The Chaser Solution: Chapter Two: This is a Picture Book, not it doesn't belong to the devil, but the Alchemist.

I

20181225_133937.jpg

II

DM8FnHmXUAA8lfY.jpg

III

xr79UbBcqnv.jpg

IV

48406869_1054500974735555_5594631988976812032_n.png.jpg

V

4YiWJKaUuBMCbbUtoXQKWA_r.jpg

VI

ello-optimized-f28cf9b2.jpg

VII

VIII

That newsletter is significant for many reasons.

I tracked it down when I was a university student. 60 Minutes tried, and couldn’t, but I managed to get it after speaking with the editor Joseph de Courcy, and I bet most of you have no idea about him or his family’s amazing history. I had the honour of talking to him, and in all that rotten business during the Civil War in Yugoslavia, that conversation was a welcome high point that I wouldn’t trade for anything.

I still have that newsletter. I learned there were publications — small quiet ones, with a tiny, but critical audience, that brokered in real information. As in, stuff spies, diplomats, and other powerful and intrepid people read.

That was one of the countless sources that I used in my last book. A source used by the likes of the CIA and MI6.

And I could track it down before veteran reporters. It wasn’t a lucky break or a case of beginner’s luck.

When this venture relaunches, I am saying right now for the record, this is not going to be fake news or propaganda for sheeple.

It will be simple and elegant and balance opposites: it will have the latent flourishes of Art Nouveau, but with a Minimalist sensibility.

This isn’t going to be telling you about good news or happy news.

It will give you facts. Turn those cards around to navigate through the world. Take something bad and, like the alchemist, turn it into something golden.

Chaser will be a picture book of sorts, but not the Devil’s Picture Book. You will get your reading of the cards, but divination here is not divine. It is reality. It is truth.

It is…

Chaser.png

The Chaser Dilemma, Part Seven: The Live Out Loud Era only want Happy Advertising for themselves. It is time to bring in reality.

I

II

If modern Western journalism made a tactical error, it was fellating Titans of Industry and celebrities as if that was news. It’s just advertising that made people’s egos look for publicity and then be control freaks who throw tantrums when it doesn’t drool all over them.

CBS’s Les Moonves and Jeff Fager want to sue because all their ugly shit is on display, and both men are used to fawning coverage for themselves, and even their accusers want to sue because they didn’t want people to know.

You work in a public job, them’s the breaks, especially if you mug for cameras when they want to fawn over you.

And that was never supposed to be the job of journalism.

Enabling delusions of grandeur was a way to pander to the egotistical Middle Class who shit their pants whenever someone challenges them and then “get offended.”

You are? Good, fuck you, asshole.

You want me to be impressed with your shoes you bought at Winners?

I am more interested in real things, thank you very much.

People want to Live Out Loud, but only the good stuff. For the bad, they want to Hide In Silence.

We have a very bad relationship with reality. We have media reports on a real tragedy, but then a focus on the wrong things.

People want to hide things from others and themselves. They don’t want to have to fix and clean their own messes, or deal with problems or admit flaw. People will overcompensate, muddying the waters, but we either have a press that presents people as doing no wrong or doing no right, and there is a problem with that.

Journalism is not there to be insensitive. It is not there to put a positive spin. It is not there to put a negative spin.

It is there to tell you facts.

It is not there to reassure the Middle Class. It is not there to be politically correct. It is not there for social engineering purposes. It is not there for free advertising. It is not there to persuade.

It is there to give you relevant information so you know where is the troubles, how bad they are, and what is happening until the troubles are dealt with.

The focus should be on the problem. If you have a police force not doing their mandated job, that is the problem. Who is causing it? What problems? How severe are they? When did these problems begin? Where was the breakdowns? Why did they go unnoticed?

That’s fact.

That’s news.

That’s information.

