone wrong -- but of putting narrative above truth.

If you made it up for the sake of a riveting yarn, then your entire story was deceptive and dishonest. You didn't do your homework and you peddled lies instead of finding facts, hiding the lack of research with colour. That is still cowardice.

And if you had people who would be in a position to know tell you an inconvenient fact, then that has to be presented as it is, even if you have special-interest groups howl because it doesn't fit their own narratives because they think all in their group think alike and walk lockstep. We often lump different groups into one big one because we want TORTEE, when the truth is these factions are very different, even being at odds, and one is being sacrificed for the sake of the larger group who forces a harmful misinterpretation on that smaller group.

If we had facts and let go of the narratives, we would actually be in a position to know, but here we go, as usual -- a journalist babbling a narrative of virtue-signalling, while the rape and murder victim, whose life was nothing but heartache and oppression -- winds up as the footnote. People won awards and made careers on the back of Brandon Teena. He deserved better than that. Enough of the self-serving do-overs. Someone was molested with no justice, discarded, and then was abused again with no one to save him before getting slaughtered.

How many times was this one young person abused with impunity? How many others are out there still being ignored because we have reporters more obsessed with how they came off in retrospect than with normalized torture?

That's what happens when a profession is rotten to the core.

They implode, and then try to destroy every beautiful thing in the world, trying to kill truth with lies, bravery with cowardice, and love with hate -- all while pretending to do the opposite.

It has become sick.

And I have chronicled this sickness for most of my adult life.

Journalism used to be a thing. It used to be a good thing and a useful thing. It used to be a strong thing.

My book explains why it is no longer a thing.

In the book.

I have more to say about other things on this web site, but Project Chapter Three is coming when the time is right, but suffice to say, while I will promote my latest book, I am saying goodbye and good riddance to journalism. 

And I am saying hello to F.R.E.E.D.

It will be fun. It will be silly. It will be exciting, positive, unpredictable, eccentric, enigmatic, and wild.

But it will be tackle serious topics, but not in the traditional sense.

Stay tuned!

xoxo,

Alexandra.

CJR's perpetual obliviousness continues: No wonder journalism got destroyed.

A pair of articles from Columbia Journalism Review show just how clueless the profession is. This is an industry that has divided itself on partisan lines, and by doing so, corrupting the product beyond repair. If you are a chronicler of reality, then you cannot be driven by ideology. You are in search of facts.

If CJR was a legitimate journalism publication, this divide would be something they would examine very carefully.

But this isn't what is happening. They are actively joining in the partisan games.

The first article revolves around Right-leaning Sinclair Broadcasting Group, and their demand for a ideologically monolithic machine.

This is being made to sound as if this was a recent problem only plaguing Right-wing media owners, but that would be wrong. Most media owners skew their products in the same direction, whether it be print or broadcast. It's not just in terms of ideology, but even layout. In Canada, for instance, looking at newspaper properties owned by Postmedia shows they are identical in style, presentation, stories, angles, and even headers. They print stories from each other, and the political bent is the same for them all.

Media outlets are treated the same way as motels -- one Holiday Inn is the same as the others.

It doesn't matter what former employees here have to say -- we need to widen the circle and take a look at past and present employees in other outlets as well to see what kind of mindset brought down the profession. Sinclair is no better or worse than others, regardless of political leaning. They are a mere microcosm for a bigger issue that brought down journalism.

It is that manipulative confirmation bias preventing a true analysis.

The second article is about the Denver Post's temper tantrum, and how it shows "a crisis in American journalism."

You were in a crisis twenty years ago. Your profession is now destroyed.

But the beginning of the piece is a real melodramatic hoot:

“THE BIGGEST CRISIS IN JOURNALISM is not Donald Trump’s attacks on The Washington Post and The New York Times,” Times Editor Dean Baquet said Sunday on CNN. Rather, he argues, it’s “the decline of local newspapers.”

