Newspaper editors trying to exploit Julian Assange's woes as if this would impact their propaganda mills. Get over yourselves.




This article is a real riot.

Why on earth would the mainstream press be alarmed about WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange being indicted for espionage when they are perpetual mouthpieces for the state?

They may shill the Democratic Party and march lockstep with their propaganda, but that’s still the Establishment. Let us not pretend they do not crib from press releases and PR firms. They do it all the time.

And it is also in bed with corporate interests. Harvey Weinstein’s abusive behavior had been on the New York Times’ radar for more than a decade prior to Ronan Farrow snooping around, but they killed the story. The Times has killed many stories over the decades that did not jive with authorities’ narrative.

No media outlet needs to lose sleep over this indictment. WikiLeaks didn’t use narrative or PR firms. They put out raw and unfiltered information governments do not want the little people to know.

Assange made one big tactical error in judgement: he honestly thought middle class people would rise up once they discovered the truth. They don’t rise up. They may babble about socialism as if they knew a single thing about it on the Twitter, but that’s not real. They walk over homeless people and then look you straight in the eye and say homeless people want to be homeless.

I still vividly recall when Kesha bravely exposed the abuse she went through pre-#MeToo, and I expressed support to her in front of a group of university-educated women who promptly verbally attacked me and squawked like morons how Kesha “asked for it” and how “hard the music business is for men, too.” When children told their parents that the priests were molesting them, they were “disbelieved” because it involved less work. That’s the middle class for you, Mr. Assange: they are the worst enablers of cover-ups if it means leasing a Mercedes and making their neighbor jealous. Do not believe Hollywood’s or Norman Rockwell’s portrayal of them.

The middle class dutifully play with garbage and separate it in various blue boxes without ever once questioning where all of it is going. That is all you need to know.

Assange risked his life for the truth and was punished for it. Journalists gleefully accused him of being a Russian agent — and now they are upset that he got charged with espionage? Fuck you all.

Assholes, you were the trolls who put that narrative out there to begin with — so why are you upset?

If anything happens to Assange, it is journalists who have his blood on their hands. Do not believe their lies and self-serving propaganda.

I still have every article and news report that gleefully accused Assange of being in bed with an enemy state — so do not try to spin a thing. Shut you arrogant and conniving mouth up — you are not smarter than I am and I do not bully.

When I wrote When Journalism was a Thing, I singled out WikiLeaks as one of the few outlets that reported actual news. Glenn Greenwald was the other. That’s all you have in a world of 7.4 billion people.

And not one news media outlet more — save for this one.

The entire planet should hang their heads down in shame.

We still do have a handful of independent book publishers who put out books on facts that are crucial. That is the last bastion of information — not journalism.

And they are struggling because people puke made up garbage called Game of Thrones and Big Bang Theory and don’t even know who is their representative in government.

Assange never had a chance. I genuinely feel for this poor man. He had no idea just how corrupt and rigged the game board really is. They will kill this man — and then his image will be exploited for profit by the manipulative cowards at the New York Times and Washington Post.

Puking garbage is what journalism has stoop downed to now — and they are so stupid, that they forgot how badly they maligned Assange to the little people — so if they are comparing themselves to Assange, people will not start buying their product because he was tainted thanks to those jealous trolls.

But the psychopathic and sick games journalists play always killed more people than the events they covered in the first place…

Void. One. Infinity. The only three quantities journalism needed to know, but never did.


If there is any one sign that the US Leftist politics is being hijacked by a foreign entity, it is the convenient timing of Caravan migrants coming just as the mid-term elections are happening.

This is classic Machiavellian politics: exploit the poor as pawns in a game of chess — or as stones in a game of Go. This is manipulation and exploitation of the worst sort, and if you truly want to publicly virtue-signal and be sincere about it — particularly you, Hollywood — open your homes to the homeless people, and take them in.

Those homeless people have families — and most likely your own first-degree relatives you kicked out because they had mental problems or had drug addictions, and those people marching on over are homeless, too.

Do not parade the homeless or migrants for some spectacle, and this is mere spectacle.

It is far better to keep the dispossessed in their own home countries where they have relationships with others, speak the language, and are well-versed in customs, but then give an economic or other kind of push to improve their financial situation instead of keeping them desperate and destitute as you are promising these people the moon, trick them into coming with unrealistic expectations, and then just push them aside after the show is over.

