Why is Apple allowed to dictate global speech? Tumblr is the latest to cave in. Is it time for an alternative to the Internet?

Tumblr, the platform for big boys and girls, is caving in to Apple’s censorship and Big Brother dictatorship, and treating adults as little delicate children.


This is a very good time to bring in an alternative to the alternative. Big Tech are control freaks, and Tumblr was the one for adults, but no more.

They are trying to spin their cowardice into something positive, but it’s not. They retreated, and they owed their users and real challenge to Apple.

The Internet is crumbling with their incompatible push to control a planet, and there will be consequences. It’s a shame, but hardly surprising…

Apple threatens employees who leak to the press with criminal action...and then want to launch a news subscription service...Press Release subscription service, perhaps?

Apple likes to exploit the press when comes to launching their trinkets, but only on their terms. 2000px-Apple_logo_black.svg

The leakers still leaked the No Not Leak Or Else memo.

But now they want to meddle in news with a a subscription service as they have bought Texture and gutted it by shedding employees.

Apple did very well with cool toys and entertainment-based things, such as music and movies, but work and play are two separate spheres. People don't have an interest in the old model of news; and I don't see this flying.

It is a different era, and Big Tech has lost much of its luster in 2018. That, a couple of years ago, would have been unthinkable.

The information stream is becoming a battleground, but there is a huge problem: journalism collapsed by means of a nuclear bomb, and the ground is radioactive. Big Tech are waging in that certain death battleground thinking they can hover over it and take over.

The problems are much deeper than that, and while Apple will put out sunny press releases, the truth will not live up to their hype...

Memo to The Medium: No, the Internet did not kill critical thinking. And no, Washington Post, the "crisis" in journalism is not a crisis for democracy. You just can't manipulate the masses the way you used to do it.

The melodramatic temper tantrums coming from journalists over their demise can get very annoying, especially as they seem to do a lot of whining about their fall from grace these days. They keep trying to manipulate people and tell them what to think, and it's not happening.

And they do not know why because they do not know their place in society.

The ones in journalism proper have no clue, and neither do those scribbling their arrogant and oblivious nonsense in university newspapers, either.

When you are sheltered and wear blinders, your sense of reality becomes skewed to the point of ridiculousness.

The Medium is a newspaper for the University of Toronto, and there is one particularly goofy and griping article that shows how little an academic institution understands reality.

The obnoxious drivel has a very chilling headline:

Restoring the Integrity of Journalism

The Internet has killed critical thinking.

Such manipulative drama that has not one ounce of truth -- or critical thinking going for it.

Journalism doesn't have integrity because all they are trying to do is tell people how to think. They skewed war coverage, relying on public relations firms. The presented swindlers as Titans of Industry. They did a lot of damage to the world because they were never empirical.

They should present facts, not narratives because people have different life requirements, and giving facts allows people to use those facts the way they want and need.

But the article makes one very ignorant assumption: that the Big Scam Internet killed critical thinking.

No, it didn't.

What the Internet did was force those arrogant meddlers who always wore blinders to see that not everyone used the same logic because people have different realities.

The man who had to drop out of high school to work in a factory to support his family has a different reality than the sheltered rich kid whose mommy and daddy pull favours to get that kid a degree and a job.

They have different logic. What works for one person doesn't work for the other. They may not be fluent in each other's logic, but do not assume that just because someone uses different logic that they are stupid and inferior to you.

Once upon a time, only certain sanctioned logic was broadcast and published, but the Internet broke down those fortresses and gates, and now the old guard has been sulking and plotting ever since.

Get over yourselves, children, and let's see some of that tolerance of diversity you talk so much about.

And "restoring" integrity of journalism is not going to force the little people into going back to handing their free will over to you.

They always thought that way, but for the past twenty years, you finally got exposed to their innermost thoughts.

And they are not wrong to think it.

But the Washington Post also cannot deal with reality. They are now talking about a "crisis in journalism" -- the popular buzz phrase being strategically used right now, even though journalism is way beyond crisis: it is dead -- and how it is bringing a "crisis" in democracy.

No, it's not. What you see because the gates have been destroyed. What you are seeing is the liberation of thought. Journalism became a way of social engineering; issuing directives instead of giving facts.

The Internet is a window to the world of opinion: it shows us that beliefs are not confined to some binary and sanitized checklist.

That has been the hardest reality for journalism to ever grasp. They keep trying to go back to a time where they had control of the communications tools.

It's not that world anymore. It is a different one, and it is not going to change just to make journalists feel powerful again. Instead of lamenting about how the world used a platform to speak out, regardless of their realities, backgrounds, confinements, and flawed natures, journalists should have found a new purpose within that changing world.

They didn't, and the destruction they are now experiencing is entirely their own and of their own making...

Journalism's Grifter's Meltdown.

I often have a peculiar sympathy for aging grifters. Their own arrogance and immorality blind them to their subtle shift in fortunes. When they are young and look unused and luscious, they lie to mommy and daddy who would rather let their transgressions slide than confront the little huckster and call them out for their duplicity. The kid thinks he is so cunning that he can bamboozle the grown-ups, never realizing that the parents and teachers see right through it, but let them pass because it takes wasted effort to fight and confront someone without life experience who is deceitful. Because they have youthful charm, they do not have an established reputation: so they go from job to job and lover to lover, playing the same games and getting something back for their grifter ways. They never see that older and more experienced grifters have sized them up and are also exploiting them, and then discard them when there is nothing left to use.

Eventually, the grifter is used up -- no longer cute and desirable, and when he or she tries to use the same stories and play the same tricks, they get nowhere.

It is a peculiar paradox: when they have less experience in the ways of grifterhood, they get more than when they do have experience. It is a trade-off, but one where they never get to their desired goals. They are alienated and isolated.

Straight shooters also tend to get isolated, but they get isolated for different reasons: they refuse to play the game. They aren't enabling delusions, and get punished for pointing out the truth, but the difference is the straight shooter develops instincts that the grifter never does. The straight shooter learns to trust himself and realistically assess the surroundings, while the grifter's conniving lens where he casts himself as the most cunning person in the universe can never see what's in store.

Journalism became the grifter, and its power always hinged on issuing marching orders for others to follow.

That wasn't supposed to be journalism. They weren't supposed to be issuing decrees or directives.

Just verified facts.

