Memo to the New York Times: Journalism is already dead, but do not blame the "economic model" when your problems go right into the heart of your newsrooms.


Memo to the New York Times, that ship has sailed. Your profession rots in the ground.

There hasn’t been any journalism for a very long time. Do not blame the “economic model.” You no longer have the monopoly on communications. People prefer their own posturing and opinions than the PR firms’ scripts you all parrot.

Journalism never got empirical, and those in the business are too dense to see where they have faltered. Once upon a time, it was just philosophy until you had thinkers conduct experiments to test that philosophy.

And then psychology was born.

You would think that journalism would naturally grow in the right direction. No dice. I had a lippy editor patronize and mansplain to me how this was not possible — without any expertise, knowledge on the matter, or shred of proof.

I have over a quarter century of proof that it can be done. I conducted experiments. I studied and researched the profession inside and out. I tested my model. It is much easier to do than the clunky old ways. I tweaked and made it possible to be a portable laboratory.

If you can have entire newsroom on the smartphone, you can be a walking laboratory. I had a very lively discussion with someone about this recently, and it is funny how people outside the profession not only see the possibilities, they have suggestions and offer other proof how information becomes corrupted and tainted.

When I suggest an alternative to journalism, people first become shocked, but then excited. It requires a very special kind of training, but the old guard do not want an alternative to make them look even worse.

The reason we have no journalism is simple: journalists and their overlords are actively preventing it from happening.

But I can take them…

Actrivism, Part Three: If you had actrivism, you wouldn't be looking for easy solutions because you would be the solution.


Screen Shot 2019-01-31 at 4.34.18 PM.png


NewsGuard is snake oil?

You don’t say, Drudge Report!

Of course it snake oil. It is meta-propaganda.

That a partisan press outfit showed how easy NewsGuard is garbage goes to show you that the political propagandists are of the low-grade quality that brings to mind Mr. Haney, the snake oil huckster from Green Acres.

And just how much the public in the West have been infantilized.

When print ruled, you had a lot of sketchy publications, yet not a single one required a “label” or a “NewsGuard”, and, in fact, had there been a law to slap on such patronizing labels, people would have gone ballistic.

Comic books had labels because they were geared toward children.

And treating adults like they were five would have caused an uproar, and justifiably so.

What we are seeing is one side of the political equation placing badges on a side they find inconvenient, and that has fascist origins.

What we have are two partisan thugs trying to silence and shame people for having thoughts that are their own.

This puritanical temper tantrum is burning itself out. If just a couple of people stand their ground, the gig is up.

If you stand up to the bullies on the playground, they retreat because they don’t want effort, and they certainly don’t want everyone else to know how weak they really are.

NewsGuard is garbage. It is a scarlet letter used to shame publications so that people will not be exposed to different ideas, right or wrong.

I know NewsGuard is propaganda and garbage. I don’t need such a thing because I am an Actrivist.

I learned how news is actually constructed by actually having jobs that involved constructing it.

I experimented, and tweaked things to see the limits of it. NewsGuard is no match for me.

And best of all, I don’t spew propaganda.

I can recognize it from the Left, Right, Centre, Mainstream, Fringe, you name it.

Because I have spent my entire life scouring more articles, transcripts, books, and journals than most people. I can break down New York Times propaganda with ease. I can break down Fox News propaganda with equal ease.

Both a propagandistic and partisan outfits. One is not superior to the other: one merely panders to a different psychographic than the other. They prey on people’s manufactured “images” they present in public, and tell the pigeons what they want to hear.

It is the reason I don’t have respect for either.

The Default Delusion dictates if one side is wrong, then the opposite is has to be right by default, and that’s not true. More times than not, it is a false opposite, and equally wrong or deficient.

But when you study something by working in its core, you know how things work. There is no guesswork or trying to make that educated guess — you know every piece and how it all fits together.

But you also go in ready to break down the pieces. You take nothing for granted. You go in with the express goal of seeing the problems, and finding solutions.

