Notice how people notice bad things only when it happens to them?


Screen Shot 2018-12-30 at 8.28.38 AM.png


A paranoid press is making this sound as if this kind of cyber-fucking is just happening to them.

Not at all. It is common.

This kind of warfare happens in every sector of society, and all of the time.

But watch the press try to spin this as some sort of assault on the press, the way they have been spinning the death of Jamal Khashoggi as the same thing despite evidence to the contrary that even some others in the profession acknowledge, albeit far later than others have, including me.

It is navel-gazing and an attempt at making people think they need to go back to an old, abusive spouse because he got mugged.

What we have is lousy cyber-security. We have vested-interests who take advantage of it because citizens — and that lazy press — don’t exactly make real demands or ask important questions…

Memo to Patrick Soon-Shiong: Social Media is not a "cancer". It is a liberator. Fake news has been a staple of journalism for years. I wrote the book on it.

LA Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong bought deadweight. Journalism is dead because it looked down on social media, and thought they were superior to the little people who finally were liberated by the shackles of tycoons owning media properties and controlling information to the public.

But now he is trying to spin things by fear-mongering about that inconvenient social media, calling it a cancer.

Nice try.

Why is it a cancer? Because you cannot dictate to the Great Unwashed what they should be thinking and how they should be thinking about it?

Arrogance, arrogance.

And he spews and babbles about “fake news” making it on social media.

Mr. Soon-Shiong, you are coming off as a sheltered man.

Propaganda and fake news has been the staple of journalism for decades, and if you would like to actually be an informed deadweight owner, let me introduce you to three exhaustingly researched books to actually educate you.

Don’t Believe It!: How lies becomes news.

OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on journalism.

When Journalism was a Thing.

There has been plenty of fake news in all sorts of mainstream outlets, and that played a big role in the success of social media. Now that it is harder to control a public, you are trying to stuff the genie back in the bottle so that you alone hold that wish-granter.

The genie will have none of it.

Because fake science made the news. Fake war stories made the news. Fake tycoons made the news.

Or have you never actually read a newspaper or watched a newscast in your limited experience?

I was a newshound, and I do my research and made a career exposing the lies that made news.

You can read all about it here.

Your narrative is laughable and completely ignorant of the reality of why journalism collapsed.

If only the little people would just agree give up their freedom to be indoctrinated to whatever the wealthy want to further their own ends, then everything would be wonderful, right?

An alternative to journalism is what is needed. Journalism died of its own sexist, racist, and classist cancer a long time ago. Too bad you didn’t get the memo then.

The past is journalism. The present is social media.

The future is F.R.E.E.D…

A profession waiting for They to save them...

I was reminded of a very good quote that fits journalism perfectly:

“More people would learn from their mistakes if they weren't so busy denying them.”

                                                                                                                    ― Harold J. Smith

Or more accurately, repeating them.

I remember doing extensive research in the mid-1990s about new magazines that were cropping up at a time when circulation for old magazines were going down. From Brill's Content to Vent to Might to Talk, journalists were getting excited and thought that these brash magazines just might pull in younger readers and save the profession. 

There was big hope in the industry as all of a sudden, a bunch of rags were coming out that had a distinct and posh look, a unique voice, and were seemingly doing things differently.

That super-secret organization called They were coming to save the day.

I was not convinced it was going to be enough because the differences were cosmetic.

These magazines made bold declarations. They were aggressive in many ways, and creative.


They hired good talent. Might magazine got the ball rolling with fake celebrity death news. They were very Spy magazine in so many ways.


But what needed to happen with these magazines never did. They were still doing the same thing the old guard was doing, but with sleeker production values and a snarkier demeanour without actually doing anything remotely revolutionary with journalism.

Not a single one of these magazines is still in circulation.

They are all gone.

At this stage of the game, there should have been real panic.

The old trick of bringing in a fresh cycle of audiences failed, and the legacy titles were eroding.

If ever there should have been a radical departure from the old model, this should have been it.

But it wasn't.

There was always the next They to come around.

I deliberately kept an eye on this part of the industry for a reason because this was the critical time when a new distinctive generation of outlets needed to emerge with healthy numbers to sustain itself.

Talk had Tina Brown with then white hot powerbroker Harvey Weinstein. Brill's Content was hyped and was pushed. Might was a media darling with a devoted following.

But they were all non-starters.

I would include George magazine in this as well, and it was a very good magazine, and I had every single issue from the first.