It doesn’t matter if you want positive publicity and are miffed that you are bring exposed for doing shitty things. Who cares? Perhaps I want to be The Queen, but that’s really not worthy of someone doing a news story about how I should be Official Queen of Some Region Willing To Have Alexandra Kitty as Their Beloved Queen. (And don’t ask even in jest: the answer is no. People love their leaders until the first bump, and then they want to destroy them. Fuck those collective mood swings. I’d rather play there theremin to no one in particular).

Journalism never learned to be empirically objective to the point where what they disseminate isn’t seen as a potential place to shill. You don’t talk about Great Men. You don’t condemn people nor commend them.

1_KmJbC8bdTxvCSQdyxGtxaA.jpeg

Like Ikea instructions. No commentary, just how do I put the fucking pressed wood together. It is not the ephemera to reassure you that your political beliefs are correct or that your little precious princess can carry a tune.

We wouldn’t be having lawsuits in the first place: is this a fact? Is it important? Yes? Deal with it. It is not about your ego.

Chaser won’t be about telling you how to think, but how do you go about doing that?

That’s something I do think about very carefully, and I will come up with my prototype soon enough…

If 60 Minutes was always a toxic place to work, then how credible was it?

60 Minutes is getting rapped on the knuckles for what that little clique tolerated and fostered over the decades.

After how many decades?

It was a Good Old Boys club, and its original leader Don Hewitt had abused a female underling, ruining her career, and the network has had to pay her millions.

Who watched these watchmen?

No one, apparently.

It does not surprise me. I recall Spy magazine making mention of it, but as usual, no one else picked it up.

I am not surprised by this report one bit. The press is quick to praise itself and paint themselves as martyr knights, but don’t buy the hype…

Starting over in a Post-Journalism World, Part Twenty-Four.

Façades and empty gestures are rife in public life. If it is a choice between a plain box with the solution to a problem or an empty box with an ego-stroking and colourful façade, there would be a bigger line-up for the empty box than the quiet one that had substance without the flash.

CBS’s fictional show Murphy Brown is back and it is a preachy monologue about journalism, an irony as the its mother network has booted out three of their male titans for very bad behaviour, and now are rudderless with their Great Men façade.

60 Minutes is still being touted as hard investigative journalism, when it has mostly been advertorials for books, tycoons, celebrities, and Ivy League schools. That’s not investigative journalism.

What it had was the façade of investigative journalism. The ratio of filler to actual stories was bigger than what was being presented in their own hype.

Just tell the little people just how important you are, and the rubes will parrot you.

But not everyone is a rube.

Not everyone buys the veneer of gravitas. If they did, the Three Kings over at CBS would still be employed.

There are those in journalism who knew how to employ stratagems — feints and ruses — in order to seem more important than they actually were.

It had nothing to do with the substance of information gathering.

The alternative looks at what is inside the box, and deconstructs the box itself.

Not just in covering events, but ensuring its own profession doesn’t become all hype and no substance in the bargain…

CBS: Just how out of touch are they? Just look at their board of directors...and it goes downhill from there.

The New York Times has a pair of articles about the termination of two of their previous golden boys Les Moonves and Jeff Fager.

There is a certain tone deafness to the article on Moonves, and what kind of board of directors are there. If CBS is supposed to deliver news, those aren’t the kinds of directors you ought to have on your board, and it explains a lot about how the trouble came to be in the first place:

One director, Joseph A. Califano Jr., a former cabinet secretary under President Jimmy Carter, was especially vocal, insisting that Mr. Moonves be suspended or terminated immediately for cause.

No separation between media church and state, kids. Election coverage may not be all that balanced, but there is another mentioned in the article:

“We are going to stay in this meeting until midnight if we need to until we get an agreement that we stand 100 percent behind our C.E.O., and there will be no change in his status,” said one board member, William Cohen, a former congressman and senator who was defense secretary under President Bill Clinton, according to directors who heard the remarks and other people who were briefed on them.

Yay, Bill Clinton’s crony! And he supported a man accused of workplace sexual harassment!