But greedy control freaks love to meddle. They live for it because they are all about the One: themselves.

Yet the US is a roller coaster of hypocritical contradictions: remember November 2016 when the Democrats accused President Donald Trump of being too hard on Arabs?

They don’t anymore, because now he is just too soft.

Which is it? Too hard? Too soft?

Which One is the One?

Well, there is One thing Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on — Hillary Clinton is an annoying One.

The Daily Beast is telling her to just go away, as in:

Dear God, Hillary Clinton. Please, Just Go.

I mean, just like that, blaring in the headline.

And so is the New York Times, who is apparently the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party:

Hillary Clinton’s Master Class in Distraction

Democrats need to be focused on the midterms.

How much is the Dems paying for this advertorial, anyway? They are getting ripped off big time.

Remember when Hillary was the Chosen One? The best One? The obvious One? The One who had it in the bag?

Now, the same people who drooled over her two years ago don’t want her around.

Flighty and fickle.

And shallow in their disloyalty. If you are that quick to dump her, then the electorate was right in picking her rival as president.

But the US is in a better position than Canada — a country without one clue. In Ontario, there was an itty bitty provincial election where the Conservatives won a majority because people on the Left here do not know how to vote strategically — greedily, yes — but not strategically.

People who had the most to lose by the loss of the then-reigning Liberals voted for the NDP who made bigger promises; so they abandoned the premier who took risks to go for someone else. That profound lack of loyalty and morals cost the Left in Ontario dearly for years to come.

Now that Doug Ford is premier and is repealing just about everything Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals did, people on the Left are howling.

Oh, just shut the fuck up.

You earned this government, Ontario Lefties. Kathleen Wynne was the first premier in Ontario’s history to put in real laws and policy that catered to people who were always marginalized and ignored.

A bird in the hand. You had the One bird, but let it go for two in the bush. Now deal with the consequences as adults, not whiny children who are owed something regardless of your knuckle-dragging actions.

And just what did those said marginalized people do? Be grateful? Use a brain cell? Stick with the one who listened?

Nah, they got uppity and greedy, now believing they were owed, entitled, critical, and special, and hedged their bets on a loud-mouth wannabe who was promising them the moon.

Do not gripe about Doug Ford. You all owe Wynne an apology. Shame on all of you.

But that is what happens when you have blinders and are blind to not just time, but space. You do not see the lay of the land and the battleground, just whatever mirage you want to see.

You saw the One, but it was the wrong One, missing the obvious reality.

But blindness is a part of the Western ideological fabric. Here is a story from the CBC that is three-way blindness: that of the journalist writing the dreck, the person who they interviewed, and the subject of the article, Chrystia Freeland. Let’s call them the three blind mice:

A prominent Canadian steel executive told MPs this week that Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland's "ego" is getting in the way of ending American tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum.

Barry Zekelman, the chairman and CEO of Zekelman Industries, delivered a scathing assessment Thursday of how the Liberal government is handling the tariff fight with the United States, accusing the government of squandering opportunities to resolve the issue months ago.

Zekelman, a Windsor, Ont. native who heads a steel empire that has operations in both Canada and the U.S, was asked by MPs about the impact of tariffs on his Canadian operations.

"They have stalled and blown this big time, and our consumers and our industry in Canada is suffering because of it," Zekelman told MPs on the standing committee on international trade.

"We're waiting for someone's ego. They need to get into a room and get the deal done ... whether Freeland picks up the phone and calls (U.S. Trade Representative) Robert Lighthizer and says here it is ... the deal is available this afternoon."

Where do we begin?

The journalist isn’t thinking, but that is nothing new. The executive is half-thinking, wondering what the hell is Freeland doing, and the answer is simple: typical Canadian foot-dragging until the calvary come in.

The federal Liberals are banking on both pot tax and some trade deal with China to save them so they can, like small-town yokels, brag and tweak the noses of their enemies to show the little people back home that they were the most cunning ones in their village.

No, just conniving — and blind.

Pot will not generate the money the Grits are banking on because if it starts to be profitable, bigger players will come in and take over the profits. Do not kid yourselves.

But if Canada is banking on China, they are screwed. China has no love or brotherhood with Canada. They have been buying up natural resources from small potatoes countries in Africa and Europe for bargain basement prices, and those countries are feeling the pain of doing business in a vastly unequal partnership.