It had John F. Kennedy Jr. as its editor and founder, and he put his soul into that magazine and it showed. He could generate buzz, and was cagey enough to put A-list celebrities on the cover and inside the magazine.

Yet he interviewed relevant players. It has an excellent circulation, topping the old guard's numbers with ease. He created a hip and smart publication. I was in j-school when the first issue came out, and one of my favourite professors borrowed it from me, and flipped over it. I think we talked about it for an hour.

If any one publication should have pulled a rabbit out of a hat, George was it.

And then JFK Jr. was killed in a plane crash, and the magazine crashed right along with him, and it folded as well.

No one had interest in George if John wasn't involved in it, and then meant the man, not the magazine was the primary draw all along.

At that should have been the wake-up call. That should have been the sign every person in the profession of journalism should have taken to heart because the last man who could have literally resurrected journalism's fortunes could not create an outlet that could outlive him.

And with McClatchy yet again reducing their staff by 3.5%, you would think journalists would finally say, we obviously have no idea what we are doing. Time for a change -- as in a real change.


You have reporters getting giddy because the new owner of the Los Angeles Times is hiring.

This is not a sign of hope. It is a sign of someone who thinks they can do the same thing and expect a different outcome.

The job ads call for the same flawed and defective qualifications. The job titles are no different.

Nothing is different.

Not a single thing is different. Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.

If one million people walk in front of a truck and get killed, the one million and one person cannot honestly expect to survive.

They can wear different clothing. They can run. They can sing a different song or use a different power phrase as they are stepping in front of a truck.

They get hit. They go squoosh. They seriously die. The end.

If reporters believe this is the They that will save them, they are in for a rude shock.

It is the new magazines all over again.

If you don't want to get killed by a truck, you keep out of the truck's way.

And if your They who you think is going to save you is strutting in front of the truck, you are in trouble.

It would be refreshing if journalists for once and for all, acknowledged their mistakes. It would be their liberation because then you can make changes.

But they must want to fail and be losers as they keep waiting for the Great Pumpkin fly in to give them an industry.

There is no other way to explain their collective insanity of denying the very mistakes that did them in...

Los Angeles Times oblivious to their own inventory. Just realize this now.

I have an interest in studying art crimes. It's an interesting topic with all sorts of tangents, from forgery to vandalism to smuggling to theft. The crimes can be crass and vulgar, or it can be highly clever and sophsiticated. It is one of those stories that doesn't get a lot of play, meaning that the public grossly underestimates its impact and frequency.

Journalists don't think very much of it, either, which explains why the Los Angeles Times can have five modestly-priced Picasso lithographs vanish, and no one notice it for perhaps years:

Reporters had cause to revisit this history earlier this year when then-incoming Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong announced plans to relocate the paper to El Segundo — a move spurred by the 2016 sale of the downtown property to a Canadian developer.

Some staffers began to explore the historic property on nostalgia-laced, self-guided tours. And a visit was paid to the community room to see the Picasso lithographs, perhaps for a final time. They seemed to be the last connection to that vaunted bygone era.

But there was a problem: They were gone.

The artwork had disappeared at some point between 2014 and 2018, a period of great tumult at The Times, as a series of publishers and top editors were shuffled in and out by then-owner Tribune Publishing, which renamed itself Tronc.

Such eagle-eyed people sleepwalking over there.

There are other points of interest: the paper had bought quite of a few pieces of art when journalism was strong, but had to liquidate them over the years. The lithographs aren't exactly a big deal: they are the B-list, but not to know when they went missing is interesting to say the least. The excuse no one saw it because there was "tumult" is kind of an strange excuse to make, meaning people over at the Times are not your go-to people to cover riots, wars, protests, unrest, or any situation with some serious "tumult" because they won't notice anything going down, anyway...

Los Angeles Times has a new sugar-daddy; everyone babbling the same old script.

Babble from new rich owner about fighting "fake news". How original. How innovative. 

How vague.

Old Establishment bygone relic gets to be editor. How original. How innovative.

How passive.

That's the cowardice of a dead profession, and shows just because an owner comes from the STEM-field, that they comprehend what killed a profession and how to improve it.

No original thought or thinking outside the box, just following a script that people actually think is a sure thing...

Why journalism can't resurrect itself: It always goes back to its glory days of a different world.

The Los Angeles Times is going into their Glory Days attics, taking Norman Pearlstine out of the box, dusting him off, and hoping he can change their dismal fortunes.

He was one of those so-called Great Men when journalism had all of the communications power; so the passive logic is that someone who did well on an old rigged board can make it on the new one.