It would make their jobs simpler: what is happening right now? Where is there trouble? Who needs to know? How long has it been happening and why?

Once upon a time, you more or less got that, but now, it has become a propagandistic game of who to demonize. The press hates Russia, and now that China has entered the fray, warning the US that they are allies with Russia (that acceleration was an interesting byproduct of the Civil War in the former Yugoslavia, when NATO bombs hit the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999, it forever, if subtly, changing history as a result).


It may have been a tactical error on NATO's part in their obsession to treat one set of Eastern Orthodox people as dogs to be trained, but the ramifications are still yet to be felt.

It wouldn't have actually mattered if journalism didn't collapse, or at least, realistically understand that it was weakened by its own games and why.

Facebook got caught up in the propaganda game because journalists are still fuming that the little people have their own broadcasting outlets to express themselves, and one where everyone has equal footing. No one's page looks different than anyone else's.

Donald Trump proved that you can win a war campaign even when you are outgunned and outnumbered because his Twitter weapon worked better than the antiquated junk journalists were using. His strategies were superior than the old rulebook reporters memorized and thought never needed updating. Social media became the replacement, and then journalists realized they lost the war.

Not just a key battle, but the actual war.

The grifters have been having a long meltdown ever since.

And now they are trying to manipulate the optics to make people think they didn't lose.

So they still use the same stupid playbook, by thinking up stupid names for empty organizations such as the Journalism Trust Initiative.

You have to be trustworthy to be trusted, and when you have an organization whose very titles screams "Trust me!", you know you are dealing with a deceptive grifter.

They refuse to admit their methods are questionable; so while they have luddite stories about how bad social media is, they are pretending to embrace digital journalism.

Are you serious? People should just give up their freedoms they got from the Internet and just let you keep spewing your vitriol? Nice try.

Journalism lost the war because they were their own enemies. They still think they can go back to the days of having control over the masses. It's not working. The rest of the world has also awoken, and they are not going to let a foreign and defeated press put them in the same confines they did decades ago.

That the world needs an alternative to journalism is a given. We need straight shooters who can stand alone inform the world of what is happening, but not with propaganda and arrogant narrative.

Just tell us the facts. Stop trying to push people to make bad decisions that harm them. Stop trying to demonize millions of people over there. Stop trying to silence people and put words into their mouths.

Enough is enough. Let's move forward and leave these relic grifters behind. They overplayed their hand, and exposed themselves for the manipulative hucksters they always were.

Because people always knew they were being lied to, but were too afraid to say it out loud, but we can say it out loud, and should...right before we find a better and more respectful way of informing ourselves of what is happening all around us...

Memo to iPolitics: Why aren’t we more freaked out about the Russians? Because we're not stupid.

The Cold War should be over by now, yet the press always loved a bogeyman to justify their paranoia. iPolitics is openly wondering why the propaganda campaign is a bust. Well, here's the thing: the whole Trump-Russia-Facebook angle is just a narrative used by the deluded journalists into explaining away why their profession collapsed. They do not want to look at their dismal numbers or their self-serving methods as the culprits.

Second, people in power always meddle in everyone else's affairs; so they can ignore their own incompetency. London can rage about Russia and ignore their Brexit woes and that their murder rate eclipses New York City. People aren't stupid: they know the ramifications of Brexit. They know they aren't safe to walk home from work or school -- and they are getting tired of the misdirection.

If journalism was credible, they would find facts, not narratives or scary monsters. It gets tiresome, but the perpetual denial is hiding the real horrors with scary ghost stories that in the end, mean nothing...

Journalism's selective lobbying: Begging for government money, but not freedom of information? Yes, that is a problem for the industry's credibility.

Canadian journalism was always an odd duck from its contemporaries in the US and UK: it never had the same sense of gravitas or understanding of the profession. The UK still has pockets of real journalism. The US had a profession that, at its height, took down the most powerful man in its nation's political realm. Canada always had high levels of media concentration. It always had a pathological need to put a sunny spin on every story, from bad weather to a mass slaughter. The appeasement posture of Canadian journalism is meant to pander to a delicate audience, but it is this very bad habit that proved to be the industry's undoing here.

Because if it "all works out in the end" because "every dark cloud has a silver lining", then there is no need for journalism. There are no dangers or problems to worry about since that big-hearted altruists known as They will do our work for us.

The Liberal Party in Canada (known sarcastically as the Government Party) is the Marvel Comics of politics: they understand the "They" propaganda and have over the decades, deftly implied they are that They: they will spend big money bribing taxpayers with not just their own money, but the cash they borrow, and then once they borrowed money does its magic, the government will still manage to budget its books.

See? It all works out in the end because They will fix it.

The conservatives in this country could almost never get the idea of They, making them the DC Comics of politics (the "Distinguished Competition" as Stan Lee once quipped). They have some notion of Them -- an enemy to fear -- but they want Us to fix our own problems.

The Liberal party can exploit the propagandistic narrative of the superhero They, but journalists in this country -- who are primarily driven by believing in They -- have done so at their own absolute destruction.

Canadian journalists are all about spinning rot as something positive. This narrative spun them out of public necessity. No one needs to know about the reality of the world because they actually believe in the fantasy. Canada is just perfect the way it is, and so, They can keep cleaning up our messes.

So why bother keeping informed? Trump is an obsession in Canada because he is someone way over There. He is a foreigner and foreigners are not as lucky as We are.

The latent chauvinism is not one where we need to fear outsiders because They will make sure no harm or inconvenience troubles Canadians.

And if that is the case, journalism becomes redundant. Even journalists think they are redundant because no matter how bad the reality, they always seem to find hope and a happy resolution that does not require anyone but They to do something about it.

So Canadian journalists conned themselves out of a job -- and a profession. Well play, children.

So Canadian journalism developed the least of the Western countries. It never developed a distinctive style, methodology, or voice. It was always an apologist by nature as if that were a hack and shortcut in the profession.

The trouble was that sycophantic model made journalists buy their own hype, and they never pushed or made the necessary changes they needed to survive, let alone thrive.

Journalists and their employers never lobbied for laws to ensure freedom of information was truly free -- they always used the obstacles and governmental roadblocks in their narratives to prove to their audiences how hard they had to work to get information.

