Memo to the New Yorker: Der Spiegel's "pathology" infected the rest of the profession, too.

I

glass.jpg

II

The New Yorker has a naive piece on the Der Spiegel scandal where they let one reporter use leftie fantasy tropes and sophistry, folksy details, as he charmed the staff, knew how to outwit fact-checkers, and slathered his stories with no facts, just lots of colour and eccentric characters.

And then have the shallow twits have the nerve to talk about “deep psychology.”

No, you’re too stupid to know about “deep psychology.”

This is a replay of Stephen Glass and the New Republic.

In other words, Der Spiegel doesn’t do anything differently than any other news magazine.

They just got caught because someone in their magazine started to get suspicious.

Someone who was younger and less established — the same way Glass finally got exposed.

And nothing ever changes. Even the New Yorker is doing the same things in its telling of the scandal.

I wrote books on this problem — and even in the New Yorker piece, they are still playing partisan games, by trying to spin the idea of being upset over fake news as being some sort of Right-wing/Fascist/Trump Supporter lie.

And it isn’t.

If you are not perturbed by the amount of lies and errors being churned out in news products, then there is something seriously wrong with you.

You cannot distance yourself or try to downplay the number of scandals of deceit journalism has faced over the decades.

Fake news is a real problem. It is a real problem in mainstream Western journalism. There are no government bodies or quality control requirements or standards. The very fact that this reporter felt compelled to put some sort of qualifier in a bid to discount the “fake news” label makes this piece less than credible.

Just because you look down on people who are criticizing you doesn’t make you right or them wrong.

It is no different than the National Post always looking down on women who say that men in power sexually harassed and assault them — and then are upset because their criticisms are dismissed.

Do you not think those women aren’t a little peeved — and have merit to their arguments?

And their detractors are always trying to dismiss as being nutty and slutty?

That is the reason we cannot trust journalists reporting on their own sins and atrocities.

Because they see only their enemies’ bad habits — never their own…

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…

Unreadable Narrator: Just get to the point, New Yorker.

The New Yorker has a rambling piece on how author Dan Mallory is full of it. Bottom line: if someone is a liar, they aren’t all that interesting or warrant that much colour and filler.

That we have fiction authors bullshit about their lives is hardly anything new.

When you go for melodramatic bullshit stories, you are going to get hosed for eternity. The end.

Spinning yarns gets you lucrative contracts, and Mallory knows the game well.

He also knows that you can spin a story to deflect the accusations, and go on.

Vox, a publication for morons addicted to sophistry, loved the New Yorker puke-a-thon,

The greatest thriller I have read this year is not a book. It’s a new article in the New Yorker by Ian Parker about the editor and author Dan Mallory, and it is filled with so many twists and turns, such scheming and brazen lies, that it eclipses fiction. It definitely eclipses Mallory’s 2018 novel The Woman in the Window — written under the pen name A.J. Finn — which is a competent but paint-by-numbers thriller that is substantially less interesting than Mallory’s real-life story appears to be.

Honestly, if that is the “greatest” anything you have read so far in 2019, you are sheltered idiot. Go get some real life experience.

This isn’t a story to build up: this is a story to tear down. A man gets ahead in a lucrative career by conning people at work. Just the facts. Figure out how it happened and where the breakdowns are.

There is no “thriller” here. What you have is deceit.

This is the precise why journalists constantly get conned: they honestly believe sophistry, color, and babbling make a good story.

You are building up destructive people, making them sound more interesting than they are, and that makes you no less deceptive than the subject you are rambling about.

Please shut up, and try you article again…

Covington was a pseudo-event? You don't say, New Yorker! Come here often, fellas?

Gotta love the kids at the New Yorker, always playing catch-up to this site:

How to Escape Pseudo-Events in America: The Lessons of Covington

Now, where did we hear that before?

Oh yes, here the day before.

They are the Lestrades of communications: always cluing in long after the Holmes have already deduced the obvious…

The New Yorker spews sophistry about journalism...as usual, they are oblivious to reality.

Ramble, babble, spew:

Does Journalism Have a Future?

In an era of social media and fake news, journalists who have survived the print plunge have new foes to face.

No, journalism doesn’t have a future when you are puking sophistry and think you have an article.

This is pretentious bullshit. I could write a book about why journalism collapsed.