It doesn't work. Journalism's old formulas do not work -- but the profession never got the memo...

How journalistic sophistry builds up false thinkers and messiahs for the himbos.

 "A father and son are in a horrible car crash that kills the dad. The son is rushed to the hospital; just as he’s about to go under the knife, the surgeon says, “I can’t operate—that boy is my son!” Explain."

"A completely black dog was strolling down main street during a total blackout affecting the entire town. Not a single streetlight had been on for hours. As the dog crosses the center of the road a Buick Skylark with two broken headlights speeds towards it, but manages to swerve out of the way just in time. How could the driver see the dog to swerve in time?"


Look for the obvious first as you forget the blinders of narrative. That's the easiest way to find the truth. It is very easy to build up an impossible lock-room murder mystery as you build up suspects with their scene-chewing quirks, and forget to look for signs of ways to override perceptions.

I was a journalist with a psych degree, and the psychology always came in handy that way: I learned to focus on patterns and the habits they formed as they distorted perceptions. People always gravitated to the narrative first, then personality -- and then tried to make reality look like it proved the narrative right as well as the assessment of the personality. I was taught to look for ways how perceptions and interpretations could be manipulated, and so, my job was always to question stories and personalities as I looked for facts.

Stories were always secondary for me, and it meant that I have had to endure a lot of nonsense from people over the years, especially those who knew I was a journalist and wanted to either impress me or one-up me with some canard to draw attention to themselves.

One of the stories that always annoyed me the most was the one where someone who was average but tried to build herself up as special was trying to convince me that her old house was haunted by a ghost.

The proof?

Sometimes her faucet turned itself on; so there was the "proof."

As someone who has done her home renovations from installing toilets to doing the entire kitchens and grew up with a handy mother and grandmother, I am very familiar with everything from putting new floorboards to fixing a sink.

An old house usually means an old faucet, and defective O-rings and cartridges often cause that kind of turning itself on the woman tried to convince me was a ghost.

Seriously, if you were a ghost and had the advantage of power, invisibility and stealth -- are you really going to play childish pranks if you could get away with something far more malicious -- or would you even bother with lesser developed creatures in the first place? What's in it for ghosts to fool around with a bathroom sink, especially as living people do far worse things when they know they can get away with it?

If you are going out and lie with a stupid ghost story, then think of the ghost's motivation for doing the ghost stuff it does. Is this supposed to be a poor OCD apparition?

And how smart is it to tell it to someone who can disprove the ghost theory with a wrench and a working knowledge of basic plumbing?

Just look for the obvious explanation, but that is hard when you have something to prove and an axe to grind with someone you want to best in some way.


Journalists are in a profession where it isn't fun if you find the obvious. It is always about building ideas and people up. You cannot just be a very good businessman: you have to be a Titan of Industry or even Visionary who Defines His Generation.

They look for what is larger than life: that impossible locked-room mystery.

The problem is their actual job is to show how that locked room isn't impossible or how people are just people. People can use misdirection and argument to build themselves up -- but a narrative is not reality.

I always had a lot of deconstructing to do as a reporter: puffing was rampant, as was insults from sources who didn't want me to feel confident enough to question them. For some sources, they would put me down whenever I started to ask questions that revealed I wasn't impressed with their puffing and crowing. I was looking for facts, not buying narratives.

I was looking for the obvious, and I always found those who played those games were, in reality, in a position of weakness, but used smoke and mirrors to make themselves seem powerful.

If you want me to start taking a hard look at your situation, insulting me and trying to imply I am inferior to you is a perfect place to start. It is not going to work with me.

Because you are obviously hiding something and are banking that my self-esteem is shaky enough to deflect attention away from your deficits. It's an old ruse, but it can be very effective when you are dealing with narcissists or those with an inferiority complex.

But those who prey on the weak don't just feast on egos with put-downs: when convenient, they also seem to praise and reassure those who are looking for validation.

Yet even then, it is always done in such a way that he places himself on the top of a pecking order and his pigeons would be lost without him because they are weaker than he is.

He builds himself up as someone who is a deep thinker and even messiah. He is extraordinary.

And he seems to be if no one looks at the obvious.

But journalists don't look for the obvious. They are always on the prowl for the extraordinary.

And they aid ad abet those those try to hide the obvious at all costs.


Actors are usually are the big beneficiaries of this journalistic logical flaw. Athletes and singers also get the special treatment. Politicians and CEOs who burst on the scene can expect the drooling, too.