And the solution isn’t to pretend one faction is superior to the other.

You also start to see how personal fear and selfishness creates the biggest problems to concepts and institutions.

Once you see the heart of the matter, you know you can find a solution because you finally know what you are confronting.

And there is no app that can solve that problem. There is no machine, AI, or software that can do it, either.

People created the problem, and that means it is people who must solve it.

Not a proxy.

Not a manipulative propagandistic app.

But human beings brave enough to understand they are dealing with human beings — not narrative monsters…

Fake News: Everybody's doing it!

Yes, even private school children!

They are creating their own fake news. Of course they are.

But I do not think this is sparked by social media. It was always a problem at that age group, the difference is they used to lie among themselves and to their parents, but now there is a social record of those deceptions.

It begins when parents and teachers avoid confrontation and enable the lying by not calling kids on the carpet every time they do it. It is not an easy thing to do. It really drains energy. I have had students flat-out lie to me, and I just don’t let them get away with lying. You don’t reward it. You punish it by over-correction and restitution: when the deceiver doesn’t get anything, and also loses in the bargain, then the habits start to change.

Reward honesty, and you reinforce healthy psychological well-being.

People who lie are arrogant because they think they are smarter than anyone else; so they lie to themselves first, and then spread the lies around.

I have chronicled lies that make news, and still do: people lie to get good things or avoid bad things: it is a simple cost analysis to them. They take gambles because they figure it easier than having to earn their way the honest way. You get to be envied and on top of a pecking order without actually being superior — and you get to make genuine superior people look worse in comparison.

That is not a product of social media. In fact, it leaves a trail to verify, and if a few of those deceivers were proven to be the big fibbers that they are, it would teach them a very valuable lesson in life…

Watching the collapse of rot from the Sparrow's Nest.

France 24 is a bullshit news agency, and some of their articles adhere to the old Establishment rules, making them comical.

Like how Canada is “desperate” to fill 400,000+ jobs.

No, we are losing jobs left and right here. It is frightening how fast and furious the bloodletting has been here, and how many well-groomed beggars we have in “good areas” these days.

And how television news is “holding its ground”.

I wouldn’t bet on that, either.

The Winter of Discontent is here. Stalwarts such as the Right-leaning Weekly Standard are in serious trouble.

The Drudge Report is probably the only newsy out there that is still viable, and there are no end to the stories about the collapsing profession.

Drudge reminds me of Neil Gaiman’s The Endless character Death who is the one designated to close up everything the last news property bites the dust.

Speaking of television, it looks like the network that gives you 60 Minutes had an overlord that was destroying evidence of his bad deeds. Les Moonves was a naughty boy, but was the driving force of a media outlet.

How much of the facts do you think you know come from watching a network that allowed that kind of garbage to happen?

The rot is collapsing all around journalism. It was never dealt with when it was manageable, and now the piper is busy collecting what it owed.

The Tacoma News Tribune is laying off 67 people. Mic is also going into the toilet. Thomson Reuters is letting go 3200 people over the next two years.

Any journalist want to lie in public and pretend the profession hasn’t collapsed?

Yes, there are those who think maybe because the Washington Post is saying it is hiring, there is hope.

Give it a few months, they will be slashing. This game is nothing new.

The Reality Deniers run journalism and gather news stories. If they were doctors, they would tell a terminally ill cancer patient there is hope because they still have a few normal cells left in their bodies, and fuck all the cancer growing.

Cowardice makes liars of an entire profession.

And as I watch from the Sparrow’s Nest, I see the starving predators go after each other in a frenzy.

And it is an ugly, pathetic sight…

Yes, the West are emotionally illiterate and conniving. That is the reason they are perpetually unhappy and uninformed.

The Wall Street Journal has this opinion piece:

America Is Addicted to Outrage. Is There a Cure?

A healthy society reserves anger for special occasions. Today taking offense has become a reflex.

No, they are not outraged.

