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

Capture.PNG

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

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

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

And then psychology was born.

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

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

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

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

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

But I can take them…

New York Times spews garbage and is not the feminist paper of record: How journalism failed women and still do in 2019.

The New York Times is pure garbage, and this bullshit article can be classified under Too Little, Too Late, Assholes.

Why do we have psychopaths get elected? We absolutely know these hypocrites lie to the public, have affairs, take bribes, and do all of the things that they proclaim they find morally reprehensible.

I know this because I worked as a journalist and hung around the halls of various public offices and saw the floozies get passed around various politicians who then gave them patronage appointments — and journalists saw this up close every day and said nothing.

Journalists also play those games as the Times’s own Ali Watkins did…and faced no consequences for it.

So to all of you women who are upset about the oppressive and illegal anti-abortion laws, here is the memo:

Journalists could have exposed these con artists before they ever got elected. They could have told you about their mistresses, lies, hypocrisy, and every other immoral, illegal, and shady thing they do out in the open. They could snap pictures of their drug use, casting couch antics, and everything else, but they keep quiet.

In other words, it is the sin of omission.

So let us not pretend the press is a friend to women. It never was, and it never will be.

They could also expose the lies and cons of far Right activists by exposing their affairs and how they snag their man by getting knocked up before marriage. They could expose these charlatans with ease.

So if you want to know how to break the iron grip of a lunatic fringe, start by demanding that newspapers such as the Times reveal all the dirty little secrets they are keeping from the public.

It will sicken you. It will shock and appal you — but by now, it should never surprise you…

The Middle Class Peasantry: Take them out and dust them off when you want to manufacture a bullshit story.

I

Screen Shot 2019-05-08 at 10.40.31 AM.png

II

When I wrote about the business of journalism was back when, I got my education on how the power brokers lived. They weren’t nothing like the simple script-following Zero-Risk yokels in the Middle Class. They were far more like the poor: both had more of survival instinct and could read people far better than the braindead Middle Class who have some bizarre obsession with trying to make each other jealous and pretend they have money.

I likened it to the layers of a Dobos torte: a hard layer followed by a soft layer. The middle class were the soft layer who were sandwiched in-between two hard layers. The poor and the rich are too much alike, and it is the reason they despise each other, but even their differences stem from a slight alteration in their filter.

I remember one episode of Law and Order where a psychologist says the difference was that the poor still think money will make them happy, and the rich have been disabused of the delusion, but there is far more to it than just that.

The poor have but a single obstacle: their own thinking. Here is a group of people who really have nothing to lose, and when push comes to shove, you never get in a fight with someone who has nothing to lose.

The wealthy have everything to lose, but no one actually challenges them. Why? Because the middle class serve as static, and are an effective barrier. In the back of their minds, the poor can hope to reach that level — or their children. Middle class people donate to charity and volunteer at soup kitchens.

And that will keep the status quo going — so long as there is a soft layer in there.

But sometimes, the middle class, thanks to their own ignorance and arrogance, get too greedy or confident of their sparse knowledge, and then end up poor. They are in too much debt or overpaid for a house. They bought stocks and the company went belly up. Factories close and then everything else comes crashing down.

When that barrier is gone, the poorest of the poor aren’t given false hope anymore, and then they strike at a target they actually understand.

As above, so below.

They are the feral wild animals who seize power and form coups. That’s when we have revolutions, and not a moment before.

III

When I used to cover the superfabulously powerful media barons, I was privy to all sorts of gossip and insider dirt. I had an eidetic memory for names and would draw maps of power structures that went well beyond communications.

People always whined how bad business was. You’d think dynasties were on the edge of collapse. Business was always bad. Movie studios had creative accounting and they were always operating at a big loss.

No one was bragging, actually. Quite the opposite. Old money was always grim about their finances, and I quickly learned to spot the difference between real economic woes, and the standard poverty lamentation so they could someone not pay taxes. People kept their cards close to their chests at all times. I learned to find out things in other ways: namely, speaking to the maids, seamstresses, or nannies who had to survive on their meagre salaries, and their bosses assumed they weren’t smart enough to pick up on the signs.

They could pick it up and know what it meant.

So did I. I became like Archie Comics’ Cricket O’Dell, the girl who could smell money.

cricket2.jpg

I could tell within seconds. People with money and connections had a different way about them than did Middle Class people, who are sheltered and always try to guess how rich people behave and always overplay their gambits. You hear well-heeled brats pretend they had no family connections, were dirt poor, and had to struggle to make it — never mind that mommy and daddy bribed a company to get their snot-nosed brat a plush job.

Old Money play different than New Money, but New Money often don’t last long because they brag and boast and don’t know the Shibboleths or comprehend the nuances of power. The teachable ones who see the precariousness of it all, read the memo and change their ways. The arrogant ones who think they are now permanently superior to the little people crash and burn at the first economic downturn.

The middle class have no clue about any of it. Too busy bragging how their brat won Miss Small Potatoes at the county fair. They look for scripts to crib to make it seem as if they know. They talk over people who know because they are jealous that someone has access to people who may be famous.

When I worked at Mohawk College at the same time I was a Canadian correspondent for Presstime, my boss had the nerve to say to me out loud, “So you won’t ever be famous writing for them, right?”

No, asshole: I write for people who decide who gets to be famous. That was my job, and one I create all by myself.

There is a jealousy problem with the peasantry, and it got out of control thanks to the Internet: people thought if they only had a platform, everyone would be razzle-dazzled by their innate greatness just like in the movies, and they would all be rich and famous.

When it didn’t happen, now the peasantry wants to tear down the rich because the deep layers realize the wealthy outclass them in more ways than one.

And their panic and ignorance of the ways of the rich blares.

IV

The New York Times is exploiting the middle class ignorance of the wealthy by disclosing that Trump “operated” at big losses.

Big deal. That’s a confirmation bias. Wealthy people know how to work the system. You never reveal your cards one way or another. Income taxes are for middle class people to dutifully fill out. You can’t screw around with that — unless you have big money.

But if you point this out to the middle class, they will either ignore you, or insult you with some snippy, arrogant put-down as if they were experts, not clueless people who have no exposure to that other sphere.

Why? No script and too much risk to ponder that what is seen as a static and permanent state of affairs is fleeting and can implode at any second.

I dare the New York Times to expose every single billionaire’s tax returns. Both on the left and the right. We have sheltered the middle class long enough — a little bit of perspective of reality would be a nice wake-up call to that soft layer that seems to have an opinion for everything, even if they know nothing about it.

Once upon a time, selective disclosure would rile up the little people on cue. These days, we have people who correct the confirmation bias, but we mostly get sulky and pouty people babble about “whataboutism” instead of look at the facts and question who are they cheering and booing and why — what exactly do you know about this person and why are you cheering or booing them — was it that they did something personally to you — or you just read online the script that told you to do it.

People think we should go after the rich, but I disagree: go after the middle class first — there are more of them and they are responsible for more of the rot in society than any other group. They get all the perks of being protected from both the top and bottom layer, and if we take away the scripts, we can begin to make those long overdue changes so that we don’t have the extremes of the other two in the first place…

So, do the New York Times and the Washington Post have to give back their Pulitzers?

I

Screen Shot 2019-03-25 at 9.29.16 PM.png

II

I was reminded today that the New York Times has more than just Trump issues: they, along with the Washington Post, won a Pulitzer in 2018 for their now proven bogus coverage of “Russiagate.”