These are the people who are built up, but many get torn down when they cannot reach the hype they created themselves. The obvious eventually shows itself, and then people feel betrayed. You were supposed to provide to them The One Rule That Explains Everything, and then be the living proof that TORTEE is reality.

And then reality smirks and uses the truth to prove the messiah is nothing more than a mundane person who dabbles in puffing and sleight of hand.

But time and again, journalists give those mundane and flawed people a free pass. They may be critical, but they still do not look for the obvious.

Watching the press get trampled by Dr. Laura for white boys Jordan Peterson is instructive. His theories may enable a certain insecure demographic, but those theories are not flattering.

The Los Angeles Times recently had a silly piece that missed the obvious. The headline set up the blinders:

Hate on Jordan Peterson all you want, but he's tapping into frustration that feminists shouldn't ignore

Peterson isn't tapping into frustration: he is doing what Fox News Channel has been doing fr years: throwing dirt on white men who waste their lives believing a fantasy fairytale that has destroyed them, but as these same group already abuse themselves, the dirt-throwing seems kinder by comparison.

Feminists shouldn't worry about Peterson as he is no threat to them. He is pandering to the weak, not building them up because if he is their leader/guru/messiah/daddy, the implication is they are too silly and incompetent to think without someone giving them a list of thoughts to be put in their heads.

The theories Peterson proffers comes from the old "special needs" theory of men. The theory covertly postulates that men's testosterone has a natural fear of women's estrogen and cannot function in the presence of women who are not repressed followers parroting other people's scripts that rig things in men's favour. Knowing that they would lose to women as they are innately inferior, but do not want to draw attention to this fact lest the true extent of their genetic and biological malfunctions be exposed to the superior gender (go, girls!), mean come up with a series of ruses and excuses to ensure they are not discovered for their poor genetic quality, and deceive their gender rivals into thinking they must retreat because men are smarter visionaries and stuff.

Which means men need rigs to succeed. They cannot function understanding how to negotiate with someone whose life requirements differ from his. They cannot think outside the box; so they must stay in the box for mere survival. They mistake dysfunctional rote requirements that do not challenge his flawed interpretation of reality as order.

They are special needs who must be propped up and reality and truth most always be hidden from them lest they fall apart.

After all, if you are special, you need fewer props and rigs and can surpass the average.

But if you are special needs, you need more help of that sort just to keep up with the average.

And Peterson's theory assumes the evolutionary and biological inferiority of men, and devises excuses and feints to keep their deep dark secret from women.

It is war on women, and as war is deception, Peterson offers a variety of ruses to prop up his fellow sex.

This man-theory on men is not new. Pick up artists do it by negging: insult a woman out of your league by pointing out her "flaws" to make her lose focus and confidence.

She never realizes she is settling for less and will be slumming it with the inferior mate because of the prop of siege and gaslighting.

People of quality never stoop to manipulation or decreeing ahead of time that their in-group is superior to the out-group.

That's propaganda, and Peterson is not a very convincing propagandist to people who are in tune with reality and truth.

But journalists never understood reality or truth, and they build up an unremarkable psych professor because they don't see the obvious.

The sophistry appeals to a very certain male: the white boys whose mommies phone the professor to make excuses why he isn't going to do his presentation as she does his assignments for him so she wouldn't lose her money bankrolling his education.

I had more than my fair share of these students -- always males with one exception, always white with no exception. There wasn't a course where this phenomenon didn't happen at least once, unless the class had all females, then it just didn't happen.

I did have female students fail, skip class, and make all sorts of stupid and unconvincing excuses, but they weren't recruiting their elder family members to save them.

I never had my mom do my assignments or call my professor to get out of failing. As soon as I could write, I always insisted on writing my own absence notes with my mother signing them, and even then, it bothered me that my own signature carried no weight with the school. 

But for this concerning number of young men, it was always the mommy who tried to clean up his messes. Usually it wasn't enough and he'd drop out anyway because he couldn't hack it.

Peterson as a professor would be very familiar with that breed of inferior male -- somewhere along the way, a light could have gone off.

You have a group of men who can make withdrawals from the Bank of Mom and Dad who want to hear how bad it is to have to deal with estrogen when your testosterone isn't up to snuff.

Because if these men were strong and equal to women, they wouldn't be bothered that a group of people have their own ideas, theories, hopes, dreams, ambitions, and hearts.

But it always comes back to sanctioned insanity: what if we replaced Men with White and Women with Black?