But really, how objective can CBS be in reporting on that era’s war-mongering? Not at all, but the sexism doesn’t end with just those from the government realm being on the board:

Another director, Arnold Kopelson, an 83-year-old producer who won a Best Picture Oscar for “Platoon,” was even stronger in his defense of Mr. Moonves, the directors and others said. “I don’t care if 30 more women come forward and allege this kind of stuff,” Mr. Kopelson said in a meeting soon after the conference call. “Les is our leader and it wouldn’t change my opinion of him.”

The word of one man is more credible than of thirty women? Well, that tells you we cannot expect balance reporting on an entire gender. Bravo, CBS!

This is five hundred ways wrong, and explains a lot about why US broadcasting’s coverage of hard news is so very skewed.

But the effect moves down the food chain.

In fact, the obliviousness of 60 Minutes staff is truly one for the books:

“I think it’s a terrible day for CBS News,” Sharyn Alfonsi, a “60 Minutes” correspondent, said in an interview before the specific contents of Mr. Fager’s text message were known. “I think it is awful. I don’t understand how you get fired over a text message.”

You don’t understand as a journalist what can be said in a text? And you’re a correspondent for 60 Minutes?

Sheesh.

But it gets worse:

By Wednesday afternoon, before the “Evening News” report aired, more than 60 members of the “60 Minutes” staff — including the building’s security guard — had joined Mr. Fager for drinks at P. J. Clarke’s by Lincoln Center, the show’s regular haunt.

People were teary-eyed as they showered Mr. Fager with praise and hugs. Several said they were concerned that “60 Minutes” could be dismantled under new leadership.

“Jeff Fager is a wonderful boss,” Mr. Whitaker said, looking somber on a bar stool. “So much of the magic of ‘60 Minutes’ is because of him. He treats his staff as adults. He trusts his people.”

Yes, because screw how he may have treated other people. It’s all about your backsides.

Just because someone is nice to you, doesn’t mean they are nice toward everyone.

As a journalist, you always have to agonize and keep looking at different angles. An actor can be great to his fans and abusive to his underlings.

And is that all it takes to shut off critical thinking skills? How sad.

When coverage is carried out by those who do not see the rot in their own backyards, there is no actual news. It is just make pretend and those playing are out of touch with the real world.

These pair of scandals have decimated the crown jewel of broadcast news permanently. If 60 Minutes is this dysfunctionally blind to their own work environments, they are a sham.

And it is the reason the world needs to try again in how they get informed...

Be careful how you parse your denials: how people in journalism still do not get this whole technology thing.

Jeff Fager tried to downplay his ouster:

The company…terminated my contract early because I sent a text message to one of our own CBS reporters demanding that she be fair in covering the story. My language was harsh and, despite the fact that journalists receive harsh demands for fairness all the time, CBS did not like it. One such note should not result in termination after 36 years, but it did.

Well, CBS News has released the content of the text he sent:

[Fager] sent a text message to CBS News correspondent Jericka Duncan with a warning over the network's coverage of the sexual harassment accusations against him. 

On Sunday, Duncan reached out to Fager for his response to allegations in The New Yorker that he had groped or touched CBS employees at company parties.

"If you repeat these false accusations without any of your own reporting to back them up you will be held responsible for harming me," Fager replied. "Be careful. There are people who lost their jobs trying to harm me and if you pass on these damaging claims without your own reporting to back them up that will become a serious problem."

Wow, there were people who lost their jobs trying to harm him.

That is a very serious threat to make to a coworker who is doing a story on you. Not just “harsh,” but life-altering.

I have heard similar threats when I worked on stories. This is the way people try to shut down the truth from coming out.

CBS was painted as tyrants for kicking him out over some silly little text, and they merely put out that very text.

See? Technology. It gives tangible evidence. I still have all the voice mails 60 Minutes left on my answering machine in late 1993 and 1994.

The move is worse now because we now have a credibility problem: that denials will not be believed, and that a network could allow that kind of behaviour go on unchallenged.