While the subject of the piece is having conniptions, he is right, but for the wrong reasons:

He also took a personal shot at Freeland over her difficult relationship with Lighthizer.

"He can't stand negotiating with her because she's just not a businessperson. She's way out of her league."

Yes, she is out of her league, but because the Grits are now a party of sheltered petty and small minds who are swaggering because they think they have a sure thing in the popper. If they were as worldly as their delusions, they wouldn’t be playing this game. Now that pot is legal, it will be the Tories who will be seen as superior in policing than the Grits. They have a middle class mindset of not just living in the Now, but have no ability to see past their egos. They have no understanding of the battlefield and think their shallow feints and schemes will be enough. They are outclassed, but do not actually know it.

They are a party of small-town hick teens who honestly think they are popular and smarter than the grown-ups who are biding their time until they can kick them out of the house.

No one can see the Infinite: not the one relaying information, the one confounded by the strategy, and certainly not the one executing it.


Here is a very simple equation to ponder:

One plus one equals a bigger one.

And all equations equal infinity.

If you have ever read the classic novel Watership Down, you may remember the word hrair: to the rabbits, it meant a “thousand”, or anything more than four.

Gestalt psychologists had their own revelation:

The whole does not equal the sum of its parts.

We have three quantities to consider: Void, One, and the Infinite.

Void does not mean nothing per se: it means we perceive nothing. It is, what I call, a working zero. Void is the perception of nothing, or zero. Zero can be infinite or one, but it is a nil hypothesis (not to be confused with the null hypothesis: the intent of that phrase is that there is no relationship between two entities being studied) where we assume there is nothing there.

For example, I come looking for a house and there is just a forest. I see nothing, and I leave.

The next person comes in, sees the trees, brings tools to chop the wood, and makes a home with it.

Even nothing has something going for it. Dead silence can bring fear or serenity, but the lack of perceived noise may be interpreted as a Void.

There may be a Void for some groups, but a bounty for others.

Void is a quantity that must always be measured and explored.

Then there is the One. This is a strict Patriarchal concept, but just because there is One, does not mean there aren’t many ones behind it.

Nepotism is a classic case. We see someone come into power and he is the One: never mind, there may be parents and grandparents pushing that One and hiring an army of cleaners, fixers, and crutches to prop up that One behind the scenes.

Just like Void, One is a quantity that must always be tested and verified.

Then there is the Infinite. This is a strict Matriarchal concept.

The Infinite are made of many ones that come together to form a bigger one.

A common cause or thread brings those ones together. One plus one equals a bigger one.

We have Ones that are infinitely big, or can be divided to be infinitely small.

Like our planet. It is One, but inside of it is the Infinite.

And like Void and One, it is an entity that must be explored in order compare in order to find the common ones as well as the contrasting ones that create it.

With the operative words being compare and contrast.

It is not done in a vacuum. You do not take the say-so of popular opinion or an authority figure. You do not ignore parts you do not like, and then commit the confirmation bias.

Because the whole doesn’t equal the sum of its parts. You have to look at the finer grains, and the whole picture. It takes strategy, a focus of the past, present, and future — but also an understanding of void, one, and infinity.


Journalism needed to be both a compass and a watch to measure both time and space: the ortgeist and the zeitgeist, but empirically so.

And the unit of measure is the question as the answers are the raw data that must be verified and refined to become facts.

We need to ask why a group of migrants have all suddenly decided to up and go to a certain place at a certain time. We need to ask why voters who had everything to lose tossing a certain regime out did it anyway. We need to ask what is a regime banking on to get themselves out of a scrape of their own making. We need to ask why a star candidate that was pushed so relentlessly one year is being condemned in another all while doing the same things he or she did before.

We have a middle class do nothing but pass judgment and make decrees — all with distorted narratives, and no information.

We need to ask why they do this act that serves no good in the long-term.

F.R.E.E.D. is the system to devise maps of questions that get to the core of the matter to measure a entity’s ratio of void, one, and infinity. If a law benefits the rich but gives nothing to anyone under that socioeconomic status, then we see an imbalance of infinity and void.

One plus one may equal a bigger one, but we cannot assume that bigger one is a quantity where the grains are equally distributed.

We question timing. We question spacing.

F.R.E.E.D. liberates those who ask questions by teaching them the science of doing it.

They are the navigators through the past, present, and future. They are the explorers of void, one, and infinity.

It is both an epic journey and a mundane one.