Do they have to give it back like the Post had to for Jimmy’s World?

When the US President says it is "fake news”, we can now see there is a good and valid reason for it.

I wonder how many people who were dining and banking on Mueller enabling their vindictive tendencies could have survived that kind of pressure? I doubt any of them.

How many real stories have been ignored as a result of this stupid fixation?

How many hacks got awards for spewing propaganda?

When something horrific explodes, and we discover it began during this era, you know who to blame for the neglect…

So many shady people in the media, so little time...

The New York Times picks up on a New Times story about Jordan E. Goodman and the charges against him.

Nothing new.

The Times had this opening:

Spin your radio dial, download a podcast or sit down at your next corporate gathering and you’ll have no trouble finding a self-styled financial guru to tell you what to do with your money.

What you may not know: Financial experts, even those with bulletproof credentials, may be trying to sell you something.

As I said, nothing new….

Is The New York Times treasonous propaganda? Or just tantrum-throwing brats?

How silly is the New York Times? Do they think that they are smart enough to fool all of the people all of the time?

The New York Times is propaganda. It has an on-going spat with the US President, and truth be told, they got the Trump Machine going way back in 1976.

Trump wisely dumped the news media when he saw they collapsed and Twittered his way to the White House and the Times were in shock.

Denials that Twitter got him into power. One article accuses Trump of “hacking” the media. No, he bypassed you losers.

Just like millions of other people who flocked to Twitter and Facebook.

And ever since then, the Times has had a personal vendetta against the man who proved they are no longer relevant.

We can look at countless articles and columns that can only be described as wicked:

Trump the Anti-American

Trump Is Cracking Up

Trump: King of Chaos with this passage:

Rather, I believe that this chaos is the perpetual result of the absolute incompetence and idiocy of a preening philistine who has faked his way through life pretending that he knows more than he does and is tougher than he is.

Is It Time to Call Trump Mentally Ill?

The 25th Amendment Solution for Removing Trump

The People vs. Donald J. Trump

He is demonstrably unfit for office. What are we waiting for?

Who Decides Whether Trump Is Unfit to Govern?

Is Mr. Trump Nuts?

The Times even published a fictional story about his assassination.

This is abnormal behaviour. Ted Bundy is getting better press these days.

I cannot imagine too many national leaders who would tolerate this kind of relentless and unsubstantiated abuse from their press. Some would go so far as to call it treasonous as it openly encourages some loon to cause extreme harm to that leader.

If anyone disagrees, then let them put their comfort where their mouth is: for the next four years, they must allow their name to be placed in New York Times’ pieces with the same wording, implications, and intensities — and not say one word of complaint.

And if you think you are above reproach, we will let every bully, ex-lover or spouse, and enemy you ever had do the articles on you, day in and day out.

You will have a smile on your face as the world gets to read what other people think of you. No objecting, no explaining, no anger, no calling a single accusation a lie.

I could have plastered more, but the point has been made. The Times has gone beyond overkill. It is not a news product. It is a propagandistic one.

They can dish the obscene vitriol, but when the President pushes back, they lose their brain cell:

Trump Attacks The Times, in a Week of Unease for the American Press

You call the man evil and insane on a regular basis, and then you get in a tizzy because he calls you out for it? Why the unease? You employ extremist propagandistic measures and then you are shocked that your ways are coming back to you? Are you narcissists deluded? Are you nuts? Stupid?

Treasonous?

Or just spoiled brats?

The article is nothing more than a hypocritical tirade:

Even by his standards, President Trump’s biting attacks on the press this week stand out.

He has praised a libel lawsuit against The Washington Post, called for “retribution” against NBC for satirizing him on “Saturday Night Live” and, on Wednesday, issued his sharpest words yet against The New York Times, calling the newspaper “a true ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!”

So what? You called him a lot worse than that. The Washington Post deserved to be sued. For all the talk about poor teenagers getting shot and killed — they distorted an event and could have easily incited some unbalanced loon to harm Nick Sandmann. He will carry this scar for life.

And you are an enemy to the truth. You are an enemy to rationality. You are an enemy to face and demand to know why you have allowed such sickness to corrupt the information stream.

You are behaving like a cabal of vindictive psychopaths.

One upon a time you would have gone on a berserker rage on someone and they would have been seen as pariahs for life. Now, you do this extreme hate puking nonstop and you cannot make a dent.

Doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome? That’s the very definition of lunacy.

One day, sensibility will come back to fashion and people will read your propaganda, and shake their heads, wondering how a single person could have an ounce of respect for the New York Times.

I will tell them the truth: that you are predators and propagandists who lost you superpowers, and then became unhinged trying to grab it back.

But democracy had better ideas.

So did reality and the truth.

And then people will begin to chuckle, and laugh at the lies you spewed oh so very seriously.

And then they will wonder if you just were attacking the president or was this your modus operandi, and I will point them to all of your other sins, such as your famous bullshit story about “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, how often you crib from press releases, how you let Harvey Weinstein get a free pass and drooled over him, how you allowed con men to present themselves as business tycoons, fucking up countless lives in the process, and how you skewed coverage of other wars…

And I can already do that with a single red book.

latestbbok.jpg

I am still keeping tabs on your games and propaganda. It’s not hard: you keep using the same primitive feints.

You are just not the potent minions who could deliver the way you used to be.

And it must eat you alive…

The New York Times is no ally of the people, but antiquated crib note makers never are, either.

The US President has declared the New York Times an “enemy of the people.” He is not wrong, but there more to it than that.

In my latest book, I chronicle just how worthless the New York Times is as a journalistic property. It is crib notes for the shoddily-educated Middle Class in order to let them know what to think about and how to think about them so they do not cause waves at cocktail parties.

The Times is not a friend to the people. It is not an ally, either.

They are but a pawn in a political war between the Left and the Right. Ideologically tolerant they are not. Helpful they are not.

And their business coverage is beyond pathetic with multiple con men being portrayed as Titans of Industry. The worst of the Times’ manipulations came when they uncovered the president’s tax returns — they could have done that decades ago as they were reporting on him, lavishing positive press. That’s not what “friends” do.

Their list of sins is long and severe. I have discussed them at length here and in my first and fourth books. The president may have self-serving reasons for pointing out the obvious, but make no mistake, you are a gullible idiot if you believe you are informed or intelligent for reading it.

I take no sides in a war between the Left and Right. Don’t make up self-serving rules and think I will fall for it, giving away my power and my voice to some poseurs who want things without earning them. That’s not my thing, and don’t expect me to fall for those ruses in the first place…

Actrivism, Part Seven: The first question should always be: What PR firm is behind the "trend" and who is footing the bill?

I

II

Screen Shot 2019-02-08 at 9.47.08 AM.png

III

Jeff Bezos is trying to claw his way out with a veiled Blame Trump. That’s right. The government grabbed you and made you cheat on your wife. But the deflection and gaslighting is nothing new.

Bezos is merely taking a page from Hillary Clinton’s old playbook: It’s a vast right-wing conspiracy!

Yeah, and your husband still did the deed all by his horny little self. The end.

Bezos is not used to having bad publicity. He is trying to do what every other philanderer does: blame someone else and make himself look like the victim. He isn’t a victim. He plays with the Big Boys because he is one of the Biggest Boys. His employees from Amazon to Whole Foods to the Washington Post are miserable to the point of open revolt. Anyone who falls for his garbage is naive.