And 60 Minutes is hit the worst of all: for all those decades they were the moral ones who stood up to people who made those kind of threats…and they were playing the same games all along...

60 Minutes' Chief Jeff Fager is out...

If Les Moonves was ousted, Jeff Fager was not far behind.

I had dealings with Mr. Fager way back in 1994 when he was still a producer for 60 Minutes, and I have recounted our exchanges elsewhere, but suffice to say, I was not pleased with the interaction, and being called “curt” for not saying “thank you” to him enthusiastically enough.

His version of his ouster was this:

The company…terminated my contract early because I sent a text message to one of our own CBS reporters demanding that she be fair in covering the story. My language was harsh and, despite the fact that journalists receive harsh demands for fairness all the time, CBS did not like it. One such note should not result in termination after 36 years, but it did.

CBS is not quite confirming that account that they fired him for being curt:

This action today is not directly related to the allegations surfaced in press reports, which continue to be investigated independently. However, he violated company policy and it is our commitment to uphold those policies at every level.

Meaning he is not actually absolved of the other allegations, but given that at this stage of the investigation there would already be things confirmed and uncovered, it was enough to rid themselves of him. I doubt the text on its own would have resulted in an ouster under normal circumstances. It would be enough if something else is emerging.

This is a huge blow for 60 Minutes. When your brass is being removed for bad behaviour, your tut-tutting sounds false.

This turn doesn’t surprise me. Broadcast journalism is a toxic beast, and this ouster is not the end of the story — it is only after the investigation is completed that a fuller picture will emerge…

Sure, he is a creep, but he's OUR creep: justifying rot, journalism and entertainment-style.

When #MeToo struck, it hit mostly entertainment and journalism, two very sexist industries, and they are no less sexist today as they were prior to the movement.

Nothing has changed, except a lot of creepy old relics got kicked to the curb so that younger and cheaper employees could fill their slots.

Journalists in particular have been seething over #MeToo as it is an industry that never admits to being at fault, wrong, flawed, or deficient in any way.

And here is something that has been going on for almost a year. 

We are seeing a shift in how bad boys are being portrayed in the press.

James Gunn's old tweets revealing his creepy side hit the fan boys particularly hard because he was directing Marvel movies for Disney, and that's a cushy job to have.

But superhero movies are soulless, by the numbers, and CGI intense. They are predictable with the same kind of music, special effects, and plots. 

There is no actual talent to them. They are run by committee. Looking at a single superhero movie's credits, you feel as if they just took an old telephone book, ripped out all the pages, and just filmed that because no one would notice who was who (considering I used to know who was who, I know it can be done).

So, we have people who are fired from jobs every day. James Gunn puked sick junk on Twitter a decade ago, Disney didn't need the headache, cut him loose, and could keep the machine running with a cheaper replacement because these are disposable movies with franchise and merchandising outgrowth.

Just tell the little people what they want to hear, have some happy music, nifty special effects, some funny lines, a predictable story where the good guys win, and prime those consumerist brats to want all of the action figures when the film is done.

Gunn was expendable because Disney is not art, but a factory where they churn out epic junk. Star Wars, Marvel, Princesses, even pirates, they are established and inoffensive. They are essentially action figures dancing on the screen. Who moves the action figures around is unimportant.

But Gunn's firing is not sitting well with journalists. The have made this story sound as if Gunn was a changed man and a victim, which he wasn't.

People get fired from flipping hamburgers for all sorts of stupid reasons, and we don't see stories where reporters are getting worked up over that. It is Disney's dime and property, and they can hire and fire whoever they wish. That's their chess board, and they don't make money from me.

But it is not as obnoxiously biased as this story in Hollywood Reporter about the fortunes of one CBS News honcho whose leadership is said to have spawned a "toxic" work environment.

The angle of the story from those who work under that regime is that things have improved, but were never "that bad."

I find that angle very interesting because the core of the story is about 60 Minutes.

The newsmagazine that never gave people they did not like second chances, understanding, or wonder if someone changed. 