Even now, the Toronto Star is trying to exploit that narrative by whining that they have to fight to make information public. It is all part of their charade hilariously called the Trust Initiative (if you have to give something a cheesy ABC Afterschool Special or comic booky-sounding title, it is a sign that what you are doing is rubbish).

It is a deliberate misuse to bolster a narrative, but if journalists were sincere about fighting for information, they would fight the government by lobbying to change the laws to make getting that information easier -- but then if it was too easy, then maybe regular citizens could get direct access, and then who would read them?

But they don't lobby for things that matter to society. They do lobby for the government to give them money to keep their sinking ships afloat.

Because the industry honestly believes They will come to the rescue.

Except They is a group that does not actually exist.

Once upon a time, people believed God would do that work, and then God proved wanting.

So now we have migrated our hopes to social media, and of course They.

Social media is feeling the backlash because it proved to be as effective as a deity.

But They are the figments who are still counted on to help clean up the mess.

Journalism is counting on They to save them, and there is no They out there.

They will not do what journalists should have been doing for themselves all along.

Journalists should not exploit bad laws to pretend they are saviours of humanity. Journalists should have lobbied and fought for better access to information.

That would mean bringing more discipline to the profession, and making the case that as an empirical entity, they have every right to have that information.

It didn't happen, and when push came to shove, when they did lobby the government, it was for money.

It was a horrifying turn of events, and shows journalism is no longer a thing -- if it ever was a thing in Canada...

The Globe and Mail's spinning of the Internet continues.

The name of reporting beats can tell you a lot about how the profession of journalism sees the world, and when one of your reporters covers "Media and Marketing", you know whatever the newspaper knows, it isn't journalism. Media is the vessel. Marketing is content that often exploits the vessel to promote a third party, but not always. These are two different spheres. You can cover media, or marketing, but putting them together is like having an Internet and Cats reporter because cats happen to be on the Internet.

Journalism very often wants to mimic academia with titles denoting precision specialty, but it's not actually the case. It is an unreasonable facsimile of it.

But that's the fault of editors and publishers who create bogus titles for reporters to carry.

The Globe and Mail 's article about Google is as deceptive and skewed as one can get. It gets the propagandistic narrative into full gear from the get-go:

With all the hoax headlines, election meddling, clickbait and conspiracy theories, the internet is starting to look more like a misinformation superhighway – and that's a problem for the digital giants who make billions of dollars a year off that ecosystem and are now facing pressure over its misuse.
This week, Google Inc. announced a US$300-million investment in a slate of programs to come to the aid of news publishers – an industry that's struggling partly because companies such as Google and Facebook control the majority of digital advertising revenues.

Yes, of course, it is all social media's fault, as if journalists didn't partake is countless hoaxes, election meddling, and conspiracy theories themselves. As the author of three books on journalism, I know its irresponsible and arrogant side.

When an editorial endorses any candidate, they seek to meddle in the election's outcome, wanting their votes to count more than just one per person. I always found the practice to be supercilious and outside the mandate of the profession.

And let's not forget how hard newsman Mike Duffy lobbied prime ministers to give a senate appointment.

So right off the bat, we have an article carefully crafted to focus the blame of the Internet for all this "misinformation", while carefully dodging the fact that traditional news outlets were doing this and more all along. The author of this manipulative tripe fails to mention how news outlets crib from press releases, which may explain why they sullied the name of a murdered First Nations teenager with a headline; perhaps if she was a rich white girl whose parents had a PR firm dictating the headlines the Globe used, they would have never made that mistake.

What we have is a discredited industry shaking a finger at the industry who humbled them by taking away their advertising revenue because they did it better than the legacy outlets. There was nothing stopping the profession from doing that themselves -- once upon a time, their owners had a far more resources to make those investments than did the pioneers of social media. They could have bought and integrated that model within their own products, and then not meddle, but they never could do it right. AOL Time Warner Turner. News Corp. and MySpace. The old guard just could never get their act together and never listened.

The subject of this interview is the head of Google News, and it is instructive to read

in that it is not just banal and devoid of actual information, but it also illustrates how two rival media skirting around the actual issue: that neither side has ever done its due diligence or ever became qualified to verify information. The pull quote used the headline "Google is not the oracle of absolute truth" isn't damning: it has been the truth about new media and old media alike, and reminds me of this meme:


The Internet is under threat precisely the old relics in charge want people to come running back to them for more manipulation. The problem is their credibility had been destroyed -- and then made more galling with their uppity attitude. That kind of oblivious hubris-filled attitude stopped Hillary Clinton from becoming president because not everyone wants a self-absorbed and manipulative blowhard to tell them what to do.

It is a fight between warlords -- the old guard and the new guard. That is why there is so much fear-mongering in the news coverage -- media power has now sunk to a critical low, not bouncing back, and now it is all about survival. The problem is the old guard do not understand street fighting because they were never poor or forced to think in terms of making it through another day on their own wits alone.

The new guard had an easy ride until now because the old guard kept thinking the kids would tire of their selfies and coming crawling back to the powerbroker. It didn't happen, the rate of deterioration accelerated, and now it is a fight for survival with the old guard smearing the new with every story they churn.

The Internet will have a new battle, but whatever their fortunes, the traditional media isn't strong or cunning enough to reclaim what was lost two decades ago...

Tampa Bay Times soliciting citizen lobbyists.

Print is dead. Newspapers peddle in disposable news: important today; old news tomorrow. The Internet would be a natural fit for the format, but newspapers never kept up with the times -- either you structure yourself to the permanency of the medium of print, or you realize you are appealing to short-term memory and just make the permanent leap to the Internet.

Mind you, I think there is a future for print, but not the way it is being done now. Journalism articles in academia works well for that profession. I used to subscribe to the New England Journal of Medicine as an undergrad, and I kept most of those issues. I have all sort of academic journals in my collection, from Critical Review (where I had a journal article published) to others that deal with topics from music education to genocide.

But newspapers are in trouble, and the current threat to tariffs in print has gotten many in the industry running scared.

The Chairman and CEO of the Tampa Bay Times made a plea -- basically trying to rally readers as troops to lobby their government officials to demand something that benefits the newspaper.

The lines have been blurred as of late to the point those in the industry honestly believe they can use their vehicle to force both readers and politicians to bend to their will. It is inappropriate: the point of the newspaper is to provide facts; not try to get free lobbyists to save them from the destruction of their own making...