They are emotionally illiterate, competitive, self-entitled, and conniving, and they are bored and ungrateful, as they are terrified.

That’s it. There is no genuine core for the antics, if you had a genuine press, they would tell people to go fuck themselves, and grow up.

But they can’t because they are too deluded and cowardly to speak the truth.

France 24, the kings of delusional thought have this knee-slapper:

How Trump's bashing of The New York Times and CNN has benefited all

Journalism hasn’t benefitted, you dumb motherfuckers: jobs are being lost, and news consumption continues to go down; so these tools do not know what the fuck they are puking.

What is happening is nothing new. In the 1990s, journalism relied on “super-stories”, such as the personal life of Princess Diana, the trial of OJ Simpson, and the impeachment hearing of Bill Clinton to try to whip up emotional gossip-frenzy and ratings…and there would be a seeming spike in news consumption, but then, the crash, because the overall audiences were still abandoning them.

Because it doesn’t work.

But as outlets are as historically illiterate, they forget, or think people forget.

No, I remember.

Because I multi-literate.

But there is a dirty little secret Big Tech is trying to hide: that their numbers are far worse than people actually know.

Those so-called “Russian bots” were inflating the numbers of alleged users and followers, and they were getting rich from the exaggerated figures. Fake users, fake followers, it was all for show.

If the followers are bloated, then so is the outrage.

It is not real.

There is a study in psych where cockroaches racing ran faster if other cockroaches were watching.

And the cockroaches on the Internet are thumping their chests louder and harder for the same reason.

But don’t buy the hype. It’s all bullshit…

Facebook, social media site with credibility issues, issues "trust" decrees on their customers.

They track your movements, sell your data to sketchy players, and otherwise meddle, but now they are deciding they are qualified enough to create some Big Brother-esque "trust ratings."

All in the name of policing "fake news."

Drudge is having a field day, dutifully reminding people how Communist China is playing the same game with their citizens.

Screen Shot 2018-08-21 at 12.00.08 PM.png

Facebook is pandering to special interests who have hijacked the narrative. I can very easily see class action lawsuits against Facebook, because they are seriously overreaching, potentially slandering people, affecting their careers, social standing, privacy, and reputations.

How do I know, for instance, if I put in a resume to a multinational company, that they can't pay Facebook to see what these unqualified grifters think about my posting habits?

What I a post dubious articles for the express purpose of warning people of its weaknesses? Will that affect this elitist pecking order?

What empirical evidence does Facebook have that their ratings do what they purport to do?

They don't. They are flying by the seat of their pants that have been on fire for a very long time...

Twitter is a Troll Scroll that hates journalists? You don't say, mainstream news media!

If it weren't for Matt Drudge, no one would bother with looking at articles about journalism. He is one of the few that actually remembers when they were still a thing, and throws a pity links.

The level of obliviousness in those articles is truly remarkable to the point that it should be a law that the entire profession be forced to take selfies with dunce caps.

The one from Neiman Lab is one for the books:

The universe of people trying to deceive journalists keeps expanding, and newsrooms aren’t ready

No, sillies: it has always been the same. You just kept falling for it like a bunch of sheltered rubes. I did write the book about it way back in 2005.


AI is not the big threat the article is proclaiming it to be.

If journalists were actually doing their jobs and not cribbing from processed and canned sources, such as PR, this would not exactly be a problem.

If you are in the middle of action among your fellow human beings, you are seeing reality up close.

This article is mere attempt at puffing: giving a likely story about how hard journalists are trying to verify information, which is patent malarky because the verification methods they are trying to shill here don't actually work, which is what the article is actually saying.

If you did not bother to verify in the flesh sources, you aren't going to do any better with AI-generated images.

This is a mere Computers Are Scary propaganda piece to make it seem as if what is left of newsrooms are feverishly working to get facts to news consumers the way they pretended they were getting information on the front lines of wars when they were getting it from PR firms.

It is the same old con job, just a different angle.