Because one plus one does not mean both ones are of the same size, come at the same time, or have the same essence.

These are the questions journalism never thought about. Not once.

I think about it, and often.

It is the reason why I ask all sorts of peculiar questions.

Sometimes they offend. That is the sign of a good question: it probes at a weak spot, and means it is a place to explore.

F.R.E.E.D. is intellectual boxing that takes games of combat, such as chess and go, into the equations. It is applied psychology, and it is Method Research.

It creates a deep understanding and a nuanced one. It is not about blindly going into a void, and then pretending you know something when you know nothing.

The void is often not in the entity being examined — but in the perceptions of the one perceiving it.

One plus one equals a bigger one is one of the most important equation to grasp in both intellectual and emotional matters.

Because all equations equal infinity.

But we haven’t even begun to explore it…

Starting over in a Post-Journalism World, Part Sixteen.

Journalism has always been about settling childish scores with people. It has been a form of schoolyard bullying for a long time.

Vendetta is not journalism. Propaganda is not journalism.

And right now, we are in an Age of Propaganda.

But this is one of fantasy play where people are playing make pretend. They pretend to be informed. They pretend they are heroes. They pretend that they are preachers with a flock.

With both parts being uninformed and misinformed, meaning perceptions are divorced from reality.

Journalism imploded because of it because now the plebs are their own broadcasters.

But the most peculiar thing is journalists were released among the commoners, and began to use the same thinking patterns. Social media corrupted them both.

People are people, after all.

And keeping up appearances is what people living in an Age of Propaganda do best.

Take the Daily Beast, for instance with this delusional spewing how Trump made journalism schools “great again.”

Don’t lie to the little people.

Have j-schools become more empirical?


Have they found ways to boost the audience for outlets?


Are media outlets still cutting, selling, and closing.


Are j-school students do anything differently?


Are j-school students making any radical changes or making demands from their educators other than to inflate their grades?


Have those educators acknowledged the shortcomings of their educational methods and made revolutionary shifts?


Have their created any new medium?


Have they done anything other than do what they have done for decades: take the money of naive students, put them in debts, and then they cannot find a job in their chosen field after graduation?


So the Daily Beast is the Daily Deluded or the Daily Liar.

It doesn’t matter what they spew, if they are grasping at straws, they have nothing of value to report. It is all spin to tell the middle class how to think.

Not facts.

The alternative resists the urge to draw people diagrams.

This is what happen. These are the facts. How this event, person, or issue is impacting your life is dependent on where you are in your life.

It is not about self-adoration, as the Beast’s pathetic attempt at propaganda does.

It is about looking at the bottom line.

Because appearances are mirages and lies.

Reality and truth do not abide by perceptions or appearances.

What works for the rich works against the poor.

What is rigged for the elite means they are weaker than they first appear, or else, there would be no rigs.

It is about more than informing an audience, but humbling them.

You do not know everything, nor should you pretend to make yourself appear intelligent or informed.

Every day, new facts come.

It is a never-ending process, and your fairytales have confined your thinking as it exploits fear.

An alternative spells it out, and liberates thought.

Because never had we so many words flashed before us — and never was the world as devoid of information as it is now…

Memo to Deadspin: Using profanity in your nerdy sophistry doesn't make it right or real. The New York Daily News is a victim of reality.

The Concourse (part of Deadspin) are using nerdy logic and think that peppering sophistry with swear words in this bad article and hope the profanity makes it sound angry and full of gravitas.

No fellas, it's wrong, and quite frankly, silly.

And you sound abusive.

They do not understand why The New York Daily News imploded. It is the small town boy's worst nightmare come true: you try to run away from your small-town roots by running away to a big city, such as New York City, and then you found the passive hack to Win At Life. Those big city slickers know everything, and are the grim and gritty Promised Land where there are cool coffeeshops, and hip bars and nightclubs where you can rub the noses of the rubes you left behind that you are Very Special, Talented, and getting high with sophistication and edginess.

Take that, having to grow up next to a cow past! I won!

Reality doesn't care about your inferiority complex. Truth knows you are a scared little boy who mindlessly follows other people's scripts to scrape by.

And here we are, with a Big City Newspaper that imploded.

And Deadspin doesn't understand why.

It is not "class warefare." That is some knee-jerk temper tantrum used by unoriginal and passive thinkers who do not actually know what happened to journalism in general.