And just to be clear, I am a regular at Whole Foods, which I like, and Amazon, which I have ordered countless books and other items from superhero statues to a carpet sweeper just in 2019 alone; so I am not against the company. I got my amplifier, radio, theremin, and ozone generator from Amazon. Bezos has piled up quite a few of my pennies over the years because I like the service and use it regularly, but I am not blind to a feint.

Because it doesn’t matter in the Bezos Scandal: he has enemies because he is a general in a corporate army. Globalization is a battleground. There will always be casualties, and generals like Bezos get lots of help, and when they lose one alliance too many, they implode. He cannot blame himself, so he blames others.

You went into the boxing ring willingly and had your guard down and got knocked out. That’s on you.

Globalization is monopoly and it is not a good idea. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Don’t rely on one path because you are missing out on new worlds and new opportunities if you don’t pave others. Bezos may have had plans that hinged on always being on top, but that’s not a realistic or functional theory, and that speaks to his glaring weaknesses as a strategist.

It would be nice to have a list of all of the people Bezos stomped over on his climb to the top. Having a list of enemies would be a handy reference for the public because they wouldn’t be hero worshipping if they saw it.

But the Zero-Risk Mindset plays tricks on you.

IV

But notice how Bezos sat and stewed for a bit, trying to come up with a narrative to deflect attention away from his adultery. He is wealthy because he thinks.

And what he thought was: who is behind this?

Middle Class people don’t think in active terms, for the most part. That’s the reason they never breakthrough the barrier.

They never ask who is behind this coverage?

Especially if the coverage fellates their egos and validates their folksy and uninformed opinions.

Look at this New York Times piece of propaganda:

Thank God for Canada!

Our boring neighbor is a moral leader of the free world.

Oh, I am sure the homeless in this country, all the rape victims who’s reports are dismissed by police, and the First Nations people here are thinking the same thing.

But, I am sure SNC-Lavalin is thankful for such a helpful government!

Boy, talk about bad timing.

But why did the Times choose to publish it?

That’s a very good question.

We can look on FARA to have a quick sketch of the country’s use of US firms for their affairs. This list isn’t definitive, but it is a start.

If we started to investigate the origins and motives for such a piece of fawning propaganda, we’d have a better understanding of how certain narratives take root and grow.

I find Samatha Markle’s tweet about her sister interesting.

Screen Shot 2019-02-08 at 10.14.24 AM.png

“Stop the PR crap.”

It would be great to know all the firms that represent the Duchess of Sussex, for instance, and then compare their angle to the angle used by journalists.

Because journalists do not disclose this information to the public.

I stumbled upon this fact during the civil war in the former Yugoslavia as a teenager. Both my mother and I had seen actual press releases on separate desks at different daily newspapers.

Hello! You are coverage a war and you are using a press release as a source?

And then with a little more digging and research, I found out that there was more than one PR firm hired by both Croats and Bosnian Muslims to skew the narrative and optics to their side. Even a publication geared toward the intelligence community confirmed it.

So yes, no wonder the side spending millions of dollars on publicity were seen as the Good Guys and the poor helpless victims, and not aggressors.

Just like Kuwait hired Hill and Knowlton and got Western countries to do its dirty work for them against all odds.

I knew about Hill & Knowlton. I knew about Ruder Finn in the Yugoslav conflict.

So was it just wars, or was this just the way things rolled in journalism?

I decided to find out for myself by going into the business and seeing how it would be vulnerable to various kinds of manipulation.

And how it interacts with the public.

V

There are PR firms, and Crisis Management firms, and it is not hard to spot when a person or company employs one. The messages fit a certain pattern. Their effectiveness on manipulating public opinion are fascinating.

People will let their children eat their boogers because it’s too much effort to discipline them, but suddenly, they advocate a certain brand of shoes, or spout a political philosophy, thinking it is posh.

No, it has been paid for by someone else.

You suddenly like a new hamburger chain? That’s not your discovery. That’s an effective advertising campaign. You get your directives from advertisers, and follow it until a competitor finds a new angle and the cycle repeats.

Whenever there is a new trend, there is some sort of push from a third-party.

That includes this latest socialism kick.

Who are these players? How did they get the money and the connections?

Who is paying for their expensive PR?

That is the question people should ask first. Find the moneybags and the PR firm and then you know exactly why you are being recruited to believe in anything from “social media influencers” to “socialism.”

Overnight sensations are not overnight: the fantasy of being discovered and then having instant fans fawning all over you is a myth. There is always someone in power with clout and media experience backing the “ingenue” for a variety of reasons. It is not organic.

I recount this type of scam in my first book: the “overnight sensation” trope has been used often enough. Lana Turner was said to have been “discovered” by accident, when she wasn’t. One young violinist was also the benefactor of a choreographed farce with a wealthy man pushing her from behind the scenes.

When you are a spectator, you are passive by default. You only see things once the curtain rises. You think it is all natural.

Take reality show competitions: they have scriptwriters and rehearsals along with NDAs to ensure people don’t spill secrets. You have “judges” look “shocked” at how good a performer is, and we don’t wonder how genuine the response is.

The same goes for newsmakers: we don’t question who is behind the scenes and what is the benefit. Do you go to a music concert just because?

What is the usual incentive? Once you figure out the incentive, then you know how you are vulnerable to PR.

It is one thing to like your music or frozen dinner because of an effective ad campaign, but it is quite another to choose your politics or religion that way, and yet that’s what people do.

When I worked as a journalist, I made mental notes of even why I was drawn to certain stories or issues: how much of it was me — and how of it was as a result of someone’s effective persuasion?

Being an Actrivist forced me to include myself as a test subject: okay, why am I taking this track? Why am I interviewing this expert? How did I find this person? What was my criteria for choosing this professor over a hundred others who all study the same thing?

And what percentage of the “criteria” was mine, and what was the other direct or indirect influences?

Am I being played here directly? Collectively? Deliberately? Inadvertently? Am I a the target audience, or am I a proxy to influence the publication I am working for — and/or the audience that reads it?

Because I broke down my methods to study them, I was very aware of subtle influences of all sorts.

That’s why it is always automatic with me to ask who is the kingmaker of any given story? Who is pulling the strings and setting the agenda?

Is this newspeg organic or contrived?

It is contrived. How else do you get a reporter’s, producer’s, or editor’s attention?

In a world of 7.4 billion people, how does one stand out?

By having the money and backing of someone with clout who is schooled in optics.

Even on social media…

Jill Abramson getting pummelled by corrupt hypocrites: Just another day in the trash can called journalism.

For a profession that criticizes people viciously, journalists certainly do not like when people criticize them.

Oh, what a shock.

They either suppress information or try to tear into someone if their profile is high enough.

So when former New York Times editor Jill Abramson dissed on the corrupt and dead profession of journalism, the book couldn’t be ignored; so journalists went to attack her credibility like a rapist attacks the victim, blaming her and saying she deserved it.

merchants-of-truth-9781501123207_lg.jpg

Make no mistake: the level of vitriol has more to do that a woman dared call them out for their sins than the actual content.

Also note, it was the white boys who instigated this very coordinated hit.

So before discussing the guts of the allegations, let me point out that Jill Abramson made it all the way to News York Times editor.

A very lofty position in the profession. That’s as prestigious as you can get. 60 Minutes correspondent or head of a network news outfit possibly trump it.

Back then, she was doing the basic same things she did for her entire journalistic career, and she was employed and got promoted.

And that was just dandy keen for years.

But then she was a cheerleader on Team Journalism.