But journalists were never ones to keep up with the times they cover.

This article from the Hill is another example of the profession's thickness:

Media figures lament toxic Twitter

Twitter toxic? You don't say!

It's a Troll Scroll. Nothing else. It behaves the same way journalists did when they had completely control of the communications channels because there are no checks or balances to keep people civilized or accountable.

Nor are people forced to confront their own biases, which are nothing more than rigs used so people do not have to confront their own nincompoopity.

But those sentiments were always there. It's just before people would say it under their breath, and now they can say it in public and think it means something, especially if someone backs down or retreats.

I remember having to work in a newsroom writing stories for an anchor to read. Some of the stories were silly and not up to me. I got assigned it, like this one.


Don't blame me. Mind you, I wrote serious stories, too.

And also those trendy benign ones that didn't matter.

Or so you'd think.

I did this one, and it was right off the wire.


In no way did the piece say OJ Simpson was guilty or innocent. You don't say anything in the midst of a court case. It is the reason you always hear "allegedly" until the person is convicted or found not guilty, and then you move on.

Except one angry person called the newsroom absolutely insistent that the anchor who read that said that Simpson was guilty.

No. Not at all. The wire story never implied it. I never implied it. The anchor read the script verbatim and never implied it.

As in, no hint of it.

But the irate caller heard things never said, and when the anchor offered to send a video of that actual newscast, the caller said that it would be altered.

No, that would have cost too much money, and when management counted the seconds their staff used their company-issued cell phones, they'd never go for that.

It was a misinterpretation of reality. Period.

Back then, that caller had no way of airing that mistaken perception to the public.

With Twitter, he could air any paranoid conspiracy theory with impunity, and become emboldened with like-minded followers who think they have strength in numbers. They don't have prove their misperceptions are true.

It is enough that they have a public forum.

The way journalism once was given free reign to believe their misperceptions were reality just because they put them out in a public forum.

True verification methods do not actually exist.

They never have for the profession, and the disjointed half-baked methods show they never will.

It's too late for that profession, anyway.

A mention here or there from Drudge doesn't mean a thing.

That Twitter hates journalism should not be surprising. Those on the Troll Scroll believe they have power and control, and aren't going to let go of their illusions.

Should someone snub their nose at the puritanical disapproval and gives the trolls something to talk about happily, the power begins to vanish.

Because that's what happened to journalism.

And Twitter's fate will be no different...

Watching Canada run head first into their Villain role in the Chaos Narrative.

Canada is, at heart, a nanny state. There are too many people who work in the sheltered environment of the civil service, and our politicians are usually the sheltered and spoiled children of people who were also once politicians or came from money, and the same can be said of journalists.

For decades, our oblivious ways didn't place us in danger as we were too inconsequential for any power to notice us. We wisely flew under the radar, and we had a few savvy street-fighters who had to earn their keep pull us out of scrapes we found ourselves in when our foolish disposition got us in trouble. We had their love and loyalty, but somehow, everyone forgot to keep notes on what they did to keep us in the game when things went haywire.

We were in the strongest position when Jean Chretien was Prime Minister. He prevented the country from falling apart during the Quebec referendum, something I covered as a student in j-school, interviewing various editors and journalists about that nail-biter -- and those notes formed the backbone of a later article I had published in Skeptic magazine years later as a working journalist.

I remembered Chretien's blanched face that night -- he barely scraped a victory, but he saved both Quebec and the Rest of Canada from absolute ruin. Break up Canada, and we get swallowed up by the United States.

But beginning in the early 2000s, there was the beginnings of peculiar rumblings started by the George Bush regime. I saw one in person. The American organization I worked for as a Canadian correspondent for the journalism trade magazine held its annual convention in Toronto -- the first time they ventured out of their home country. There were two keynote speakers over two days: Vice President Dick Cheney, and then the late journalist and anchor Peter Jennings who was Canadian, but was an icon in the US.