DM8FnHmXUAA8lfY.jpg

Wait a minute! I did write a book about it!

Go me!

giphy.gif

Notice in Jill Lepore’s long and tedious wallow-fest that she doesn’t look at what is archaic and wrong with journalism?

It is everybody else’s fault!

Let’s blame Craig’s List! And Chartbeat! And our Aunt Gertrude for not subscribing to more than one newspaper!

If only the world would stop progressing!

Journalists are the enfant stupide of the modern world. Bête would also be an appropriate word to describe them.

Journalists are like the student who does very well for a few years, but then gets in his head that is too smart to study and that he already knows everything.

And then doesn’t pay attention in class, doesn’t read notes, study, or do any real homework.

And then is shocked that he is starting to fail.

It can’t be! Didn’t he get great grades before?

As an educator, I have had real students pull this stunt. You can try to tell them that they cannot wing it, or merely use the stuff they learned before. You are learning new things and need different knowledge, facts, and skill sets.

And when you ask these students what is the problem, they have a list all good and ready, but nowhere on this list is their obliviousness and laziness.

Then they gripe to other students how “unfair” it is, only to find out they are bellyaching to those who study and work hard, and are getting sterling grades.

Journalism doesn’t have a future.

It has a past.

But an alternative does have a future because we need information, and the old guard think they are too good to change…

America's Neo-Victorian Narrative: At what point do we call it out as bullshit?

American Leftist mainstream media has some sort of demented narrative that has done an enormous disservice to women as it has chained them to some odious ideal that is absolutely no better than their Rightist rivals.

They have women chained into some Neo-Victorian groove which has no basis in reality.

Women are the same as men. They can be assholes, just like men. They can be psychopaths, just like men.

They are not superior to men. They are not inferior to men.

They are humans, just like men.

But yet, when the Left try to make a case for women, they always fuck it up.

The fuck up began in the real Victorian Era that brought the first seeds of liberation, but it did so on a lie.

The lie wasn’t necessary, and it should have been done on the more powerful truth, but the conniving gambit has made problems and prolonged a battle that should have never started in the first place.

And that lie was the notion of romantic love.

Men saw women as the property, and the governments codified it with laws. Men mistreated women savagely, and it was an extremely oppressive existence for the majority, though there were women who were powerful, and lived full, exciting, and meaningful lives despite the rigs and artificial obstacles.

But for those who were more timid and passive by nature, they resorted to a clever feint: they humanized their gender by planting seeds of romance, and from there, women began to crawl out of that oppressive mindset, breaking away, getting the right to vote, not be property, get work, and making options and opportunity for themselves.

But the case was never actually made on the notion that women were equal to men.

Women were always presented as being the morally superior gender, which is bullshit. Just as you have moral women and men, you have untrustworthy and destructive garbage out there, too, and it comes in every gender-variety available.

You have women who have murdered their children. You have women who prostituted their children and allowed their husbands and boyfriends to repeatedly rape their children — and then feign ignorance, when they damn well knew what was happening.

My grandmother had a fight with a woman who was earning more than her husband, but she knew her husband was sexually abusing her daughter, and refused to leave because she said, “Who is going to support me?”

So you have women who always find excuses why their evil is justified.

We, as a species, have never quite learned to stop with those manipulative binary games where we demonize everyone or deify everyone. The case-by-case assessments are non-existent because everyone wants a hack and a TORTEE: The One Rule That Explains Everything.

The Victorian Era’s gains can be wiped out at any given moment because everything was based on a lie.

Had we had a braver focus on reality, women should be judged the same as men without any narrative rigs. Men can be full of shit; women can be full of shit; people are people, and the point is not to rig and hold back the kind and the competent, but to do our best so that we don’t have to suffer and can live better lives as we deal with our own petty jealousies and learn how to be embrace life instead of make it miserable.

And that means that consequences matter. Men should be imprisoned if they raped someone because they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy and are corrupting society with their wickedness. The expense and traumas incurred are unnecessary, and yes, make his ilk be aware of what happens when you play those games.

But for the women who have allowed men to molest their children, they, too have to be taught the same lesson: no, sitting on your ass and allowing it to happen has no excuse that gets you off the hook. You are not some neo-Victorian victim: you are a wicked adult who knew exactly what you were doing, but figured the rapist’s pay check was worth more to you than the well-being of the child who had no say in coming into the world and having a piece of garbage for a mother.