They dug up dirt from decades ago, and confronted various people.

And now that it is hitting their own newsrooms, suddenly, there are all sorts of excuses.

It doesn't matter if the bad behaviour was a long time ago. A long time ago there were people who were harmed and their lives were forever derailed, and they have the right to have those responsible for that sabotage be held accountable.

And why are things better? Is it because these people are now minding themselves because someone above them is finally paying attention to their actions? And should that overlord ignore it again, will it lapse back to the old ways?

This is a manipulative way of trying to salvage a bad situation by making excuses and to exploit the passage of time to soften the blow of unacceptable behaviour. These people had no trouble to create a hostile work environment. They had no trouble letting bad behaviour dictate the tone of the workplace.

People downplay and make excuses because the idea of (a) being held accountable for their own feral behaviour, (b) their image at Winning At Life is proven to be yet another lie they told, or (c) having to be inconvenienced by defending their actions and enabling doesn't please them.

But mostly because 60 Minutes is about the last news product that has any prestige left, and this blow shows they are no better or sincere in their coverage. 

And now, this mess. A mess CBS is in heavy denial over.

Disney can dump Gunn and move on. CBS News is not in the same position. There is damage control and consequences.

Except now journalism's fall from grace has plummeted so low, that people are not outraged -- not because they don't find it obnoxious, but because journalism is not a thing anymore...

National Post's Man-aganda continues, but they ain't the only cowards in journalism.

I

Jonathan Kay may not have the ability to understand that women's chromosomes in no way prevent them from spewing man-aganda, but then again, that fourth and last stage of Jean Piaget's is a tricky one to reach.

The National Post thinks it has some sort of legitimate way of spewing misogyny without being called on the carpet for it.

No, only someone with bigoted filters would think there are intellectual, moral, or philosophical differences based on external features.

Memo to the National Post: if men can be feminists, then women can be self-loathers, too, especially those without talent who just do whatever the Big Boys tell them because courage and original thought take real guts, talent, and ovaries to pull off.

The suggestion that it is otherwise is a very bigoted assumption that convicts them of the charge, but no one could ever accuse anyone at the Post of being a deep thinker.

Maybe if you actually spoke to everyone and informed them with actual information and not dumb sophistry, you would not be reduced to whining in public about how you cannot make ends meet because people are not buying your product.

The Post is a man-agandist publication. Nothing else. They hold the trembling little gonads of those scared little boys who need to know they are not to blame for anything just to reassure them.

Fox News Channel perfected it, and it is something I took apart in my book OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism.

Some men are men: they do not fall apart if their employers are women. They do not harm anyone, male or female because they have courage, compassion, intelligence, ability, morals, and bravery. They get ahead on the job because they are competent and innovative. They actually know how to behave and are fantastic people because their testosterone is not afraid of the presence of estrogen.

Others are little boys. They thump their chests, but run to mommy and daddy whenever someone sees their bullying is just to prevent those of quality from besting them. The Post enablers those men who hold society back and force the rest of us to waste time and resources cleaning up their messes.

And considering how badly the Post's fortunes have fallen, they are trying to hold on to as many little boys as they can. They give free front page advertising to Steven Galloway as if his self-pity was Very Important News. They are forever running around like irrational chickens, screaming #MeToo is a witch hunt ecause they are too thick to get it. The irrationality has gone overboard, and their propaganda blinds them to the obvious.

But they think they can fool people into thinking they are some sort of legitimate news outlet.

No, you're not. You spew man-aganda, even if you have a few chicks and broads willing to do the dirty work for you.

The sex of the one who spews propaganda is immaterial and does not legitimize your slop.

It is the content of your argument, the structure of your arguments, the scope of your vision, the facts you choose to ignore, and the inherent rigs of your work that actually determines whether or not you are a legitimate news source, or an apologist for incompetent men in power.

The race and gender of those puking out your sophistry is not some sort of protective force field. It is a misdirection, nothing more.