I was there for both speeches. The Vice President's speech essentially spelled out that yes, natural resources may be running in short supply in the US, but they can just raid Canada's. No worries.

The next day, Jennings's speech was a real pushback to that notion and a powerful moment that reminded me how hard it was being a Canadian who had to push through in a foreign country to make a name for yourself. It was something to see.

It stayed with me, but I knew whatever the rumblings, Chretien was a silver fox who could dodge the traps.

And then came 9/11, and Chretien's regime wasn't playing ball with the Bush regime, and things got very sticky. Fox News was floating about boycotts and sanctions against Canada, and I discussed it at length in my book OutFoxed.

Again, I wasn't worried because I knew that Chretien was an adept strategist who literally could take care of himself. It was like having Batman as your Prime Minister. 

There was no war of words. There was no missteps or diplomatic quagmires. Everything blew over with most Canadians having no clue about the gravity of the situation or the potential for trouble. That's what a good leader does. He makes it seem seamless and doesn't bring attention to himself.

I saw both those close calls as a journalist. I knew that the threat coming from the US was real, but I also knew Chretien alone could handle it because he understood the big picture.

Fast forward to 2018.

We have a sheltered little boy masquerading as a Prime Minister along with his haughty kid sidekick -- both who are not strategists, but oblivious divas who are obtuse to nuance.

Truth be hold, they are obtuse to big, honking signs of a cataclysm.

Unlike the the other two times, I am not shrugging off what is going down.

Trudeau has made things worse with his arrogant attitude. Kid sidekick Chrystia Freeland is equally dense.

They are both throwing temper tantrums in public -- having zero cards to play, going on and on how "insulted" they are that the US is not giving in to their demands, as if Americans care about what Canadian politicians are feeling.

Really, are you serious?

You are not being paid to be offended. No one cares how you feel or whether or not you are offended. This isn't a first-year Humanities course where your prof holds your hand and preaches about micro-aggression as he tell you that you are Gifted.

You were elected to get results. That's it. You go in, get dirty, get mud slapped all over your Botoxed face, but you get results that are beneficial to your country.

That didn't happen. They failed. The end. As in, The End. Drudge is chronicling all of this for posterity, of course.

This is now a serious crisis. Canada did well as long as they flew under the radar. We are like the rabbits of Watership Down: so long as the Elil are not on our scent, we are free to have our little warren just the way we like it.

But Trudeau is acting like a self-entitled brat who thinks his ego means anything. It doesn't. If he were competent, this should have been resolved months ago. You can whine about being bullied all you want, but you showed signs of weakness, and now the Elil have been primed to go after you.

And the campaign is breath-taking. It goes beyond tweets from Trump: the chorus of people who have instructed the flock to see Canada as liars is growing, and instead of dealing with this threat directly -- because once you lose credibility, you lose it all -- he and Freeland are repeatedly babbling about being insulted.

So here is the memo to those two bimbos: You have been repeatedly saying how "insulted" your majesties have been. Did it change the circumstances? Did it resolve a single thing?


So why are you aping your ineffectual script? Are you really that vapid and unteachable?

Do you not have someone with intelligence and experience dealing with Americans on your staff to advise you?

It's probably too late, but the immaturity of the Trudeau regime is disheartening.

And repeating the word "retaliation" is playing right into Trump's hands. That's what villains do when the hero stands up to them.

But do not expect the Canadian media to clue in. They are cheerleading Trudeau, not having the courage to see what is actually happening. My local television station CHCH is run by a group of five-year-olds sitting at some Disney On Ice show, spewing childish drivel that makes me wonder just how bad is our educational system has plummeted since I graduated.

Some American politicians disagree with Trump? Who? The inert Democrats who have been floundering in the polls because the economy is doing too well for them to build a credible argument to be voted in?

Other Canadian politician support Trudeau! Whoop di do, what can they do, but tremble in their boots knowing if Trump cuts off Canada, the tax base, such as it is, goes up in flames? They are too afraid, and they have little choice, but even that facade of unity won't last long.