Would this theory sound right?

Of course not. It's just silly.

And wrong.

Journalists never learned to look for the obvious. That requires testing, experimenting, and verifying information and theories by running them through empirically-based tests.

Feminists shouldn't build up Peterson because he has a very dismal view of men. They are incapable drooling crybabies who must live in a sterilized environment to function. They are not the wild, exotic creatures who can thrive out in the open as they embrace the world as it is and thrive despite all the differences and puzzles in the world.

I know my worth because I am that wild exotic adventurer who has fought a million wars and still stands, being grateful for all the gifts and blessings the define me -- and all those others who also fight a million wars to make the world kinder and better. No strong man has ever threatened my ways -- and no strong man would cower in the presence of a strong women like me.

That is the definition of strong: you do not compromise yourself -- nor do you require others to compromise themselves.

You do not need to be a follower or leader: you live your life for you and you don't compromise.

That is a simple and obvious truth -- but for whatever reason, those obvious truths terrified journalists and they have been ignoring them ever since...

You think it's just social media that sells your data to third parties? Traditional media is playing the same game.

Europe's GDPR requires web sites to be more forthcoming in what they collect and that they are collecting, and many companies have been complying, but many traditional outlets are blocking out the entire Europe instead.

Now that's very interesting. That means they are collecting and selling users' data to third parties, and it is safer and cheaper to shut out an entire continent than be honest with what they are actually doing.

With readerships tanking, these outlets are barely in business as it is -- so how are they keeping afloat?

By doing the very things they are exposing about Google and Facebook, but trying to spin it to sound as if it were something else.

It is yet another twist on what is happening behind the scenes, and how far the profession's fortunes have fell...

Is $500 million overpaying for the LA Times? Uh, yeah...

The Los Angeles Times' would-be saviour is stalling in buying a relic.

The answer is that yes, $500 million is way too much money for a dead property.

And if your minions don't get to rule the roost, they will throw fits like they do at the Denver Post.

Circulation is plummeting. It is an archaic way disseminating information. There is no bragging rights worth the trouble of buying a lemon...

The "journalism's crisis = democracy's crisis" narrative continues -- and it's not working.

When I wrote OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism, I discussed how the Fox News Channel used memos to keep ideological consistency in their stories. The documentary by the name same that came out before it, had originally exposed John Moody's now notorious memos. Those memos were not just part of the FNC ideological narrative -- they were the way journalists walked lockstep to build a wall of defence to prevent anyone from challenge their conclusions when their facts were wanting.

That lockstep is now continuing across the entire profession with a false narrative that a crisis in journalism means a crisis in democracy.

The Los Angeles Times is the latest copycat trying to scare people into coming back.

The headline itself is pure propaganda:

The staggering body count as California newspapers founder, and democracy loses

No, the bombing in Syria has left a body count -- what you have is journalists losing their jobs because of their own inability to keep up with the times and change gears. Do not play manipulative games with your bloated egos.

Democracy transmuted with the onset of the Internet -- something that journalists to this day cannot grasp. They do not understand that democracy is strong enough to go on without them.

Society has informational resources and venues to speak out. Journalists had the monopoly on both, and now they don't. If they wanted to stay viable, they should have faced that reality, and done something about it -- they had that opportunity, but they thought they didn't need to take it. That isn't the public problem.

Journalists want everyone else to accommodate them -- and that's not going to happen.

So this fear-mongering temper tantrum has to stop.

It won't, but it won't do the dead industry any good.

People left for a reason. They wouldn't have if journalism gave them what they needed. It didn't, and it hasn't.

If you want to connect to the public, then don't have a chip on your shoulder. Otherwise, get your walking papers can get out of the way...


When journalists do not know how to report on their own industry.

When I worked as a journalist, most of my stories concentrated on the business of journalism. It was not exactly an easy gig. There was a lot of egos and even more secrets, and that usually hinted that things presented were far more shaky and sketchy in reality. And those hints always turned out to be right.

The business end was always rickety. There was always some sort of scheme to prop up the true health of the industry, and it was always presented with a sunny spin. For instance, free newspapers were counted as part of the circulation, which was a very dodgy gambit meaning that those stacks of unread papers were counted as readership.

Journalism's fortunes were already on unstable ground back then, but now, it is in a free fall.

The journalism part and the business part are two separate problems, but because the journalism side reports on their business side -- and the business side has no qualms misusing the journalism side for self-promotion, score-settling, and lobbying, it is a good idea to look at how that toxic dynamic contributed to the profession's collapse.