But simpletons looks for simplistic answers, or TORTEE.

Or answers that put the blame on everyone else but them.

People who go into journalism, on the whole, come from wealthier backgrounds than the general population. Yes, the pay is lousy, meaning you need to have someone financially be able to support you to be in that job.

Not everyone, but a lot.

So what happened to the New York Daily News?

As someone who covered the business of newspapers, I can tell you:

1. The industry had the monopoly on communications. When blessed capitalism rigged the board to their favour, journalists fawned all over it. Deadspin's temper tantrum is self-serving and hypocritical as it tries to pander to Millennial who prefer their own selfies to someone else's hissies that do not mention their selfies.

2. The Internet came along and took away the rig, and hence, the monopoly. Media owners did not change their strategy. Journalists didn't change their methods. J-schools didn't study how the new landscape shifted and how to keep the industry alive in a new form that took the new reality into account. THE END.

3. The profession thought it was So Superiorly Special that they thought people would still use their product by acting more arrogant and aggro than before. People began to find their information elsewhere because they did not need a media outlet to disseminate their information and opinions.

4. The industry did not change its tactics or structure and lost audiences, but more importantly, did not hook in a new generation of news consumer who grew up with the Internet. Their inertia prevented any renaissance from happening.

5. The new breed of owners saw an opportunity. They knew that journalism was dead, but there were still assets, such as real estate to make a profit. This is not sustainable profit. This is one-time smash-and-grab profit. When you begin to attract the vultures who feed off a carcass, your profession is dead. There is nothing left to do.

6. The asset-squeezers muscle in and squeeze those assets, selling them off. It is not as if that money can be re-invested in the product or "spread around" your employees who you start letting go with no need to re-invest or replace. That's now a black hole. The companies make money selling off the assets and then go elsewhere.

7. The A-list asset-squeezers sell off to B and C-list asset squeezers who do the same with the less profitable assets.  

8. Eventually, there is nothing left to squeeze and the outlet shuts down entirely or is merged with a slightly less decomposed carcass. Sooner or later, there is no profit in squeezing a corpse, and it closes up shop permanently.

The temper tantrums journalists are throwing are rich. When they still had a pulpit to spew nincompoopity, they ignored the problems, because hey, their backsides weren't in the crosshairs. The angry white boys didn't care because they could strut as they issued World According to Me decrees.

And now that it is their backsides getting the boot, the howling begins, and suddenly, this whole Pinko "Let's blame it on the Man and capitalism" is being co-opted by them.

Memo to Deadspin: Shut up about the Man. You knuckleheads are The Man. Now that it's your balloons getting popped, you are having childish fits. When capitalism gave you that cushy platform, it was glorious, but when it is your turn to be stymied, there is outrage?

Yes, what is happen is more than "legal": it is the inevitable consequences of not being aware of your reality, ignoring warning form people who do not look like you, and losing a monopoly.

Journalism has been antiquated for about twenty years. It cannot survive in its current form, and capitalism is not responsible for your incompetence.

The laid-off staff of the New York Daily News are not "victims" of "class warfare." Homeless people are victims of class warfare, you arrogant twits with graduate degrees.

Those laid-off reporters at the Daily News are as culpable for their implosion as the rest of the profession. Nothing prevented any of them from making bold moves forward, but when you follow scripts thinking you are stealing someone else's ideas, and you are passive, making changes seems tantamount to admitting that you are flawed and what you did in the past was -- gasp! -- wrong.

And just what would those small-town boys and girls you walked away from think?

Grow up, little boys, and stop blaming everyone else for your incompetence that destroyed a profession. You wanted the drooling adoration and the power to persuade people who really have their own lives, hopes, dreams, and ambitions, and they don't have to listen to you.


And Memo to the Daily Beast: your article "Tronc Exec Tells Daily News Staff to Their Faces: We Have No Strategy" is as oblivious as it is myopic.

Are journalists really that unfathomably stupid?

The reason Tronc brass told their staff that they do not have a plan is simple: because no plan can work for animate a dead profession.

When you see that circulation is going down with no way to rejuvenate it, people will not read your junk even if you give it away for free, and advertisers are leaving in droves, it's over. There is no plan because none is needed.

Got that? I doubt it.

It is that willful ignorance that killed journalism.

It is why you are seeing irrational Trump-bashing, and all the civil war-mongering: wars usually were a boon to journalism, and if it takes a war to bring it back, they will do it. Even if it kills you.