Journalism as advertorial: From tech news to hard news, it has all become advertising.

A couple of articles touching on the same theme in different ways. The Intercept has a solid article about 60 Minutes' softball interview with Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman with the author of the piece asking the hard question:

Launched on CBS in 1968, “60 Minutes” has been described as “one of the most esteemed news magazines on American television” and has won more Emmy awards than any other primetime U.S. TV show. It claims to offer “hard-hitting investigative reports, interviews, feature segments and profiles of people in the news.”

Got that? Award-winning. “Esteemed.” “Hard-hitting.”

So why did the segment on MBS resemble more of an infomercial for the Saudi regime than a serious or hard-hitting interview?

Because it was an infomercial -- or more accurately, an advertorial. It was a fuzzy bunny that added no real and hard facts. 60 Minutes has not been a hard-hitting program for a very long time. It may go after easy targets, but should the newsmaker be media savvy, it is a different ballgame.

But at least The Intercept was perceptive enough to see it, but not all outlets proclaiming to do journalism can. TechGenix was on the other side of the spectrum, with an article getting all huffy because people believe tech news is fake news:

The only way that I can think of to debunk this one is to talk about the way that tech journalism really works. Some of the major tech sites and publications do employ staff writers, but the vast majority of the tech journalists that I have met over the years are freelancers like myself. Although there are exceptions, freelancers are usually given a great deal of autonomy regarding the things that they write about. For example, nobody told me to write an article about fake tech news. I have a certain number of articles that I write each month, and the topics and content are up to me.

This isn’t to say that topics are never assigned. Sometimes they are. For example, I recently had someone ask me to write an article about Azure Active Directory. Once again though, the substance and the tone of the article was left up to me. No one told me to say that Azure Active Directory was the greatest thing ever to come out of Redmond, nor did anyone ask me to write a hit piece. It was up to me to decide what went into the article.

That isn't quite true. There are junkets. There is graft. You have a form of fake news in most tech stories -- but the form it takes is advertorial writing. It has always been too deferential to the industry.


It rarely asks hard questions -- usually after a scandal explodes, and one that should have been seen by journalists years ago.


That is the reason more people are now dismissing tech news as fake news -- they can sense the sunny spin and the positive coverage isn't journalism.

And they are right.

But it is easier to take the path of least resistance and be perky and positive than ask hard questions. Confrontation is tough. It is easy to do it on social media where your outrage is buried amid others as there is always safety in numbers. But when it comes to being the lone skeptic who sees it first, it is not the happiest of situations.

It is no excuse, however. It is not a profession to get a pat on the head and a lollipop. It is about finding truths in reality.

And that takes courage, something the profession has lacked to its own destruction.

Throwing temper tantrums is not being political. Ignoring reality is not being brave. Following old rules is not being prudent. Why the future of journalism is still dead.

Journalists were a desperate breed that turned into an extinct species. They are trying to spin their demise in any way they can, and while the have decided to blame Trump, Russia, and Social Media for their own self-destruction, they are trying to scheme and find a way to deny their death. Everything so far hasn't stuck.

Now, they are hoping a new generation will somehow resurrect them.

Memo to university students: fake news was in newsrooms first. It paved the way for other kinds of fake news, and the profession was as blind to reality as you are. The profession still doesn't see its own hand in its death, and is lamenting something that caused destruction in its wake. J-schools are not the place that will teach anything else but the same toxic mindset that professionally killed the previous generation of reporters.

You are doing the same thing, but expecting a different outcome. Worse, you are using their old playbook to willingly do the same thing without adding anything new.

We have a young generation of play-it-safe slacktivists with some serious logical fallacies and bad acting skills that are setting them up for a battering. When you grow up with Apps For That and A Self-Righteous Narrative For Everything to go along with that I Am More Special And Enlightened Than You, the mindset  is created (not their own fault) that prevents innovation, and then the qualities required to bring in a new form of journalism will be very hard to come by.

The current Gun Control debate is very depressing and disappointing to me. Nothing new is being created by young minds that seem indoctrinated by the very same structure created by generations before them. Tattoos do not wire your brain differently. A new generation should see what failed in the past and then do something different. Do not follow the Establishment's script, and then strut around as if you are original.

And with the griping about guns being the Bad Guys, that is exactly what we are seeing. Historically illiterate youth treating the rest of society as their servants, demanding that the rest of the world change for them.


The world is not your mom and dad who said the same things when they were your age.

The most troubling part of it all is that you have a generation numb to facts, but a little too eager to latch on to a narrative that does not actually align with reality, and then try to use sophistry and idea-shaming to prop it up.

Gun control is not going to do a thing because the problem is that you have violent youth. That's right: you have teenagers who seek to kill as many people as they can. As many before me have pointed out, we do not blame cars for drunk drivers who kill, and we certainly do not blame bombs when a terrorists strikes -- so what's up with blaming guns when it is the homicidal aggressors who are the ones who caused the problem in the first place?

If you get rid of every gun in the world, you will have the same number of people dying. With 3D printers, you can make your own gun. You have people who can make their own weapon without a 3D printer.

You have people in maximum security prisons who were caught with their own functional hand-made gun using a broken toothbrush, elastic, and a couple of other easy to obtain everyday object to make it.

If you are going to take up a cause, do research first -- and that means the kind of research that refutes your initial hypothesis.

If the answer was simple, it would have been done already.

You have a generation who have unfettered access to the Internet, and yet their arguments are more flawed than the previous generation's.

That's what is troubling, and should trouble anyone who believes in progress.

Why are we having marches and protests in 2018, for instance? The Occupy Movement brought no progressive change whatsoever.

Protests rarely do a thing. It is venting and a temper tantrum, and as someone who has been to more than my fair share of them -- sometimes marching every single day for weeks, not a single change ever came from marching in the streets.

And you cannot learn from the past? Do you honestly think you are that special?

It is a sign of being asleep at the wheel. I realized it one day, and then I decided to take a more active tract that took years, with far better results than a protest.

Protests happen because there was a breakdown and the side affected wasn't paying attention when it counted. Laws get passed, and then people think of marching in the streets.

You would think a new generation would have seen it, and got their wheels turning, but no.

It is the 60s all over again. That is regression, not progression.

Changes semi-happened when people got off their duffs and ran for office or lobbied politicians for change.