Now she isn’t.

I wrote a book on journalism’s ethics last year and that book was exhaustively researched.

latestbbok.jpg

I had no assistant. I did the entire researching and writing all by myself up in a cottage in Selkirk right on Lake Erie in the winter in the middle of nowhere because it was always my dream to write a book that way.

20170113_094331.jpg

For five months, that is what I woke up to seeing every morning while drinking Turkish coffee. I wanted absolute solitude, but The Fabulous Ladies drove up every Sunday for brunch and mischief, and I am grateful. I did take some time out to go to Chicago to get semi-precious stones for my jewelry-making. I stayed at the fun and posh Virgin Hotel and dined at Miss Ricky’s and The Gage, but still brought my laptop to work on my book. I still have my little shower lamb from the Virgin Hotel

20170530_195640.jpg
20170531_075506.jpg
20170530_201258.jpg
20170530_200025.jpg

My book was ignored by journalists in public, though people are still buying it, despite the shut out. So much for free speech. As usual, word of mouth can break through any blacklist.

I still did an interview here and a funky one here.

But journalists couldn’t do that with Abramson. They had to stomp on her and stone her to discredit her work.

You cannot discredit mine, however. I did not go into journalism with stars in my eyes, and then turned into a bitter and disgruntled failure. I went in knowing exactly who they were, and wanted to study the profession by being a journalist for real. I conducted unprecedented and exhaustive experiments. My beat was the business of journalism and my audience were people in the profession.

When I had enough information to write an informed and empirically-sound exposé, I walked away.

th.jpeg

I also wrote one on Fox News, and then over a decade later came When Journalism was a Thing.

Abramson was in deep, and as much as she knows about the people in that sketchy profession, those in the profession know all about her.

So those trolls knew where to look and how to strike.

And then went batshit crazy on her in a frenzy tirade, hoping to nullify her revealing of their disgusting dirt.

They nitpicked on a few facts, but even that is under debate. Journalists fuck up on facts all the time. They do not use empirical methods.

But then came the “chargeofplagiarism! Oh, no! Run for your lives! Don’t listen to the scary woman with the book that exposes us!

giphy (2).gif

It is a pathetic ruse.

The poseur “journalists” at the garbage publication Paste really overplayed the melodramatics:

Jill Abramson Is a Disgrace to Journalism

Yeah, as if you grifters know what this “journalism” is. You are not fooling anybody, you twits. Stop using the movie Reefer Madness as a guide on how to behave. You come off as disingenuous nerds.

The only publication with any sense here is the National Review that has a more accurate take:

Jill Abramson Is a Hack, Not a Thief

I am currently reading the book. She knows who she is dealing with. It is kind of a stretch to call it “plagiarism” because the writing for both are so banal and unoriginal, that really, it is like writing, “Bob likes his new job” and then someone else writes “Robert has positive feelings toward his most recent career” and then make some over-the-top tirade because you both are writing about the same damn thing.

Seriously, no winners here. I would not classify it as a “sourcing error”, either. I would classify this as typical journalism nincompoopity, and it needs to be replaced with a more responsible alternative.

Vice is pure garbage. Sexist pretentious trolls with one who got nabbed for being a drug dealer, and Vice got Canadian government money to boot. What does Vice know about journalistic ethics?

I wrote about Vice in my latest book. They are to journalism what a soiled jock strap is to journalism.

And they’re ranting about Abramson?

And other outlets are parroting their meltdown?

I can tell you straight up my book is exhaustively researched, and I didn’t plagiarize. I don’t need to because my writing is superior to Vice hacks or anyone else in that dead profession. It would be a serious step down from my own abilities.

So yes, the pot is calling the kettle black, but who is the pot and who is the kettle is your choice.

If you want to read a book that tells it like it is that doesn’t pull any punches and fears no angry mob of hacks, read When Journalism was a Thing.

You can even read while enjoying a cup of Turkish coffee — because you haven’t lived until you had a cup…

We don't need politics. We need empathy, respect, and compassion. You know, the things that count.

I

His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge. Of contemporary literature, philosophy and politics he appeared to know next to nothing. Upon my quoting Thomas Carlyle, he inquired in the naïvest way who he might be and what he had done. My surprise reached a climax, however, when I found incidentally that he was ignorant of the Copernican Theory and of the composition of the Solar System. That any civilized human being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth travelled round the sun appeared to me to be such an extraordinary fact that I could hardly realize it.

“You appear to be astonished,” he said, smiling at my expression of surprise. “Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it.”

“To forget it!”

“You see,” he explained, “I consider that a man’s brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.”

“But the Solar System!” I protested.

“What the deuce is it to me?” he interrupted impatiently: “you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work.”

—Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in A Study in Scarlet.

II

I am not pretentious, but I am not stupid. I know details, and get nuances and catch on to Shibboleths. I don’t shop in Manhattan, but Secaucus, New Jersey where there are those fabulous outlet malls, for instance. I have ever since I was a teenager. I prefer the complexities of Bénédictine over most other liqueurs. Armani for the wife, Versace for the mistress, but Moschino for Alexandra.

I am not some yokel. If I don’t know something, don’t assume I wanted to know it. I heard it, determined it to not be all that, and promptly forgot it.

Such as whatever script someone spews at me. Brag all you want. In one ear, out the other.

What interests me is human motivation and strategies. Who are you as a person matters, not some bullshit story you are telling me to impress me or make me jealous.

Because I am not obsessed with keeping up with the Joneses, people think that I am going to be impressed and feel inadequate. Don’t be silly. What Alexandra wants, she gets, one way or another.

And Alexandra gets what she wants and needs all by herself.

I am choosy and I am fussy.

I love to learn. I just signed up for this Oxford short course. I love to write books, and that’s what I am doing.

I don’t have to take the course, but I like to expand certain areas of my mind, and bring them up to code.

I have three more pieces of unfinished business. Right before January, it was a dozen. None were minor.

After those are taken care of, it is the next level upwards and forwards.

But I never forget my roots.

I don’t look down on people who didn’t have the same opportunities. I respect and admire them greatly, and not in some precious, condescending way. People survived wars, slavery, incest, abuse, terrorism, illness, poverty, and victimization. They didn’t “bring it on” themselves. I am genuinely outraged that my country treats First Nations people like they were disposable, for instance, while we have grifters who live it up on the taxpayer dime.

The US Democrats act like the Catholic church — they talk a good talk about liberties, preach to tell you that you are inferior and need them to guide you, use Doomsday scenarios with their environmental policy, and yet keep begging for donations as they ride around in limos.

And like the church they emulate, they are the ones who get caught doing really infuriating things that prove they are hypocrites, making the New York Post very giddy.

Dyw1xKXX4AI8AG9.jpg

What is with this whole blackface thing, anyway? I mean, it happened in my junior high during class, and even then as a tween in the 1980s, I thought it was downright racist.

I can believe in forgiveness as a general concept, but it isn’t my place to forgive. I’m a white Canadian. I take my cue from the people who were wronged.

I remember The New York Times having this priggish Op-Ed piece when Megyn Kelly said kids did it in her time, and the opinionist got all snooty, claiming it wasn’t happening in his time and he was a couple of years older than Kelly.

Bullshit.

It happens now, but as we know, it happened then, too. I smell pants roasting.

So here is one group of people who branded themselves as a morally superior party having a cemetery of skeletons jumping out of their closets proving that it really doesn’t matter who you vote for — they aren’t authentic. The labels of these political sects is just a front for conniver who wants to wear a paper crown and will tell you whatever you want to hear.