Nowhere is that crisis more apparent than in Denver, where the city’s lone daily paper published an extraordinary package of pieces showing the newsroom in open revolt against its owners. Taking aim at Alden Global Capital, the New York-based hedge fund that owns the paper, the Post published an editorial stating, “If Alden isn’t willing to do good journalism here, it should sell the Post to owners who will.”

Children, there are no owners willing to do any journalism because it is a dead profession.

And really, who is going to want to buy a newspaper with employees who speak ill of their employers? They could buy it, but then they would have to let go of every employee, but you are not worth the risk.

But with both articles, notice that journalists are the blameless damsels in distress, while the owners of both outlets are being cast as the villains. They are not blameless, but neither are journalists. No innocents in this penny dreadful.

Journalism should have had its awakening a long time ago, but they kept their eyes closed shut, and now are feeling the pain of their willful ignorance. They offer themselves no guidance, and that's why you have drivel such as CJR giving no insightful, and hence, no solutions...

No, CJR: editing tests are a very good idea. The problem is they do not find skills that would save the profession.

As usual, the oblivious hacks at CJR have a useless article about how edit tests are out of control" because people in the business are work averse and making them take tests is a horrible thing. Considering all the lies that made the news, I can see why edit tests would be a good thing.

When I worked as a journalist so I could understand what went on, I had applied for jobs around the clock, whether there was a hope in hell I qualified, or would even want the job at all.

The gigs I wanted and got never required me to do any sort of test. I pitched; I got. Sometimes I pitched, I had a phone or face-to-face interview, and I got.

But then there were the ones that required taking a "test."

Some I never bothered to complete because if I passed, it would have meant springing for a plane ticket, and I wasn't going to waste anyone's time or money, theirs or mine. For example, I have seen tests from CNN, the New York Times, and Interview magazine (which I hadn't anticipated as I suggested freelancing, I got a job interview, I drove all the way up to New York City, slept in my car and got changed in there, then went all the way to the offices to be given an edit test, which I didn't bother to really answer, and left as this seemed to be for a position not at all related to what I had expertise or interest in doing). I had done another editor's test for a Canadian magazine which was far more involved than the sample CJR provided in the piece, but while the publisher thought I did extremely well and we hit it off during the interview, the owner just said forget it, and that was that.

The problem isn't having to do these tests. You are not supposed to keep doing tests and then complain you aren't getting jobs. If you didn't nail the first two tests, there is a reason for it, and it has to do with the fact that you don't have what they are looking for in an editor.

All the tests are looking for the same thing. You either have what they want, or you don't. If you struck out the first time, you have to figure out what it is that they want and then just give it to them. It is a matter of shameless pandering. If your second or even third strike gets you no closer to a job, you are not getting a job.

I known people who over-edited and criticized copy in an edit test, thinking going too hard on it showed vigilance, never thinking perhaps it was someone doing the hiring who wrote it, and then you stomped all over their prose reminding them of their grade nine English teacher who said they had no talent for writing. Most of the tricks on tests like these are easy to decipher if you are shrewd enough, and if you cannot "think outside the box" or be cagey with your answers, you won't get a job.

You need to try a different route, such as networking.

Which brings us to why these tests are just garbage.

The profession has collapsed.

The tests may be longer or more complicated, but they are still testing for the same bad qualities that sunk the profession, only looking for extremists who have the most of those irrelevant and toxic qualities to hire them.

The larger the publication, the less risks and chances it will take.

These publications always look for established talent that were cultivated in smaller venues. They do not know how to find original talent. They do not know how to find innovators, mavericks, visionaries, futurists, or anyone with an original thought in their swelled up heads.

What they are looking for is safe, tried, tested, and broken in to keep the status quo going.

The places that cultivate new ideas are tiny venues that scout talent, inspire, push, and then their thanks is the talent jumping ship for the big leagues.

That is what slowly poisoned journalism.