And even that went only so far.

You would think a new generation would have seen the ineffectiveness of the current political system, and its structure, would have come up with something else. 

But not a chance.

It is as bizarre of phenomenon as it is fascinating -- and disturbing.

For a Selfie Generation, there is no introspection or self-awareness. There is plenty of self-serving outrage and narcissism, but no substance, no innovation, and despite the hoopla, nothing to show for it, either.

You have a generation gunning itself down...and yet want the adults and government to clean up their messes in such a way that they do not have to confront their demons.

Why are you kids killing each other? Why are you slut-shaming and name-calling your own generation until they kill themselves?

Why haven't you come up with anything new? Why aren't you rebelling from both the Left and the Right? Why are you acting like royalty barking orders at your elder servants? What have you produced besides unimaginative YouTube stunts?

You have youth. You have resources. You have the most access to tools than any generation in the history of humanity...and you are throwing fits on Twitter?

You have no excuse for that garbage. Zero.

And you have already blown it.

What's wrong with you?

You have a generation with the same destructive mindset that killed journalism.

If you want change, you have to change first. 

And that means not pretending you are the victim, and not being the Fairy Princess who is without flaw, and yet is always getting in a scrape needing rescuing by someone else who does all the grunt work.

You have to come to grips with reality.

That you have domestic serial bombers who are going out of their way to prove they don't need guns to mow you down.

Or they can use a car, or have you children forgotten it already?

Perhaps you were not taught to look inwards, but others will look. You have protestors who think that no one will ever find out that they themselves have guns in their homes -- their parents, and those protesters.

Some power-hungry politicians and pandering wealthy celebrities talk about "resistance", and you are actually believing them?

Those are the people you need to resist against.

Left or Right are just two choices of infinite choices.

Make a new alternative. That is your absolute obligation to the world.

Or didn't you get the memo? Did you think all of us were put on this earth to be your indentured servants?

Not a chance.

And the dead profession of journalism is coming out to exploit you...universities taking your money that you will never see as you drown in debt, and there is no job waiting for you when you graduate.

That is your plan? To blindly go into a dead profession by following all of their rules?

When I was young, I was not like the rest of my generation. When everyone was following scripts that I saw were bringing dwindling returns, I decided to forge a new path.

All by myself. No compass. No roadmap.

And I called what I did Method Research: learning about a institution's weaknesses by forming experiments, and working in it as an experimenter.

My findings became my books.

I rejected the previous generation's decrees. I rejected my own generation's ennui and blindly following an eroding path.

And now I find myself rebelling against a new generation who are doing the exact same thing that failed my generation, only with more arrogance and ignorance.

When I was your age, I took on the world. I stood up to it, but never expected the world to bow to me, just as I refused to bow to it. I took advice from those who knew more than I did and had the experience I lacked, but I would always weave it with everything else to create something new as I turned over every rule to break it.

In other words, I practice what I preach.

I have no regrets because I stood up to tyranny as I offered my own vision of a better world, meaning I created something to give to others.


No one owes you. There isn't a Life App. There isn't a hack. There is no They or Prince Charming to save you, children. If you want a different world, shut up, stop nagging, and go make it without your helicopter parents fighting your battles for you.

Pioneering generations make new worlds from the ashes of the old. The world before you did what it needed and wanted to suit its own purposes.

If that doesn't please you, too bad. Deal with it.

It's your turn to show what you've got.

Sadly, with that turn, right off the bat, you've already decided to learn nothing from the past as if it were beneath you, making you a re-run, a re-make, a re-hash.

And we already know what happened to your ilk in the profession of journalism.

You want to confront the fake? First figure out what's real.

Not virtual. Not narrative. Not spin. Not propaganda. Not fantasy. Not hubris.

It's why I still fight every day to create something new, without making the same mistakes that sank many an unhappy and ill-fated ship before me...

The Zombie Attack on Social Media: How journalism is trying to wrest control away from social media in an Age of Propaganda.

The first edition of Ben Bagdikian's book The Media Monopoly is an interesting read, as are the updated editions over the years:

Take your pick.

Once upon a time media critics were sounding the alarm that traditional media had a stranglehold on the information flow.

Journalism shrugged it off as if it were unimportant.

It was very important, not just to society, but to the survival of the profession itself. If it is a giant monolith, there will be no deviation in thought or methods, making it easy for it to be toppled should a new competitor come on the scene.

The deceptive narrative of "Big Tech" glosses over one giant point:

That once upon a time, it was the Goliath of Big Media that met a David -- a small, young upstart called Social Media.

And David wiped the floor with Goliath, freeing people and giving them a platform to broadcast their own thoughts and experiences to the world without the tyranny of Goliath to meddle in their message with manipulative narrative, or preventing that message from ever coming out in the first place.

Journalism was defeated. It is a dead profession, and they went straight into the bowels of Hell.

Now those angry demons are trying to haunt social media from beyond. It is the punishment for destroying the power of having a monopoly.

You have newspapers such as The Seattle Times trying to regain control of that power by trying to get the government to stop "Big Tech" by using their outlet to push their agenda.

Newspapers are not reporting. They are advocating against a rival, They are not some objective party.

With a glaring confirmation bias: when traditional media had the stranglehold on information, they did not demand the government go "trust-busting."

How very interesting.

Journalism is not the place to settle scores with rivals.

It is not the place to lobby the government to go after your rivals.

That is not an opinion piece. That is an open letter to get your own way.

But traditional media owners bungled their own fortunes, and now are trying to take social media down in any way they can.

It is war on "Big Tech" and it is a war they have already lost. The old guard who grabbed power by equally deceptive means are the pots calling the kettles black.

Governments are threatened by Big Tech. Old Media are threatened by Big Tech.

Big Tech is a power, and now the trick is for those who wish to continue their stranglehold to malign Big Tech just enough to try to regain control.

It won't work, however because the argument that an electric car is bad so you should just go back to a horse and buggy doesn't fly.

If someone wrests control away from Big Tech, it is not going to be the old guard who grabs it. It will be an entity who is more modern, has none of the stench of past sins, and has something better to offer.

People are not going to go back to their first spouse if the second spouse disappoints them. They may very well dump Spouse #2...but will look for younger, better-looking, and happier Spouse #3 instead.