The US can easily ride out the tariffs. Going after Hershey chocolates? Do you think there isn't a Plan B? Canadians look like petty little meanies...and then Americans will rally together to buy a lot more chocolates and stick it to those chocolate-hating Canadian villains.

If that is the very best hand you have to play, you already lost the game.

And Trump does have a plan. There is no doubt. There is a plan, and it involves breaking and humbling Canada, particularly Trudeau, who has a long history of being a spoiled little boy who cannot function if he is not the centre of attention. There is bad blood between him and the previous Prime Minister Stephen Harper. There is bad blood between him and former NDP leader Thomas Mulcair.

He is sticking with the same script, but the difference is Trump is not Harper or Mulcair. He is far more feral, cunning, and powerful than Trudeau whose entitled temper tantrums are about to come back to haunt him.

Let us not forget he cannot contain himself when things do not go his way. He loses his nerve.

Canada cannot afford this kind of childish games. Our federal debt makes us vulnerable, and just Ontario's debt alone can upset our ecosystem to the point that Trump does not have to do very much to throw us into disarray.

Because we had close calls with the US not that long ago -- less than two decades ago. It is not as if the thought never crossed their minds. Chretien cleaned up that mess beautifully.

We are now in Chapter two of the Chaos Narrative, and we are being set up for a real salvo by Chapter three. It is already set, and once that happens, there is no going back.

And our politicians are completely unprepared, and our journalists are weakened and clueless to the what is in store. Just months ago, there was threats of big red buttons and nuclear war between the US and North Korea.

Now, there is a summit that, if it has gone well, will give the US an alternative market for their chocolates.

Canada has been blinded by arrogance and cockiness, and it can make more trouble than we can handle. We are not used to being seen as villains and foreigners to the US, but it may be a label we may end up wearing for decades to come...

Watching journalism's implosion on Drudge.

Matt Drudge has been America's Editor in Chief for a couple of decades now -- the way old school newspaper and magazine editors used to rule back in the days when journalism was a thing -- or even Don Hewitt did on 60 Minutes. His machine has an uncanny pulse on the zeitgeist. The Left never had an equivalent rival or colleague because they are not in tune with reality the way he is.

But he is The One. We don't have a female Drudge, a black Drudge, nor do we have any foreign Drudge anywhere else on the planet.

We are talking about my entire adult life, and not even a Millennial Drudge or a AI Drudge.

There is only one Drudge.

And his methods are so effective, that the destruction of journalism doesn't impact him.

If journalism had a pulse the way he did, they would still be in the game.

But their arrogance is debilitating. They don't see that he doesn't use a cheesy motto about how important journalism is. He doesn't shake people down for donations.

He cuts to the chase, highlighting stories from various media outlets in a low-key and minimalist style.

So it is interesting to see what he picks for stories about journalism.

The stories, not surprisingly, chronicle its own implosion.

For example, the Right-leaning Townhall had this column:

The Liberal Press Rebelled Against Reality - and Lost

That's about half-right. The Right-winged outlets aren't exactly clued in, either. Even the article itself reveals its lack of news savvy:

These journalism students are specifically taught that they need to report on the sorrows of the downtrodden, represent the world as a fundamentally unfair place defined by poverty, disease, death; and that injustice cannot be vanquished but by rejecting traditional standards of morality. 

News is defined on reporting on what isn't working, not on what works. That's advertising. Cheerleading about a Great Man's success isn't news -- and contrary to the piece's assumption, reporters have spent a great amount of time fawning over real and imagined successes -- they built up the Kardashians. They made men such as Kenneth Lay to seem visionary and competent. Let's not pretend that we had journalists tell us where the faults in our society have been simmering. They supported Hillary's Clinton's flawed campaign, for instance, which, in fact, undermines the thesis of this opinionist.

It isn't just "leftist" vehicles that have a hard time confronting reality -- it is the rightist as well, as in the entire profession imploded, not just one faction of it.