So if you want a job in a dead profession, have two brains to rub together, find people who successfully took the test, and ask them what they did to pass.

Don't keeping doing the same thing and expect a different outcome.

With massive job losses, these jobs are scarcer to find -- and not worth the effort as they will be eliminated in a year's time anyway.

And no, you should not get paid for taking the test. There is a suggestion you should take the test once, like the GRE, and then have them sent to everyone, regardless if that's what the publication is looking for or not. If you flubbed the test, you are disqualified from any of the jobs because you at least never got a first chance to get familiar and improve in a more private manner.

Besides, that is your audition, but I suppose the hangers-on figure maybe they can make a living taking edit tests. It is not as if these people are smart enough to innovate anyway.

And we wonder why journalism used to be a thing.

Newsrooms were always miserable places to work. They got outed once journalists lost their jobs and couldn't find another one. CJR's latest article is another reality-averse piece.

CJR has an uncanny ability to not see reality, a truly remarkable feat considering journalists are supposed to be able to report on it. Their latest describes how newsroom relations are bad. You don't say.

They have always been bad. Sometimes downright abusive. There is screaming. Sexual harassment was always a problem as was the casting couch. The pay was measly. Competitiveness and backstabbing common. Job security was always an issue. An outlet could be sold at any time, and reporters would not find out until either half hour before the press release, or when one of their colleagues called to ask for a comment for their own story.

This was always considered part of the job, and people endured so they could brag that they were journalists. It meant something, once upon a time. It had prestige, and you sometimes thought you had notoriety. You swallowed a lot because you could brag at dinner parties that you were a journalist doing Big, Important Things, and show up the girl who turned you down for a date at your high school reunion.

And if your stories were interesting enough, perhaps you would parlay that into a television show and book deals.

Then the industry imploded.

People are losing their jobs in droves, and even family dynasties are becoming a thing of the past. There is no second chance to find somewhere else to do journalism. Once upon a time, you could teach at colleges or universities, but even that well has run dry. PR firm work is also not as easy to find as social media has become more integral to marketing campaigns.

Now the internal backlash begins.

The strategy of sucking it up is now wasted. Journalists are now seen with suspicion, and putting up with abuse has netted them nothing. Now there is open war against management, but with journalists complaining management has been the only ones who weren't attune to the changing times.

But it was a mutual ignorance. They used shallow window-dressing thinking they were doing things differently. They weren't.

This article is typical CJR obtuseness. The anger comes from broken dreams and illusions. It could have been different if the profession took risks, and were willing to be open and experimental.

It never happened, and now the cannibalization comes out in the open.

Why CJR is out of touch.

A pair of articles worth mentioning:

The cost of reporting while female

That article by Anne Helen Petersen whose premise sounds an awful lot like my own writings here.

Mine are here and here.

Both done in 2016.

In case you are averse to clicking links, here is the original poster:

ultrapop-2016.12.15-10-09-03.jpg.jpg

Here is the visual memo that still serves as the header for this web site.

Gee, how original, CJR. How about trying to write while original.

The second article is all about how dreadful for press freedom it is that Newsweek fired their reporters for reporting on the company's dark deeds.

And the fact they never reported on their employer's questionable dealings before the authorities raided their offices wasn't a blow to press freedoms?

Because when you work for people like that, they give you no freedom to write on reality.

Hello-a! You are working in a place that has secrets that need to be kept secret. Just how much freedom do you think you ever had?

Think, Sherlock, think!

CJR has always been out-of-touch. No critical thought. No original thought. No thought whatsoever.

And when you do not have critical or original thoughts, or have no thought at all, here is one thought to go by:

16553372281_a50babc306_o

If you are still wondering why journalism collapsed, it's because thinking is really not an easy thing for many in the profession.

Information-gathering requires an active, radical, vigilant, original, and skeptical mind.

Otherwise, you have a profession of glorified stenographers...