But the attacks are coming in the highly deceptive manner -- linking old media's three enemies: Donald Trump, Russia, and Big Tech together to create a fake Jabberwocky.

And you can find the latest attempt here, here, here, and here.

Big Tech's problem is that the players are doing the exact same things old media did -- things that spelled their fall from power. Is Big Tech too powerful? Yes, but once upon a time, so was traditional media. The power went to their heads and they checked their morality at the front door.

Traditional media has still not been made accountable for all their sins -- from lying to misusing their platforms to push their own agendas.

If Big Tech were smart, they have damning and embarrassing information about Old Media, and they should expose it all: the fake social media followers is the least of it. From the real numbers of clicks to the vile email exchanges to plagiarism to the out-and-out sleight of hand fraudulent practices, Big Tech could be of service to expose facts that could create the greats exposé of the decade. Big Tech is playing way too nice and fair to the old guard, and have the means and tools to show which entity is the more untrustworthy. Leak out the electronic conversations between reporters and PR firms. Take a page out of WikiLeaks' playbook.

It would certainly bring a new perspective to this current rancid zombie attack...

How irrelevant are j-schools now? No one can think of anything better for them to do than provide anti-overdose training. Yes, j-schools are done.

This pathetic article on Al Jazeera's website explains precisely why j-schools failed the profession:

US journalism students should undergo anti-overdose training

The article morally masturbates in public, praising anti-overdose training so that reporters can enable illness in people with substance abuse disorders...

Instead of finding out facts that society needs to confront their demons.

J-schools are not the place for EMS-style training. If you want to know how to do it, there are places that offer those workshops. I have taken life-saving training through St. John's Ambulance, for instance. J-schools were supposed to be the place where you learned how to dig for facts.

You want to play hero, children, put on a cape and cowl and go run outside in your backyard, making laser noises.

If you want to be an adult, grow up, become literate enough to read the job description, then get those necessary skills to do it.

This thinking is self-absorbed lunacy and arrogant laziness disguised as compassion.

Not once in this article does either author consider why there is an opioid epidemic in the first place.

Because we had journalists sit there and do nothing of value for public service. They were too busy covering hot dog eating contests, celebrity gossip, and cribbing from press releases.

They were too good to cover local news, such as what is happening in school halls. That's where the troubles began.

There is a difference between Are your children safe at school? versus Are you safe at school?

And now journalists are so unwilling to change their core, they are trying to think up ways to pretend to be useful to society without having to do what is needed to rebuild.

Well, we refuse to do real work, cover reality, or write about facts; but keep us around because we'll bring you back from the dead if you do too much drugs, okay?

How the mighty have fallen face first into a pile of horse dung. No wonder their logic stinks.

It is not the addicts who needed an intervention. It was the journalists.

J-schools are dead. And there is no anti-overdone drug that will save those oblivious sots from the mendacity of their own worthless sophistry.

Memo to journalists looking for government help: The Establishment is not your friend.

Jan Kuciak was one of the few journalists who decided to be what a journalist was supposed to be: the one who exposed corruption, looking at the elites and how their shell games and corrupt ways were making them rich at the everyone else's expense. The 27 year-old Slovak was murdered for his troubles along with his fiancee, and the protests and fallout has now forced the country's Prime Minister to resign. It should be noted those under Kuciak's radar had connections to that's regime.

In Canada, Radio-Canada reporter Antoine Trepanier was doing a story on a person who was in charge of an organization, but whose past includes passing herself as a lawyer. She complained to police that she felt threatened by the reporter...and on her say-so alone, the police chose to arrest him for harassment, which I find extremely interesting at Quebec police have had a questionable history when it came to First Nations women.

In Canada, people in the industry keep begging the government for help. Why? Authorities are not your friends. You are supposed to be the thorn in their flesh day in, and day out.

It is extremely tempting to just let go and give in, but when there is complacency, institutions can destroy the lives you dare stand up to them. A strong press was supposed to be the checks and balances to prevent tyrants from doing those things to people.

But it didn't happen. Punches were pulled by the majority, endangering the minority who understood the importance of being a soldier in that intangible war, and then costing the profession the whole.

Memo to Melanie Joly: No, Internet companies are not responsible for paying for any kind of journalism. When the communications industry get over themselves and make changes, they will connect to audiences all by themselves.

The passivity of Canadian journalists and even the federal government is truly disheartening. Melanie Joly is Canada's Minister of Canadian Heritage and she is meddling by making a silly decree that Internet companies ought to be supporting local news.

Oh, please, enough with the Sugar Daddy business model.

Once upon a time, we had only print. That's it. No one "supported" newspapers. Those who manufactured printing presses and the paper didn't "support" the news. That was not socially engineered. It is akin to forcing construction companies to pay the mortgages of people who want to live in those dwellings.

Sooner or later, you have to cut the umbilical cord and you have to create a product that people will pay for to get.

The Internet companies already made it easy for people and companies to disseminate news. That made it extremely easy. WordPress makes it simple for me to write my observations and findings. They did their jobs.

I can use a variety of other platforms to promote or discuss it, and I have far fewer resources than other traditional media outlets.

The problem with journalism is the unfounded sense of importance, entitlement, and infallibility. It is their own bad attitudes and unwillingness to make the fundamental changes they needed to in order to connect to audiences. They mistook the perks of having a monopoly with being clever or even necessary.

They had rigs that propped them up. They never had the savvy to see that those rigs enabled the bad habits that would do them in once those structural rigs were removed.

And the Internet took away those  unfair rigs. They did not prevent journalism from finding new ways to do the core job of informing people. They never stood in the way.

It is the fault of the profession for not being humble and realistic enough to see what happened, make changes, and then move on.

The profession honestly wants to be paid for not changing with the times. If you cannot keep up with the times, you are in no position to chronicle those times because you do not see the obvious.

And the Canadian government should stop meddling with their stupid ideas that have no basis in reality.

And then start dealing with reality themselves.

And that reality is the communications industry are the architects of their own demise.

Now get out the way and let those who do not need to propped up to do what needs to be done to create something new that is in tune with the world and doesn't try to keep the old confines in place.

Delusional advertising as journalism: And the profession wonders why it imploded. Get over yourselves first.

I have had people ask me why Canadian journalism imploded first, to which I always say of all the hubris choking the profession, the worst offenders are Canadians who mistake self-congratulation with actual journalism. That humble modest trope that stereotypes Canadians is no where to be found among their journalists. Take two examples, for instance.