And anyone who allows a child to be harmed is a piece of garbage. Fuck you.

But journalism is trying to retain some audiences — any audience — and is now pandering to anyone by offering to serve as their apologists, regardless of what the consequences of that pandering will be.

So what we have now are journalists using a Victorian narrative to advocate on behalf of psychopaths, and other destructive people who do not need compassion, but be held accountable for their behaviours, without incessantly looking for loopholes, and then thinking a neo-Victorian narrative will do it.

This piece of propaganda from the New Yorker is such as case in point: here we have a journalist painting a highly deceptive narrative about how horrible it is for children to be separated from their mothers who are in prison.

For many, yes, it is, but for some, those mothers have repeatedly exposed them to torture, abuse, starvation, rape, prostitution, and death.

Even if they weren’t convicted of those crimes, those mothers have a lot to answer for. They hung around a criminal element. They exposed their children to violence, gangs, drugs, weapons, and danger at every waking moment.

Not all, but not a couple, either.

This article is unscientific in the worst way imaginable. The author has willfully and deliberately chosen propaganda to spin a tale.

23f182193d4753c25a99dda556d3fadb.jpg
keep these hands off final.jpg

Many of these women have their children pimped out, in child porn, working as drug mules, and stealing…and they are placed in the same prison population as women who have done none of these things.

However, you do not take a manipulative approach: if it is bad for some, then it has to be bad for the whole.

And that is hardly the case.

We do not know how many of these women have abandoned their children, and only think about exploiting her motherhood once the reporter came marching along looking for some propaganda to spew.

If we had an actual journalist looking for reality and truth, this isn’t how you approach the subject.

You do not willfully manipulative and distort facts to make a false case, and then try to use the misdirection of a Neo-Victorian narrative to do it. There are so many holes and contradictions in this colour-heavy piece of garbage that it is useless.

I am not unfamiliar with doing a story about women in jail. I did one for Elle Canada about fifteen years ago about women who broke the law to please a boyfriend.

The piece was edited, and the editor took out a crucial profile without my knowledge, but let me explain what I did.

First, I spoke to a dozen people who were classified as experts in various areas of my subject of interest. This gave me a crude roadmap. I then went digging to find individual cases of specific women, and I researched about fifty women just to look for patterns. I read court transcripts, articles, and conducted interviews.

I then looked at fifty more who did not fit the profile, but were in jail for other reasons. They were my control group so I could compare and contrast their situation with my group of interest.

I didn’t make grand sweeping generalizations, but then I interviewed about a dozen women who fit the bill, and then I went with four women.

Unfortunately, my editor removed the last one, and I was not pleased.

While the other three women I spoke to were sympathetic, the last one was not.

None were blameless. One had no children. None should have been there for twenty years, but they should have been punished. The state was not wrong in punishing them, but mandatory minimums were obscene.

But one had a son and dated a drug dealer. Another one was a mother who took up with a prisoner, left her husband, and opened a business where he killed someone and then talked her into confessing to the crime. The third did not have children, but was involved with a drug dealer as well.

I had sympathy all the same for these three, but it was the fourth that was a caution against seeing the situation in a Victorian way.

The fourth was a teenaged killer who murdered an innocent stranger in her sleeping bag to prove to her boyfriend that she loved him. When I spoke to the D.A. about her, he warned me that she was an out and out psychopath.

And, boy, did he have her number.

She was in her twenties by then, and could not understand why she was in jail when she was “daddy’s girl.” She murdered an unarmed sleeping stranger on the say so of her boyfriend, and to her, that should have been reason enough to get off. She thought her sentence was profoundly unfair, and she had all sorts of reasons and excuses, and used a lot of that neo-Victorian propaganda to spin her tale of woe, that sounded very similar to the New Yorker article.

It was bullshit, and in my story, I laid out the facts without her own self-serving spin, but it was taken out, and I had no clue until after publication, but if I had known, I would have pulled out my article. The fourth was critical to understanding that you do not break out the violins just because you want to pretend you are moral, woke, and sensitive.

A lot of people are going to spin a story to gain sympathy, and make themselves look like victims, even if they are the villains and the primary architects of their own ruin. They dust off their children and parade them only when it suits their purposes, but they could not give one flying fuck about them.