For example, the New York Times has one of their gushy Great Man profiles on new Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong. The puff piece is typical of how the Times perpetually shuts off its brain when doing free ad copy for a real or perceived Titan of Industry.

I go over this in more detail in my book, but the Times has a very bad track record of doing these kind of kid glove pieces, only for the test of time to prove they should have been more skeptical and critical in their coverage.

The headline is troubling to me as someone who has seen this game before:

L.A. Times’s New Owner Plans Big Moves. First Up, Relocating to the Suburbs.

When I wrote a profile of one up-and-coming newspaper owner, he tried to use the identical angle on me: "big plans" and some cutesy colour of how his wife thought they would have to "remortgage the house" for him to buy those pricey newspapers. I didn't bite at either angle, and his tenure was fairly short-lived, and proved to be the tip of the iceberg of a much more serious problem.

But never expect the Times to do anything that resembles genuine research.

The exit of Michael Ferro is presented in a threadbare manner: there is much more to say, but don't expect a Tronc property such as the Tribune to confess anything in regards to their own dirty laundry. Bloomberg's piece scratches the surface, referring to Ferro's tenure as "controversial", but what really went down is not going to be examined with any authenticity. Even the Wall Street Journal's article is milquetoast, calling his time as "short but rocky".

Not that other news media has a clue. WBUR attempts to look at the collapse at local news, but nary a word on how the profession sowed the seeds of their troubles themselves. It is shallow, self-serving, and cannot do a thing to resurrect the dead profession.

It is not a well-oiled machine: one side of the equation should help improve the other side, but it is often used to hide the true state of affairs from the public. Journalism needed a better method, but when your own chroniclers of reality cannot unearth the reality of their own, there were doomed to crash and burn so horribly...

Tronc cuts jobs because, you know, it's journalism.

Tronc is letting go dozens of people. Contrary to the Denver Post narrative, journalism is in deep trouble.

As in, dead.

Is this surprising? Not at all.

Contrary to conspiracy theories, the profession is crashing, and not as profitable as its minions thinks it is. What they do not get is that unless the owners push out staff, there is no profit. It is contingent on it, and implying that these owners can afford to keep workers misses the point of the strategy.

When I used to cover the business of journalism, newspapers were being bought and sold at inflated prices, even though ad revenue was eroding as was circulation. What owners did then -- as they are doing now -- is squeeze assets out before selling it.

It is not a real business model that has the long-term in mind. It is like flipping a house -- you buy some shack at a decent price, slap some paint and cheap laminate flooring, and then sell it at a mark up price. You are squeezing the assets out of the structure with no regard to the actual house itself.

You aren't living in the house, or making long-range plans. You aren't investing in that house or ensuring it stays strong and durable. You do not have the future at heart or in mind.

The problem is that you have potential owners have a look, and the ones that once would have been the ones you ran a business with the future in mind saw there was clearly no future, and bolted.

What you have left are the newspaper-flippers. The smash-and-grab mentality has been plaguing the industry for as long as I can remember. If there was something of value being produced, the industry would attract a different sort of owner.

It is a serious problem that brought journalism the seeds of their destruction. It is not a visionary's playground anymore, and without one, the industry became orphaned and thrown from orphanage to orphanage, becoming unloved and discarded.

The non-profit model is worse. You have pretentious partisans beg for money, and whiff of desperation is a turn-off with nothing to offer, including innovation.

Both models are prolonging the agony and preventing alternatives from taking root and grow, and it's leaving a black hole on information in an era where we need sensibility and clarity to bring us back to our sense...

A newspaper pays women and minorities less than its white males? No kidding.

In 2018. This is not an anomaly. This is business as usual in journalism. For an industry that pretends to be progressive, they are anything but. When I worked as a journalist, the matter-of-fact sexism was rampant. I had editors who thought I would flip for the chance to cover bridesmaids' dresses. The implied reasoning was that as a young, single female, I was in journalism to find myself a rich husband and trick him into marrying me. The job was part of the master plan: I had a legitimate excuse for getting in contact with these fabulously wealthy bachelors, or least unhappily married man covertly, but actively on the prowl for a younger model.

That wasn't happening. I was there because that was my career. 

But it is a sexist business -- and a bigoted one. It is that skewed perspective that impacts ob coverage -- from the stories that are covered to the narratives used to tell them.

These stats do not surprise me -- nor that it is still happening in this day and age...