This article headline says it all:

The journalism landscape is looking a lot like Mordor right now, but there are no shortage of heroes trying to save it

Heroes trying to save it. Heroes. That is a lofty assessment of oneself. And saving journalism, meaning keeping the status quo so there is no need to critically look at what the profession has been doing wrong to find themselves in this quagmire in the first place.

Fake news is not to blame.

Big Tech is not to blame.

Russia is not to blame.

Donald Trump is not to blame.

Journalists messed up their own profession because they were too busy being in love with themselves to see that they were not doing their jobs. They had fantasies fuelled by the movie All the President's Men.

There is no consideration that their methods and techniques are antiquated. There is no drive to improve, evolve, or progress. Just do it the same way in a changing world, and then expect your fortunes to magically transform. Life does not work that way.

The profession did not need "saving". It needed a revolution.

Now it is too late. It's dead.

So stop writing ad copy and then pretend it is a news story.

You would think j-school students would see what is happening, and be revolutionaries -- rebelling against the status quo.

Not a chance.

The Manitoban has student journalists mindlessly parroting the elders who destroyed their castle:

There are important stories in the newspaper you are reading right now.

Flip or scroll to the news, sports, or arts sections of this paper and you will find articles on peoples’ passions, triumphs, pitfalls, and tribulations.

No, it's not. There is no experimentation. There is no innovation. It is rote mimicry of something that clearly doesn't work.

And you have students also mistaking a news outlet as a legitimate forum of lecturing readers with ad copy how wonderful and essential they are.

There is no free will, or critical independent thought. There are no rebels or visionaries.

There are just mindless followers who keep parroting the same mantra, hoping their cheering will infect the populace who will believe them.

That's not news. That's narcissism.

The public now has the means to bypass you. They have been bypassing you for two decades now. Social media is no longer a new kid. It's your conqueror.

There is no saving journalism.

There is only creating something superior to replace it.

How j-schools miss the mark. You have to tell your students the truth about the truth of journalism.

A couple of university-based student newspaper article show that j-school students are not being prepared for the reality of the present situation of a dead profession, let alone the future. We have one article about a speech, and it is interesting that the speaker had this to say:

[T]he shift will give new power to the future journalists, though it may take some time for them to establish themselves.

“I can’t imagine there is a single model that will work. I’m sure a number of approaches will be employed to appeal to customers. The most important thing will be for reporters to go after stories that are fresh, different, relevant and interesting,” she said.

“The days of presenting yesterday’s news are over now that we are shifting to the immediacy of the digital world. I think people are slowly realizing journalism doesn’t come for free and that quality journalism is something they have to pay for.”

This is again the jilted first-wife logical fallacy: sooner or later, people will come back. There is no consideration that the profession alienated the public who had an alternative and flocked to it instead.

And the "shifting" to the Internet? That happened twenty years ago. We have an entire generation of adults who grew up with the Internet.

Yet the press still talks as if this was just happening within the last couple of years.

And people are not paying for journalism. Journalists are losing their jobs in droves. This isn't the first time media outlets tried a pay-per-view model. What we are seeing is something else: the abandonment of journalism. You cannot have Newsweek having its own internal turmoil, a raid on its offices, and then making colossal errors in their new stories, and then think people are going to believe the press. You have a crisis that has led to an implosion, and yet you would never know it from this speech.

The second article is about a recent CJR Fear and Pity Tour entitled “Journalism under Trumpism”. The headline itself is very telling of who is going to get the label of villain. Instead of looking inward on how to reinvent a collapsed profession, it is going to be how readers should absolutely go back to journalism outlets because they will be helpless in the onslaught of Trumpism.

The speakers concede that, yes, there were declines before Trump, but they do not look too deeply at them. This panelist's comments are interesting:

"So that goes back to how do we gain the trust and how do we fix the business model? And there isn’t an easy answer.” She, however, emphasized transparency as a possible method to win back people’s trust. “When you look at why the media has lost trust, [in North America], people think that they [the media] have hidden biases and agendas,” she said, “So if you’re upfront with your agenda then at least you’ve gotten rid of part of that lack of trust.”

There is no attempt to question one's own perceptions of reality. There is no question on whether our own habits and confines that we take for granted harmed the profession. "Well, I am biased, deal with it," is not journalism. It is partisan propaganda, and the profession already went through it, and then abandoned it precisely because you cannot gain trust when you do not empathize or have the emotional literacy to look at the big picture as you empirically gain facts.

When I worked as a journalist, I would map out a story. I would see who were the players and issues, and then research on similar cases. I would then research on individuals. I would then speak to experts and many of them with different perspectives. What I am looking at? A lot of times, someone would tell me things that that there was no way I could consider because I didn't have the background to be able to do it.

For example, I wrote an article on "cyber crime" and I had the opportunity to interview a profession who used to be a police officer. His perspective was absolutely unique. So I interviewed him, and he gave me food for thought: very rarely do we call a crime based on the weapon of choice. Cyber crime is such a case, but we don't talk about "hammer" crime. He did point out that when cars were first used as getaway vehicles, the term "autobanditry" was used.

Another expert on the same story had a unique job of analyzing technology used in such crimes, such as doctored ATM machines. Still another explained that many doctors and lawyers were victims of phishing scams, particularly if their loved one had cancer, and they were desperate. A prosecutor explained how difficult these crimes were to prosecute because you needed warrants for every country an illegal email, for instance, went through.

SoI would interview people affected by the issue I was writing about. There are multiple filters, and multiple processes. Sometimes, when it is breaking news, the process is reversed, but at no time do I impose biases on the matter because I am there to inform.

If I were to, for example, discuss how First Nations murder victims are treated in the courts, I would start looking at the two most obvious and recent cases. I'd read the court transcripts. Then I would look at other, previous cases, and see where that takes me.

Then I would look at cases that never went to trial.

I would interview experts on it, but not just legal experts or Aboriginal activists and scholars. I would make certain to find other areas where there are vulnerabilities, and see how those systems work. What are the rigs? What is the gold standard?

Then I would compare how First Nations murder victims compare to white, black, and other groups. I would compare based on gender, age, geographical location within the same group.