Another very Right-leaning vehicle, the Gateway Pundit, brings up this nugget: a California senator introduces a bill that only "state-sanctioned" fact-checkers vet information going online. Obviously, this is covered by the Right, and not mentioned at all anywhere else. Aside from it being unconstitutional and makes no mention of other media, such as print or television, and it would something I would expect from those Russians that American journalists have an unnatural fear of. It seems that the government wants to control all of the information on the Internet -- and it is the reason why we will see a fifth medium much sooner than later.

Newsmax, yet another Right-wing outlet, is hiring a former Fox News Channel executive to position themselves into a more expansive presence. Despite legacy media's constant attacks on the online fringe, Newsmax is having an easier time than Breitbart that once seemed to have the definite edge with Steve Bannon.

However, fortunes come and go very quickly in this business, and the cycles of longevity keep getting shorter. Fox News' success was mostly thanks to the late and infamous Roger Ailes, who knew what would sell and then knew how to make it happen.

Perhaps sensing that the mood for social media is turning nasty, Twitter's Jack Dorsey is cultivating an image of being more meddlesome with his platform. The Fast Company story is typical fawning Great Man love -- and usually serves the Great Man's purpose than actually inform a public about anything.

The dysfunctionality is capped off with a horrible New York Times article already kicking iconic Vogue editor and current Conde Nast artistic director Anna Wintour to the curb as media speculate that she's leaving, though nothing is official -- and the source of the gossip comes from its rival the New York Post.

The headline is absolutely dreadful:

Imagining a World After Anna

Hello! She's not dead!

She is still in the world, New York Times. At least the Times chose that first picture where she is the best-dressed of the bunch, but the words chosen as well as the subject matter is not actually newsworthy.

But cluster the articles together, and a picture emerges: journalism imploded and we have anarchy. The government is trying to impose its will on Big Tech; Big Tech is trying to impose its will on its users. Fringe media has the same clout as legacy media, and everyone is just speculating.

Facts? Well, don't expect to find them in a news story. It is the reason why fringe outlets have the same weight on Drudge as the traditional outlets. Drudge did what Trump did years before: bypass the media to create his own success. In a world that is devoid of facts, but its illusion is one of having too much information, he reads the headlines the way a fortune teller reads tea leaves: there is no magic to it, just an ability to read someone's demeanour and body language to riddle out what is the problem -- and usually it is always the same problems that plague everyone.

He gets the rhythm of the world, and presents it in an easy-to-digest way.

Journalists never learned what the Internet required, and dismissed him.

And it is the reason the stories about them have turned out to be so distressingly unflattering and troubling...

And one more article that came late today from the New York Post about CBS worrying about the fallout from Charlie Rose's antics being exposed. Rose was #MeToo'd and according to the Post, those nondisclosure clauses are being used as a fortress to prevent any sins and complicity from being known to the public.

Journalists may thump their chests and pretend they are holier than thou, but when push comes to shove, their tactics are no different from those they pretend to expose...

Pot black, kettle says: Journalists' turnovers and blood-letting is horrifyingly bad and getting worse, yet they still find time to criticize others for doing the same thing.

This article is yet another dig at a President who, all things considered, is handling a lifetime lack of experience of politics better than they are handling their own dead profession. The Drudge Report's header is a riot:

Screen Shot 2018-03-03 at 12.08.04 AM

Their senses aren't working. The press keeps hoping to smell weakness, but what they are smelling is the stench of rot that comes from their own dead profession. The jobs losses and outlet closures have chaotic newsrooms with a revolving door of owners, publishers, producers, editors, and journalists. Nothing is working.

Once upon a time, a president who got this kind of scathing non-stop coverage would have been finished, not having stable polling numbers that have slowly gone up over the course of the year. It's unprecedented and shows the impotence of the news media.

It's galling for them, but they are distracting the rest of the world from replacing them with a superior method of reporting...