Except it won't. Social media changed the world's thinking, and no war is going to save it.

A day late, and a dollar short.

And instead of trying to incite the masses, the profession could have just did what it needed to do: make changes that kept up with the times, pulled itself together, and improve its methods.

It is a lot less violent, and a lot more helpful...

When you become what you hate: Has Graydon Carter become a Spy-worthy parody of himself?

Spy magazine was one of the publications I loved with a passion...but always worried about its ways at the same time. It is like a great love that makes you wonder if it is all too good to be true, or is there some sort of hidden flaw that will get exposed and corrupted, ruining everything you cherished.

I loved Spy, but like all great loves, it was met with parental disapproval. My mother could not understand what a nice girl like me saw in such a nasty publication. Not that she didn't think the people who got roasted in it didn't deserve it, but somehow, she thought Spy was just cruel in the wrong ways.

Spy was jealous at its core, she said, but she agreed that when it came to asking the hard questions that exposed those blowhards and grifters it relentlessly picked on, the pickings were slim, as in, it was the only game in town. Spy magazine was like Wonder Woman -- it truly wasn't any of the good, groundbreaking, progressive, and noble stuff it proclaimed to be, but as there wasn't any alternative out there that truly was, you took what you could get, and it got your love and admiration for at least drawing attention to those qualities.

Humans settle, and then try to justify their settling, building things up, and setting a bar both too high and too low at the same time.

But I always wondered if Spy magazine would become what it hated because on some level, it was jealousy and not truth that guided it. Spy folded before that question ever got answered.

But for one of its co-founders E. Graydon Carter, the answer seems to be yes. After he ran away from Spy, he eventually jumped into the arms of Vanity Fair and became its editor.

Vanity Fair was all about applauding limousine liberalism as it paraded starlets who had to endure the Harvey Weinsteins to get there. All the pretty and rich white people in Hollywood had their free advertising in those pages, but there were at least some think pieces from the old liberal white men to make it readable. It was not progressive, but it had a patina of youthful beauty and seasoned old wisdom to seem like it was the package deal.

It was still more readable than most of the other magazine offerings in its day -- if you could stomach the arrogance and obliviousness of it. It had gall and chutzpah, but like the Fox News Channel, it had first-rate production qualities that allowed things to slide because it was so pretty on the outside.

Carter eventually ran away from that rag, too, just in the nick of time when its coolness factor was one step away from being revoked by reality.

And now, according to the Daily Beast, he wants to run back on stage:

Ex-Vanity Fair Editor and Trump Nemesis Graydon Carter Plots Comeback

From the South of France, one of America’s legendary magazine editors thinks about a return to media with the same people who invested in Vice.

Oh, this is rich.

Yes, from the South of France! With the investors who got played and sank money in the sexist propaganda outlet Vice. 

How very wonderful.

Just to get back at Donald Trump? The same target of jealousy Spy went after, what, decades ago?

Some limousine liberal can't let go of a grudge.

Spy failed to destroy Trump.

Vanity Fair became a bygone relic of a world most of the planet would never see, and in #MeToo, discovered that they wouldn't want, either.

Carter became someone who in another time and place, would have been torn to pieces in the pages of Spy: some uppity geezer whining as he is sipping his champagne about some other old geezer who has more money and power than he does, and he decides to furiously plot his inexplicable enemy's downfall from the rich part of a foreign country by courting people with money who either funded trash like Vice -- or sank money in a losing outlet, such as Univision -- the same people who thought acquiring mindless life-sink site The Onion was a good idea.

How the mighty have faded away to become media lounge lizards.

My younger self would have been very disappointed that her worst fears came true, and that her mother's assessment of the whole jealousy thing was probably right...

George Stephanopoulos interviewing James Comey: A study in partisan reportage.

I find it interesting that George Stephanopoulos interviewed former FBI Director James Comey, who was fired by Donald Trump and now is shilling his latest book. He was a political operative for the Clinton regime and Senior Advisor to the President in the 1990s. That is pure partisanship on ABC's part, and deliberately so. This isn't done for information sake, but to pander to the Left.

The atmosphere is interesting. The New York Times' sniffed in their book review that Comey's book was "very persuasive." The review is pure propaganda, but this is about Comey.