III

Canada has the same problem right now. The federal Liberals are equally troublesome. While Postmedia owns both the Toronto Sun and the National Post, getting to play both sides of things, I found this National Post column interesting:

The other jab in this combination of punches is their regular mentions of Justin Trudeau’s “family fortune” — a phrase the prime minister himself used inadvisedly in a press conference.

“That amount ($5,000) is peanuts for a prime minister who inherited a great family fortune,” said Conservative Rosemarie Falk, by way of example.

…But there is good reason why the Conservatives are adopting such deceptive tactics: they are working.

What deception? That the Prime Minister has no empathy or ability to adjust his perspective? His policies are not for the poor. They aren’t good for the Middle Class. They cater exclusively to limousine liberals: people with money who do not want to be inconvenienced economically nor personally.

And then Trudeau opens his mouth and proves it, as the Toronto Sun gleefully pointed out:

“We see proof that the conservatives simply don’t understand that low income families don’t benefit from tax breaks because they don’t pay taxes,” said Justin Trudeau.

It is Trudeau who doesn’t even know the basic reality of his own poor. Poor people do have to pay income tax even if they make less than $12,000 a year.

They also pay HST on goods and services. There is no tax exemption when you buy basics.

The left-leaning press kept their mouths shut on this one, as usual, hoping not to draw attention and censoring unflattering nincompoopity from the Jive Turkey because they know if the Tories win, there is no goodie fund for them.

What you have is a prime minister completely incapable of genuine compassion and empathy:

“While we continue to stay focused on Canadians, Conservatives continue to stay focused on how I grew up,” Trudeau shot back.

Yes, because you never grew up. The Grits focus on themselves, no one else. When you keep the poorest at arm’s length, you have no idea who they are, what they need, or how they came to be poor.

Method Research would go a long way to understanding what needs to be done.

For one, I would force any candidate running for prime minister to be forced to live for two years among the poorest of his or her nation with no help. All funds would be cut off, and they would be monitored.

You are going to live in a shitty little shack. You are going to have to get a joe job. You are going to have to pay the bills with whatever you earn.

Two years.

No limos. No colorful culturally-appropriate costumes. No designer clothing or children’s socks.

And, for giggles, you’d be sent up to the remote location where everything is more expensive.

Then you would be grow up, put on your big boy pants, and have a fresh perspective.

It would be good if everyone was healthy, happy, and prosperous.

This isn’t reality.

And ignoring it isn’t actually working for the Left. People aren’t blind or numb to their own whispering problems.

With Trudeau, it is shallow gestures and empathy phrases with no core to it, He apologizes for other people’s actions of the past, thinking that means something.

Not if those injustices are still alive and well in the present and you don’t see them.

Anyone with drama training can shed a few crocodile tears. So can people clocked for speeding and bawl to the nice police officer not to give them a ticket.

Kids in toy stores can do it, too.

That doesn’t prove you have empathy, respect, or compassion.

I am still haunted by my grandmother’s agonizing death. She chose to live because she didn’t want to be away from her family. To her, she did not want to abandon us and sacrificed everything to look out for us. She worried about how much sleep I got and agonized about my derailed career. She gave me pep talks and advice as she lay dying.

I looked after her 24/7. I had been so focussed on her that I abandoned myself in the bargain. My mother did the same.

And then my mother was diagnosed with cancer and then I was, too a few short weeks later.

We looked after each other. I had to trudge in the snow to walk a long way to the hospital to see my mother after her surgery three weeks after have surgery to remove my left ovary.

They gutted me. My stomach muscle was split in two. I was oozing and in absolute agony. I didn’t take the morphine I was given. I didn’t even pick it up because I could not be under any influence because I had to drive and look after my mother.

And I can barely walk, but I make the trip twice a day to the hospital where my mother lost a lot of blood and had a hard time keeping awake because of it. I had to look after her as I am terrified that my cancer has spread.

But I march to the hospital every day like a soldier. I would go to Fortinos to buy my mother something with flavour to eat as I also would bring her coffee, and try to cheer her up, and I can barely sit in the hospital chair, still in shock that asymptomatic me had motherfucking ovarian cancer.

And then she comes home, and a few weeks later, she has to have another surgery because she had something so rare that the doctor who had to operate never seen it before.

It is a never-ending siege of trauma.

And I know there are people who not only had it as bad, they have it even worse.

They have children with incurable degenerative conditions.

I have a bracelet a student made for me in jewelry summer camp that I taught one year. She was the sweetest, cutest, kindest little girl who took the class so she could make things to raise money for the fatal disease she has.

But she gave me a present because even though she is ill, she wants me to know that she likes me.

And it moves me. If I had the power, I would make her problems disappear.

But I don’t, and it bothers me.

I have known people who are going through extraordinary lengths for their terminally ill children, fighting a brawl with the heavens to extract every extra second at the expense of everything.

And we have a deluded prime minister who has his panties in a knot because his rivals have his number and keep dialling it.

We have never had a prime minister — on the left or right, who put children first.

And no, photo ops of you reading to them doesn’t count. Fuck you.

Neither is giving people money per child — it encourages the wrong kind of people to keep having them for the free money. I used to sit in the solarium and watch outside my old house on Main Street East in Hamilton and see Stroller Row.

We have children in battered women’s shelters. We have children who are sex slaves being passed around and videotaped.

The Grits give money to newspapers who fucked up their own worthless profession — but completely ignore children’s services.

This is vile and disgusting.

I like my art. I like my surrealist paintings, my books, my theremin, my Kintsugi, my Alexander Katsulin pottery, Turkish coffee, and antique furniture.

I like Sherlock Holmes, Han Hoogerbrugge, the Hives, and the Blue Beetle.

I am self-indulgent and eccentric, and if you don’t like it, go fuck yourself.

You aren’t paying my bills. You don’t care that I had cancer. Go to hell. I don’t have respect for your negging.

Because it is all meaningless if you don’t have a moral compass.

And politics isn’t the place you’ll ever find it.

Neither is this neo-Victorian façade. It’s not genuine.

A kinder world comes from empathy and compassion.

That requires vulnerability and connect, not cheap acting stunts and empty words…

Journalism's hot mess continues.

Not all crap is in the Western press, as “the sightings” of dead person Muammar Gaddafi in Chad is proven to be a hoax. Apparently, the Senegalese media outfits cut and paste from parody sites. Good job.

A Vice Canada’s former editor’s legal woes over this whole drug thing continue. Yeah, they don’t call it Vice for nothing, kids!

The noose around Gannett is tightening as the Asset-squeezers are not letting up so easy.

Newspaper printing has been outsourced at big dailies…as a part of asset-squeezing.

We have Reality Deniers at the New Yorker talking about Trump’s “shrunken presidency”, when his approval ratings remain unchanged. You truly live in the Land of the Stoned and Bladdered.

Oh, the the chicken littles at the New York Times are scared of AI reporters. Don’t worry, darlings, they’ll be just as shitty at the job as you are now.

And that big push how journalists are the guardians of the universe seems to be fading as circulations and ratings continue to plummet…

Journalism's continued job implosion. All the old tricks and new stunts aren't working. It is time to face reality.

I

20190131_164841.jpg

II

I wrote the book on this collapse last year called When Journalism was a Thing, but since I am female, I get ignored. If you want a thorough, well-researched, honest, accurate, reliable, valid, useful, passionate, objective, and definitive answer to what is happening now, read my book.