Christie Blatchford happens to be the Post's loudest man-aganda and gets a pay check regardless of how many lives get mucked up because of primitive thinking.

Like this piece of silliosity. I love the preface of that video:

Trudeau’s #MeToo moment has once again proved that if women are going to come forward with allegations, it should be in the courts not in newspapers, according to Postmedia columnist Christie Blatchford. The courts are the one place where both men and women can get due process.

Due process? You may cover the courts, but doubtful you have been sucked into that mindless machine and been eaten alive.

Child molesters get a couple of years when they are convicted of assaulting scores of children for years. The End to the argument of Due Process. No due process. Just a game of make pretend as we torture people and waste their lives and raise their hopes to get spat at with their own tax dollars. If there is any definitive proof that we allow society to become heartless psychopathic barbarians, it is how we run our courts when it comes to sexual assault trials. 

Let's just take today's legal news and see how great the Post's theory applies. In this case, a judge dismissed a sexual assault case against four teenage boys who were accused of assaulting an intoxicated teenage a girl, and they were cleared because she was drunk at the time.

And according to Blatchford, this is reasonable because an Authority figure decreed it so.

Let's see: if you are intoxicated, your judgement is acknowledged by the law and scientific research to be so bad, that:

1. You cannot give consent to drive and if you do, you are arrested because you do not have the mental capacity to operate a vehicle.

2. You cannot operate a plane or boat, either.

3. Children's Aid will take your children away from you until you go into rehab.

4. A drunk police officer, judge, teacher, lawyer, doctor, and babysitter caught on camera while intoxicated on the job would cause a scandal.

Why?

Because your ability to make decisions is garbage when you are bladdered.

But the judge seems to set a double standard when it comes to teenage girls:

"The issues here focus on consent," O'Donnell said. "Was the complainant capable of consent? For example, did she understand the nature of the acts in the car to the degree that she could reject them or agree with them?

"This is an area in which judges have come under criticism in the past, but we must remember a drunk person can have the required capacity to consent to sex. The person can even be quite intoxicated and still have that capacity."

Okay, that is Authority decree, but let us replace some of his words with something just as important:

This is an area in which judges have come under criticism in the past, but we must remember a drunk person can have the required capacity to operate a bus full of schoolchildren and drive them home. The person can even be quite intoxicated and still have that capacity.

In fact, if that is the thinking, we should ban any law against drinking and driving entirely. I think police officers should be allowed to be intoxicated while handling firearms, too. They can even be quite intoxicated and still have that capacity to fire a loaded weapon.

The judge's Authority logic decreed it so; so, obviously, it must be true.

Let us make it all legal so that at least we can be consistent with our primative sanctioned lunacy.

So, we have, to put it mildly, a legal system that is run by whim that has no basis in evidence or fact -- but mostly on whatever lobby groups do a superior job to convince lawmakers to back off with certain laws or at least water them down.

And the National Post thinks this is a good and glorious thing, and too bad the populace is meddling by making some demand for rights or something.

No wonder the National Post's colour is Minion Yellow.

images-14.jpeg

Appealing to Authority is what they do best, after all. No wonder they are upset that the current federal regime didn't give them money to enable their incompetency. They sucked up to them and everything!

Because that's how passive cowards navigate through the world. Whatever the Man tells them, that's good enough for them, male or female. Equality means equality.

Once upon a time, you had journalists risk their lives and cover dangerous things. Some would reject anyone who decreed to be an Authority, regardless of political affiliation.

But then came the dregs who thought appeasing Authorities and praising them was the way they could get ahead. Short cut your way into a "career" as a "journalist"!

They were the ones who had no talent, just a conniving nature, and they would in no way go out and do real and dangerous work, because they knew they could not handle it.

Like those hiding under the National Post banner.

But they are hardly the only ones.

II

#MeToo was a social media-based movement. It exploded among educated, white collar women in the US who endured the war strategies of incompetent men who distracted their competition by terrorizing said competition by various means that would do the most emotional damage.