The FBI does go through a vigorous screening process; so I do not believe Comey is a stupid man. He would have to be cunning to make it that far only to be checkmated by a more cunning man. Comey played a game of chess, but his opponent was playing Go. I do believe he is spinning a yarn to justified his firing -- which I don't blame him -- but the vindictive and very careful spinning with hints is beneath him. He is playing in the gutter, obviously, and now it is akin to two bratty and spoiled brothers having a perpetual slap fight with each other.

The press is more than just salivating over it: they are being downright patronizing, with The Daily Beast instructing the little people how to watch and stream it, though they are not the only ones. The New York Times also has little faith in their readers' intelligence, proving crib notes of the interview.

Vox, ever falling for basic stunts, are babbling about Trump's tweets on it, even though those are nothing more than misdirections that really should have been ignored over a year ago.

As for the interview itself, it is not actually newsworthy. It is not explosive, but typical of what I would expect someone who isn't used to be scrutinized getting flayed in public: justifications of his actions, wallowing with self-pity, calling his former boss all sorts of dirty names as he gossips, and trying to retain some dignity in a sordid and unprecedented affair as he is assuring the legacy media that he and his family are Hillary Clinton supporters. Everyone else is wrong, and he is holier-than-thou, and he is full of excuses.

He does parse his words as he chooses them very carefully. When I worked as a journalist, that was always a huge red flag that the indirect approach was used to paint a narrative without direct proof; otherwise, the person would give you actual proof. I never liked slippery sources whose every word must be put on a scale and examined under a high-powered microscope.

The only difference between Comey and Trump is that Comey uses verbal sleight of hand to fight dirty, while Trump blusters on Twitter to achieve the same ends. I do not have confidence in either man's account. At all.

People are watching, hoping Comey can offer some new dirt so they can lose their minds, but ABC is pushing this as an "exclusive event", when it is an advertorial interview promoting a book. I see two huge alpha male egos clashing, and the loser of that territorial skirmish reduced to melodrama.

But I can understand why the Beltway had a meltdown with Trump's victory: they are all broken in, and used to go through the motions as they memorized the scripts -- and with a spoiler blustering in, all their old routines and rules have been thrown out the window, and now that they can no longer rely on rote hacks, their façade of superiority has been exposed as such.

Comey was a bit player in this sucker circus, and one of the earliest acts to get the boot: the interview ran too long, and was pure theatre -- and a very boring one at that...

No, it will not be worse than Watergate. Why journalists drool at Trump's troubles, even when their own fortunes are the real freak show.

The Daily Beast does what journalists do best: wish their enemies ill. This latest petty wishful thinking article is interesting, and it is very instructive.

Because the reason is there is a pattern of coverage happening.

The propaganda is specific: anyone who bypasses journalism becomes a target.

Facebook is one, and the press has many motives for the latest smearing.

Donald Trump also bypassed the press; and the strategy has been to destroy him to serve as an example to anyone else what happens if you succeed without their blessing.

The problem is that (a) it is not working, and (b) the path that bypasses them has already been created.

It is a zombie freak show now. The press has no power. Should Facebook and Trump go away this second, media's fortunes do not change because now that there has been the first who have proven it can be done -- those pioneers are no longer necessary for that new path to grow.

In fact, both Facebook and Trump are also case studies. The next to bypass journalism will see the mistakes that were made, and then prepare. 

They are not going to go back to the zombie freak show. They will reinforce their vehicle, and then bypass the press.

The path's evolution will not be impeded. The lesson learned is that you bypass the old guard, and then do something else to weaken their voices entirely.

Journalism is still dead. Facebook is not the only game in town -- they get smeared, someone else takes their place, but I suspect Facebook will fight back and stay in the game for a while.

Trump is not Watergate. Trump thrives in anarchy, and all journalists are doing is creating the very environment he can master.

Because journalism's fortunes are still crashing and burning, no matter what vitriol they throw at Trump and Facebook.

Newsweek's troubles are mounting.

The Daily Beast has let the world know that Newsweek faces eviction and a whole other slew of very bad problems. Newsweek was always seen as "serious journalism." What it was is arrogant journalism. If Newsweek dies, another rancid misapplication of the profession is gone, but someone could always buy the name at a fire sale price, but it won't bring in the readers.

It's name has been tarnished beyond repair. It could not keep up pretences. I doubt it will survive. It was too clueless for too long, and at the end, no one knew what they were supposed to be doing.