The Washington Post is an outlet in perpetual denial. Journalism is dead. The end. If the Post cannot grasp or face the reality of their dead profession, they cannot see anything in front of them.

Let’s look at the headlines Drudge drudged up today:

McClatchy Follows BuzzFeed, Vice, and Others in Cutting Staff

Vice Media to Lay Off 10 Percent of Staff in Company Restructuring

And the partisan New York Times whining:

Digital Media: What Went Wrong

For years, BuzzFeed seemed to be leading the journalism industry toward a brave new future. Now that it has stumbled, the way ahead looks more old-school than ever.

Do not believe the New York Times for one millisecond: there was no promise of a “brave new future” with BuzzFeed. It was always garbage with filler, propaganda, and ignorance that never did journalism differently. It just has garbage quizzes and tacky propaganda with snark.

That’s not an actual thing to be proud of, even if you are completely stupid and without morals or common sense.

Notice that the only trick has been Trump-bashing and begging for money, and neither lazy hack is working — it is, actually, having the opposite effect.

No, nerds pretending to be hip and edgy isn’t going to save a dead profession.

And the ridiculous mantra that “the future is digital” has been dealt a deathblow.

Why?

When you use old tricks and stunts and never admit that what you are doing is not working, that’s what happens.

The medium is not the content. The medium is not the structure. The medium is not the mandate.

The medium is not the saviour.

The lazy ways of journalism have not saved them, and the fact that the new generation of outlets have collapsed the same way proves once and for all that the model is broken beyond repair.

Get the memo, children…

latestbbok.jpg

New York Times is afraid of Twitter: Op-Ed encourages reporters to run away.

If you can’t beat them, hide from them.

The New York Times seems to think so with this Op-Ed piece:

Never Tweet

The controversy over the Covington students shows why American journalism should disengage from Twitter.

The reasoning is quite instructive:

The Covington saga illustrates how every day the media’s favorite social network tugs journalists deeper into the rip currents of tribal melodrama, short-circuiting our better instincts in favor of mob- and bot-driven groupthink. In the process, it helps bolster the most damaging stereotypes of our profession. Instead of curious, intellectually honest chroniclers of human affairs, Twitter regularly turns many in the news — myself included — into knee-jerk outrage-bots reflexively set off by this or that hash-tagged cause, misspelled presidential missive or targeted-influence campaign.

But Twitter isn’t just ruining the media’s image. It’s also skewing our journalism. Everything about Twitter’s interface encourages a mind-set antithetical to journalistic inquiry: It prizes image over substance and cheap dunks over reasoned debate, all the while severely abridging the temporal scope of the press.

Memo to Farhad Manjoo: Twitter did not ruin the media’s image. They did that all by themselves with doing the same thing I chronicled in my first book.

The book that showed way back in 2005 exactly one year before Twitter debuted that this kind of behaviour was a problem that destroyed the profession’s credibility.

What Twitter does is expose the groupthink that was always there. You are merely telling colleagues to hide their ugly side, not confront things.

And no, Twitter isn’t “helping [to] bolster the most damaging stereotypes of our profession” — that is your profession.

Deal with it.

Why read the New York Times when this website has already said months before?

I

thief-of-thie4112012ves.jpeg

II

Calvinball.jpg

III

Gotta love those unoriginal thinkers at the New York Times when they have reruns such as this piece:

In Business and Governing, Trump Seeks Victory in Chaos

Gee, New York Times, where did you get this idea?

Perhaps from my last book?

latestbbok.jpg

Or maybe from my website, in countless entries?

Like this one in June of 2018?

For people who read this site frequently, you know the Chaos Narrative and that I have said here and in my book that Trump plays Go and thrives in chaos.

Yes, the New York Times obviously has to scrape my site for ideas.

I have been thinking about things very carefully, and what I am going to do with Chaser. Until tonight, I was at a crossroads; now, I have had a revelation, and combined with my intellectual transmutation, I have a very clear idea of what I am going to do next.

That means that now my third arc is coming first, and that should be in two weeks. It is a One Shot, and it has to do with a notorious case from another era that would be seen differently in a #MeToo era.

Then I will have something on Postmedia, and then comes a geo-political story. 

And then a hiatus for me to finish writing my book.

Come summer, I am taking a vastly different track. Journalism and old school elites play chess. Trump plays Go.

Alexandra Kitty plays something else entirely. It is a game called Chaser, and the object of the game is to turn over rules that shred scripts one page at a time.

And that is your message from…

Chaser.png

Journalism's lack of cohesion is a ruse in itself.

I

1546542984611892676899.jpg

II

Journalism was never a profession with actual discipline. Not in their academic halls nor in their professional affairs. They were never up to code, which had benefits, and they got away with it for decades because they were the only game in town.

And even now, when they try to think up reasons why people believe false information, their lack of discipline shows. It is a nebulous profession that does all sorts of behind-the-scenes skulduggery to financially benefit themselves.

Because they are hidden and elusive, despite their half-assed stunts to prove transparency, it becomes to be an accurate critic. People take guesses, but it is easy for them to dismiss.

I realized that very early on as a teenager when I wrote letters of complaint. The haughty and arrogant replies told me that the cloak was a ruse in itself. You can swat away criticism because the critics don’t know what is going on, let alone what to look for.

Eventually, I figured out the solution: you want to be a media critic, you had better become one of their number.

And so, I did.

I went in with a plan and a series of experiments. I was a journalist whose beat was writing about the various aspects of journalism.

I took years to do it. I wasn’t in any hurry. How long it took, I would do it properly and thoroughly.

And break the code.

The lack of precision was part of the act. So was the feigned martyrdom. They drag their feet, attack someone as a villain as a misdirection, and then hope things turn around and they find a saviour.

It’s not working anymore.

It is the reason why their feints and ruses have become transparent: using an old script that no longer aligns with reality.

But it is an instructive time to see how forced narratives work — and how they backfire…

Mitt Romney's same old story...treated as something new.

Mitt Romney has had a one-track mind for a very long time.

So what has he said about the US President in 2016 alone?

A phony and a fraud. He said Trump was not fit for office and was guaranteeing a Hillary Clinton win. He should never get the nomination. He said he is low energy. He does not like Trump, and said he is repulsed by him. He has thought of every excuse under the sun.

Screen Shot 2019-01-02 at 8.46.00 PM.png

It’s not news.

And yet the Washington Post treats it as if it were:

Mitt Romney: The president shapes the public character of the nation. Trump’s character falls short.

Trump had no problem reminding people that Romney is not spewing anything new.

And easily creating an interesting narrative:

"Would much prefer that Mitt focus on Border Security and so many other things where he can be helpful. I won big, and he didn't. He should be happy for all Republicans. Be a TEAM player & WIN!"

It is a lull, and when that happens, we have a hamster wheel and a vortex where no one seems to have any new ideas, and hope one of the old ones that fell flat the last hundred times gains something resembling traction...

"The Inevitability of Impeachment" = The Inevitability of Hillary Clinton's 2016 Presidential Campaign. How the New York Times sticks to the same propaganda.