You start talking to lawyers. You start finding patterns. Is it outright racism? Is it an outdated system? Is it more than one variable? Is this the same old problem, is it bad, but nowhere near the past -- or is this absolutely an implosion and decline of the worst sort?

My white woman-ness is not a factor if I am doing information-gathering right because you have a list of questions. You allow everyone you interview to talk for as long as they wish. I rarely guided interviews because people had a lot to tell me. I was always patient. I always asked if there was anything I missed, I asked if there were misconceptions, things people needed to know, but never seemed to, and the like.

In other words, I would basically direct my interviewees to tell me where I am stupid.

Believe me, people did tell me, albeit always very graciously. I never pretend to know more than the person I was interviewing. I never had a narrative going in. I always always surprised at the outcome once I had my data in.

I didn't speak for other people: I let them speak for themselves. I also let the facts speak for themselves. I never had someone complain that I twisted their words and intent, and very often, interview subjects would drop me a line to thank me for letting them say what they needed to say without spin or misinterpretation.

I wasn't a stenographer; however, but I wasn't a propagandist, either. I presented the reality and the truth. I did not tell readers how to think. They didn't have to agree with the interviewees -- nor did they have to disagree with them, either. I hunted. I gathered. I showed what my haul was. I had respect for readers not to impose a point of view on them as I gave them many different voices and facts to ponder.

I built layers in my articles. That people have different points of view is reality, and my stories reflected on it. I wasn't telling people how to think or who to cheer. I went looking for hard to find information. I went digging in old archives, and grumbled having to pay for court transcripts that I had to drive for miles to get. I read academic studies as I vetted experts. I gathered every article I could find on a topic to see what was already covered, and what still needed to be said.

When I wrote, I was the student. When my article was published, I was the teacher.

J-school students do not get any sort of guidance to how bad the industry has collapsed. They are in some time hole where it is still 1995.

I was a j-school student in 1995. Times have changed radically since then.

But somehow, the profession's education has been left behind, and it has been giving students a very wrong idea of what they need to do once they graduate.

They need to understand there is no profession. A new one has to be built from scratch.

And there are in way prepared to create it..

Memo to Longreads: The Internet is forever because it forever turned memories into steam. How journalists have become a zombie army for Captain Obvious.

Longreads has always been arrogant sophistry for dummies. b_723DCE_400x400

And it takes a special kind of stupid to churn our its babbling dreck.

The article The Internet isn't forever is a classic case of Captain Obvious dreck that still gets it completely and hopelessly wrong.

That the Internet has led to the erosion of databases and archives of previous articles as well erode the actual product in various other forms is something I have discussed before here, here, here, here, and here.

But the author of this rambling and forgettable lecture misses the bigger point: that yes, the Internet is forever because it forever changed our habits, expectations, limitations, thoughts, and wants.

It finally wrest control of information flow out of the hands of the traditionalists whose hubris was always out of control. It made their lording over public opinion a thing of the past. It ensured their vindictiveness was challenged, their lies exposed, and their shortcomings become glaring.

But it came at a price: it erased the collective long-term memory.

That newspaper archives have vanished is something I have discussed before, with more facts, and with far more brevity. The bottom line is publications cannot afford to retain their old databases, and libraries also aren't able to keep on to the past.

But there is a reason for that: people do not want to explore the past. They live in the now.

No respect to the past which is our reference, and no thought about the future which is our reward.

That gives them a present with no purpose.

Journalism failed to deliver. The end. That is no one's fault but journalists (editors, publishers, owners, and other news producers). You need focus and discipline for things other than feeding your own ego. Publications such as Longreads contribute to that intellectual cancer by making a short story long. It is not about impressing your mom and dad with your prattling sophistry and not knowing when to quit.

People have different priorities, options, and thinking patterns. That is the Internet's legacy, and now you have to deal with it.

Journalism is a concept whose time has come and gone. We need alternatives.

And for the record, radio and television always had that fleeting nature, and their databases were always harder to come by -- and yet we never had whiny, writhing babble-fests about that.

But that takes thinking, which is something Longreads has never managed to get the hang of, anyway.

Because if they could scrape together two thoughts amid their mountain of verbiage, they'd see that journalism greatly primed audiences for those shorter attention spans. Television started it. Newspapers and magazines jumped on the bandwagon, with USA Today making it their selling point. It is cheaper to offer opinion and easy-to-find facts. Journalists became a zombie army for Captain Obvious: finding easy information, and then writing cringeworthy narratives to prop up some ill-informed opinion.

The Internet took over from there and mass produced that tiny attention-span, and the shorter the attention span, the less likely you want to waste time combing through archives to read even more from the past.

The world went on without journalism, and yet it is that profession that still hasn't gotten the memo on their redundancy yet.

Has journalism become a crime? Many times, it has been hate speech that cost people their lives and freedoms: the rot that has yet to be addressed.

Al Jazeera has an interesting article with the title Journalism is not a crime. unnamed-2

In this case, they are talking about the detention of their journalist Mahmoud Hussein in Egypt, and though I do not believe his journalism is a crime, the headline posed a very interesting dilemma.

Is journalism ever a crime?

Often, it is.

We have had hate speech disguised as journalism with racist, sexist, and homophobic assumptions presented as news.

It has caused deaths of innocents, and many reporters should have been dragged to The Hague for war crimes, such as creating and disseminating propaganda that prolonged conflicts as it incited people with false stories of barbarity.

It propped grifters into titans of industry. People got jobs with companies they thought were safe because journalists told them they were, such as in the cases of Enron.

Innocent people were wrongly convicted.

We had people, such as the late Richard Jewell be seen as terrorists based on a press deciding he was guilty without a shred of proof.

Lives have been ruined. People have been harmed.

It is not as if journalists didn't help others. Many did, in a different time and place, and it was thanks to exposing those toxic collectives and individuals, that much of society was helped.

But there were always the others: the ones who openly lied, or ran with propaganda in their stories, that often nullified the good others in the profession once did.

Journalism should have stopped those toxic elements from corrupting the product. Journalism was once a noble profession that changed lives and exposed the corrupt.

But it never took on those who undid all those games with their own devious or credulous actions.

When journalism turns into a weapon, it becomes a crime. Al Jazeera may wish to look at the entire profession to ensure the Mahmoud Husseins don't end up suffering because of the ones who think of nothing of spreading lies and rumours in their quest for power, glory, and control.