Sex had nothing to do with it. Sexual harassment was not about the sex: it was the way of gaining dominance by creating an invisible barrier to make rivals hesitate and feel inferior enough not to go after the same brass ring.

So when the Post frames this issue that this is about sex, this is mere smoke and mirrors. This is about workplace terrorism and sabotage.

You had previous generations of women endure this degradation in silence because they thought if they did endure it and broke barriers, their daughters and granddaughters wouldn't have to put up with it, too.

That was a big tactical error.

These were the same women who wanted Hillary Clinton as their president. Clinton was a symbolic choice on many levels: she was an Endurer (but she was also an enabler, and the reason I never cared for her), and the reward for endurance and patience was to finally reach the top.

Except she got easily clobbered by Donald Trump.

But not just clobbered: her supporters leaked that infamous tape of him crowing about being able to harass any woman he wants with her blessing and impunity. 

If all that dung-swallowing was actually worth it, people would have been outraged, not vote for Trump, and installed the first woman in the White House.

It didn't happen.

It didn't happen.

A lifetime of pretending getting abused on the job was the price to pay to pave the road for the next generation was proven to be a con game.

And those well-educated, white collar women who got abused, and even raped on the job and said nothing, snapped and revolted because they suffered a real and terrible shock that not Everything Will Work Out In The End.

All those affirmative sayings they plastered on their walls at home proved to be the same horse-dung they swallowed on their claw and crawl to break a glass ceiling that wouldn't break.

And so #MeToo exploded on the scene and resonated, but its epicentre was the US.

It is a legitimate movement. It is not a witch hunt. It is what happens when an entire generation without their own war manual get disillusioned and are forced to face reality when their own home-grown strategies prove to be worthless.

But in Canada, we are not in the same place because we are a nannied and sheltered people.

If we lose our safety net and are forced to survive on our abilities and wits for real, the shock will be far greater than what spurred #MeToo.

And we are there.

Canadian journalists are beyond there, but because their lens is that of a coward's, they are still in the denial stage. 

Because if they saw reality for what it is, they wouldn't be supporting and begging governments for anything as they sucked up to Authorities, hoping for a paltry little patronage appointment.

They would be rioting on the streets.

Really, that sad and pathetic lot have nothing left to lose.

Because those Authorities they drool over so much have played those arrogant and oblivious empty-heads for the fools that they are. Fish in a barrel, nothing more.

The problem is they think they are still something special because they get invited to a cocktail party here or there, or because they hang out in the corridors hanging on the every word of some Authority to report about it to the little people.

But because #MeToo is a social media movement, journalists could not stop the movement from making damage to their own profession.

CBS had their Charlie Rose problem, and it should not be surprising that one of their bosses ran to a law firm that brags that they "kill stories" about the deeds of delinquent little mediocre boys pretending to be Great Men.

Oh, and the one of the principle members of that legal cabal doing the story killing is a woman.

Which is the go-to sex many sexual predators run to in order to make it seem that they are not predators. As if.

Journalism did not fare so good during #MeToo. Despite hiring legal enablers to sweep their sins under the rug, the tiny fraction that did slime out was ugly enough.

It was the biopsy that proved why the profession no longer had any credibility left.

They were no better than the people they labelled villains over the years.

They were never for the people.

They weren't for the poor, the sick, or the dispossessed.

They weren't for people with darker pigments, or people who toiled in blue collar jobs.

They weren't for people whose sexual orientation was not heterosexual.

They weren't for children as they never bothered reporting anything to them.

They weren't for over half the population who are women.

They weren't for foreigners.

They weren't even for most men.

Just the well-heeled ones.

Man-aganda

And only if you were the right sort of man. Not the used up and broken souls who lost their health in factories.

They did away with Labour sections and called it Business, you sillies.

And when their snobbery got the better of them, they ran to those Great Men to bail them out.

Memo to the Post: they no longer have any use for you.

You relics went out with the trash years ago.

But when it is garbage your little boys and girls are spewing, it is very hard to notice the difference...