I

peoplewilltalk2.jpg
peoplewilltalk3.jpg

II

latestbbok.jpg

III

Trump's futile war against the media

The Republican nominee appears locked in with his losing strategy

By: Allan Levine
Posted: 10/12/2016 12:36 PM

IV

Historically Conservative Ohio Newspapers Endorse Hillary Clinton

October 31, 20164:15 PM ET

V

Hillary Clinton for President

Hillary Clinton for President

Screen+Shot+2018-12-28+at+5.57.23+PM.jpg

VI

The Inevitability of Impeachment

VII

My favourite film is an obscure Carey Grant number called People Will Talk. It is an old film, but reminds me a lot of our neo-Victorian age. Grant is Dr. Noah Praetorius, a doctor who blows into town. His students love him, as do his patients.

It is everyone else who thinks he is too unorthodox and the judgemental people in town just want to take him down, particularly a rival professor, and he plays dirty in trying to bring charges against him.

The press have been playing that sick game with Trump since he declared his intention to run for president.

They have been trying the same gambit — and one that they have no business doing. They are to report facts, not try to rig things so their decrees are adhered to by others.

They decreed that Hillary Clinton would be president. They were wrong. My latest book explains why this meant the profession of journalism is over.

Now they are trying to up the ante and go for impeachment, hoping that Trump will resign.

The New York Times is trying that gambit. I would not be surprised if the Times ends up in a scandal in 2019 having to fight for its own existence.

Doing the same propagandistic thing and expecting a different outcome is a strong hint they have sins in their vault that they know will get exposed and soon.

As the press is in even a weaker position than they were pre-November 2016, it is becoming more difficult to try to regain what they squandered.

As I have repeatedly said, Trump took advantage of an opportunity. He knows who he is dealing with. He is absolutely right in calling the press “fake news.” They are. They have been for a long time.

But he didn’t make that bed. Journalists and their overlords made it. Now they are trying to cover up their sins by getting rid of a president they know will win a second term. The more they go after him, the more of their own weaknesses show.

And the damage is already done.

That is the reason I am starting Chaser: let’s move away from this pathetic spectacle of deceit and propaganda. Let’s make finding facts a priority escapade and mandate.

Because this bullshit isn’t working and citizens don’t need to be patronized or bullied by the press…

The Chaser Solution: Chapter Twelve: Months in a year, hours on a clock, it all comes up to a dozen. We mark time, but never make the most of it.

I

51 copy.JPG

II

mz_11518666_bodyshot_300x400-133.gif
dw5.gif
mz_11518666_bodyshot_300x400-130.gif
mz_11518666_bodyshot_300x400-121.gif
mz_11518666_bodyshot_300x400-131.gif
mz_11518666_bodyshot_300x400-117.gif

III

52 copy.JPG

IV

Petty shits.

Who was worse this week?

The New York Times for publishing family gossip that was unsubstantiated, or NBC for not correcting the record when they knew they were wrong?

Even the Washington Post is cautioning them to be careful of not spreading fake news.

Should anyone care about the Times’ story? I don’t recall too many modern presidents being soldiers or enlisting. They still got voted in. Canadian universities still have those Left-wing American draft dodgers as professors, and no one is getting upset about that.

The same people who were marching in anti-war protests are bitching about someone who didn’t fight a war? You assholes didn’t, either; so just shut the fuck up.

The middle class don’t care about much.

Not even if the news has no connect to reality.

Take CBC here in Canada. They puke bullshit how the Canadian economy was “resilient” in 2018, but for whom? We had a lot of stores closing. We had factories closing.

We have a homeless crisis, and in traditionally middle class safe havens such as the Golden Horseshoe. Real estate is rapidly cooling off, and household debt is at very bad levels. We have an opioid crisis, and that’s not a sign of prosperity.

Yet like a dubbed foreign film, the voice over doesn’t ever match up with the moving lips.

V

So what’s going on?

On the one hand, it is a confirmation bias: choose a self-serving narrative, and look for evidence that supports your narrative as you ignore evidence that refutes it. In the US, the press is anti-Trump all the time. It is pure insanity because they had power to be kingmakers until the day they weren’t. They are mad at him for showing them the reality of their situation.

They should have been grateful.

They should have seen what happened and how to re-invent their profession. Instead, they veered into rank propaganda and haven’t stopped as their fortunes go further down.

They hate Trump. They also hate Facebook for the same reason. They hate “populism” — again, for the same reason. They got mad at poor people for expressing themselves, using social media to do it, and voting for the only candidate that spoke to them during the election.

Once upon a time, journalists wouldn’t be hating those people: they would be writing about them and speaking to them, but then they got full of themselves and got lost in narcissistic fantasy.

You used to inform these same people. You used to publish their letters to the editor. You used to get outraged when they got hurt in life, and the Establishment tried to screw them over.

What happened to those people? Where did you go wrong?

In Canada, the press betrayed the people, but in a different way: they lied to them, but are lulling them into thinking things are better than they actually are. They mimic Soviet-style propaganda where the news told citizens how great the economy was, and it was in the toilet. People laughed at the news because it was bullshit and they knew it.

They believed it for a while, until they imploded. Regions broke away, and the fragmentation spelled the end of that system of governance.

It happened to the Soviet Union. It happened to Yugoslavia.

Would it happen to Canada? It depends how badly things go. Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta would leave. Toronto would, too. The US would greatly benefit because they could gain access to natural resources easily and quietly. It is not as if Canada would be a match for the US, but why do it loudly, when you can do the same thing silently without fuss?

But Canada was always an impossible country: it is too big with too few people spread out too far apart.

What holds them together? Fairy tales.

The kicker is that if this country could face reality, it would leave other countries in the dust.

VI

The US is in the same position. There is nothing wrong with their president. He is no worse than his predecessor. You cannot fault Donald Trump for seeing reality that you can win a presidency by stumping and going directly to the people in person — and by using Twitter. Kudos to him.

He exposed that the media has no teeth. They have been gumming at him for so long that you’d think they’d get tired of their own temper tantrum.

The press should have just stood back and saw their own arrogant and oblivious childishness.

I remember talking to one US reporter about Trump before November 2016. He thought Clinton would win it. I said no way. He was absolutely certain, citing polls. I said look at the polls for Brexit, and even for Toronto’s mayoralty race where Rob Ford handily won. He said it was an apples to oranges comparison. I said it was apples to apples.

Trump won.

I could see what Trump saw: a dead media. The model was no longer aligned with reality. If the strongest of the media — the US — couldn’t do it, then neither could anyone else. People can get offended all they want, but no other country had the journalistic muscle saved for the UK. They are having the same problems, and there is no relief in sight.

And what you have is a hamster wheel that marks nothing.

What you don’t have is news anymore. North, East, West, South.

No one minding the times. No one minding the place.

For example, child exploitation is a serious problem in Canada. So is human trafficking. We have a serious problem with First Nations women vanishing and being murdered. Lots of child pornography and prostitution going on here.

And the laws here are a joke.

With a press that aids and abets these people.

And in the US, the hate on Trump is so out of control that the US will pay for it for decades to come because no one is paying attention at the things that are actually important.

How many people can live well? How many people die needlessly?

What are the dangers?

That’s news.

It is not a fairytale. It is not campfire story.

It is a clock. It is a compass.

You know where you are right now and where things are going?

When you know, you are F.R.E.E.D.

What should you be going after?

That’s Chaser.

The strength isn’t in the One.

It is in the Infinite.

twmdwwatp.JPG

And, darlings, that is your message to ponder very carefully, courtesy of…

Chaser.png

Journalists continue to blame their own owners for their troubles. It is everyone's else's fault, never their own.

It never ends. The “It’s Everyone’s Else’s Fault” narrative that has turned the journalistic collective into stupid children continues, this time, in The New York Times, with this opinion propaganda:

Who Killed The Weekly Standard?

The bureaucratic mind has a temporary triumph.

The entire thesis is Evil Owner up against Hero Victim Reporters.

No, really:

John Podhoretz, one of the magazine’s founders, reports that they actively prevented potential buyers from coming in to take it over and keep it alive. They apparently wanted to hurt the employees and harvest the subscription list so they could make money off it. And Anschutz, being a professing Christian, decided to close the magazine at the height of the Christmas season, and so cause maximum pain to his former employees and their families.

The Grinch who stole Christmas? Has the Times actually noticed the number of companies not being able to make it to Christmas this year?

But the paranoid conspiracy theory does not end there:

In reality, this is what happens when corporate drones take over an opinion magazine, try to drag it down to their level and then grow angry and resentful when the people at the magazine try to maintain some sense of intellectual standards. This is what happens when people with a populist mind-set decide that an uneducated opinion is of the same value as an educated opinion, that ignorance sells better than learning.

In that sense, the closing of The Standard resembles Chris Hughes’s destruction of the old New Republic. This is what happens when the commercial forces trying to dumb down the American media run into a pocket of people trying to resist those forces.

Yes, because journalists are flawless and valiant crusaders, and those big meany Pro-Trump owners are taking out their big guns, stuffing it with cow shit, and firing it at them.

Really?

Opinion magazines are redundant in a world with social media because people like their own opinions better than other people’s. Opinion is cheap and easy filler, and opinion magazines are cheap to produce; so if an owner wants to get rid of an opinion rag, there is a good reason for it.

The self-serving narrative isn’t aligned with reality. Those in the profession still don’t get what has happened. They are thinking in the same scripted way they did thirty years ago, and the rules no longer apply.

If they weren’t so busy being arrogant, they would see that they aren’t smarter than the “populist” people they keep seeing as beneath them.

If the profession truly wanted to save themselves, they would start looking at themselves, and writing an exposé on their own.

The way I have been writing exposés on the profession for years.

I want a better method to inform society. I want progress and improvement.

I don’t want to sit in cow shit the way everyone else in the profession sits in cow shit and wallows how everything stinks.

Yes, motherfuckers, sitting in cow shit stinks. You stink. Your profession stinks. Your attitude stinks. Your work stinks.

And it is so unnecessary. It is like dealing with a stubborn, but stupid child who cries that he smells like cow shit after he jumps in a pile of cow shit that you repeatedly told him not to jump in.

Then he bitches how it is yucky and stinky as no other kids wants to play with him, calls him smelly, and it’s all their fault.

And you just sit there and wonder if it is the arrogance that makes the brat a worthless dummy, or he is just unteachable.

If you want change, march yourself in front of the mirror and look at all the cow shit on you. Acknowledge the cow shit is the same cow shit you jumped into despite repeated warnings from the world, especially Alexandra Kitty. Admit it is a stupid thing to do. Then go wash it off. Get rid of the cow shit. You may have to take multiple baths.

Then dry yourself off and look in the mirror again.

Then do not go running into and rolling around in another pile of cow shit ever again.

The end.

Happy ending!

Yes, AlexandraKitty.com is a free resource for journalistic rehabilitation services and sensible advice…

Why journalism never understood the truth of science: The New York Times does the same thing I did twenty years ago, just unscientific and with ego.

For those of you who have read this site, you know how I discussed various empirical experiments I did when I went into journalism in order to study it.

I studied the rejections I received during that time, and I chronicled that escapade in various posts, including this one.

And this one.

I also did a Story Studio offering as well.

The New York Times decided to venture into rejections, but with very telling, if unscientific results in this piece of perky, egocentric dreck:

I Got Rejected 101 Times

Being told no is inevitable in most creative endeavors. But maybe I could win by losing.

That it is written by a comedian isn’t here nor there, but the content considering the venue leaves much to be desired:

As 2018 began, though, I felt empowered by the knowledge that turning my failures into accomplishments would mean I’d be gaming the system. Both acceptances and rejections would count as a sort of win, and I liked those odds.

In pursuit of 100 rejections, I put myself forward for opportunities I’d previously thought were for smarter, funnier, cooler people. And sometimes I wasn’t rejected. I wrote for new publications, got a joke-writing gig on my favorite comedian’s radio show and interviewed guests on my podcast who I’d thought wouldn’t waste their time on me. At a stand-up show this fall, a peer told me the thing every comedian wants to hear: “I see your name everywhere! You’re killing it!”

This is the typical let’s-look-positive-on-the-negative that got the profession into trouble, an the adding pop psych touch of Angela Duckworth didn’t give the piece any value (and I had to do the same test for my class because this it required a me-centred thought process to evaluating your abilities, etc.); it was gratuitous, and it is one of those things you slap on to eke out an opinion piece that isn’t totally self-indulgent, which is fine for a blog post, not fine in a journalistic product.

What this piece happens to be is a patriarchal me-centred narcissistic narrative with no empirical or informational value: who hasn’t had their own personal narrative of getting many rejections, and persisting in spite of them? Whoop-di-fucking-do.

But that the chose to publish this piece says a lot about why the profession collapsed: it sees nothing wrong with patriarchal me-centred narcissistic narratives instead of you-focussed empirical facts.

What they should have been doing all along.

What is the difference? Let’s take a journalistic staple to explain it: the Christmas/Thanksgiving stories that take place in a food ban or a homeless shelter to show how (a) the media outlet notices such dispossessed people, and (b) how there are concerned citizens who volunteer to help those unfortunates.

That is a pure me-centred narcissistic narrative with no empirical or informational value. It is virtue-signalling at the expense of poor, broken-down people.

That may be cold-hearted bullshit, but it is not objective or rationally-gathered information.

The narrative is selfish. The focus is also selfish. The homeless people are cannon fodder and a plot-device to give an excuse to praise people who are not homeless.

What would be a you-focussed empirically-gathered piece with actual utility?

Simple: today, a total of 5671 came to the shelter for sustenance, up from 5290 people last year. The sheltered spent/gave fro donations $2.67 per person. The shelter’s funding comes from several sources (see Appendix A for sources, amounts, YTD changes). The head of the sheltered earned $125000. We interviewed every person who walked in, and in the following section, they described how it is they became homeless, the resources they had used prior to their homelessness, and the programs and supports they use now. The section after that are the responses from various government officials about what they have done, how much was spend, who oversees the implementation, and what they are planning to do. Appendix B shows their previous year’s responses for a direct comparison. We also looked at the food to see expiration dates and nutritional value of each meal, and Appendix C discusses with various nutritional experts on whether this is sufficient for people living in the elements where their immune systems are challenged.

Not as fun as cheering the little Middle Class people for volunteering, but more instructive.

The fact that we don’t have journalistic focus on what counts speaks volumes.

We have things that shouldn’t be published in those venues because it sounds clever, when it is the same old patriarchal stories repackaged. The hold doesn’t break.

When I studied my rejections, I did it by charting those rejections to circulation figures, editorial firings, publication closings, and the like. I plotted the careers of editors who gave the yays and nays, for instance to see if there were patterns to their responses (there were, and several of them).

Unfortunately, I only had my own acceptances and rejections to work with, but I still had reliable and valid data that had both predictability and utility. If I had access to other responses, I would have had a motherlode of viable information about the profession.

But the Times always misses opportunities to actually see reality. They like their narratives and their egocentrism, and have polluted their paper with both for decades…