A more responsible piece would not be spinning any story. Take fifty women with children who are in jail, and get the facts of each one.

Not just how howling sad it is that their children are separated from their mothers. That’s a confirmation bias right there.

But what kind of mother was she before she was arrested, and no, her version is just her interpretation.

Were those children in foster care, for instance? What do teachers and neighbours know? What do social workers know? You have privacy obstacles, but it is funny what you can dig up when you are determined to find the truth.

I would talk to psychologists and social workers as well as police, judges and D.A.s about the different categories of mothers they come across, and then start to grid my profiles with my information.

I would also talk to activists and advocates of these women.

But I would not be “picking sides.”

What you will find will be far more complex that the simpletons of the New Yorker will puke.

And you have to present the shades in a single piece.

Some children will be very sad and lost, but for others, it will be a blessing in disguise.

And you have to find out why and face that reality that not everyone who gives birth has the right to be called a mother.

Because women are people. Some are good, some are bad, and some are whatever the wind takes them.

Women, just like men, are the captains of their own ships.

My grandmother was alone during the Second World War. She had a limited education, no family, it was war, violent, and anarchy.

She didn’t stoop to illegal activities. She didn’t harm other people. She became a nurse during the war, and saved lives.

Even when there was no options, she made the one that counted, and she raised my mother, moving to Canada, and getting a job on the day she arrived without having connections or knowing a lick of English in a country that looked down on Eastern Europeans, labelling them DP — Displaced Persons.

Whenever I start getting to sympathetic to someone’s sob story, I think about her, and then get snapped right back to my senses.

North America has countless social services and organizations to help people when they are down. There are jobs here. There is free education. There is a bounty of opportunities that never in the history of mankind were there — in a world where there is Internet access and you can even fucking crowdfund if you need money for an emergency.

So in 2018, there are no excuses. None. If these were truly neo-Victorian ladies, they would be gravitating to those safety nets.

And they are not.

It is time we stop spinning garbage narratives to manipulate people, and start presenting empirically-tested information to paint a realistic picture of the world.

People feel sorry for themselves as they wallow and make excuses why they are acting in ways that is beneath them.

If you have true morals and sympathy, you do not enable that vile behaviour, but take away the crutches of narratives, and start presenting facts.

Not the rancid garbage the sheltered goobers at the New Yorker like to spew because they can’t function as moral humans being and try to build fortresses of lies to poison the information stream…

Memo to Elle: Propagandistic cheerleading cannot hide the stench of incompetence. And memo to the New Yorker: You don't prints maybes. You print truth.

Elle magazine had a recent article on Jane Mayer and her disastrous article she wrote with Ronan Farrow for the New Yorker about Brett Kavanaugh, and it began with this propagandistic headline:

The New Yorker's Jane Mayer Is Holding the World's Most Powerful Men Accountable

The article sounds as if it was churned out by a publicist and has the usual drooling and fawning narative, but it is this passage that is very instructive:

Knowing this is why Ronan Farrow and I were so alert to the significance of other accusers, such as Deborah Ramirez. Her allegation showed that, if true, yes, there was a pattern of misconduct, and likely another side of the judge.

This is not an actual investigative journalistic spewing. This is a gambler hedging her bets, and this is an open admission of being a crusading propagandist.

Just because you have a series of accusations, you do not automatically assume every one is truth.

In my first book, I outlined numerous cases where amid the multiple accusations of victimization (not sexual assault or harassment, but other forms of abuse that struck at men and women, regardless of race) , there often was one case that was fabricated, but the person hoped to slip it in and thought no one would look into every accusation.

Middle Class Ideology is binary in nature: it is all or nothing. Either everything is to be believed, or none. It is The One Rule That Explains Everything, and you can never make assumptions about the whole until you look at each part to verify. This is the economic caste that recoils at independent and active critical thinking and expertise that may cause social humiliation if they are different or wrong, and merely wants a TORTEE so they can blend in and never be wrong. Yes, it always matters if there is a chance of someone being falsely accused, even if it is one percent. That is the reason we must dig for facts so that the right people are punished and that genuine victims do not have to shake because their attacker is free.

In my book, I went over case studies where there were a pat of genuine hate crimes, but then one person got it in their heads to stage it, thinking there could be a class action lawsuit, for instance, and then betting on being believed because there were real cases of it happening.

But then there was the Pepsi tainted can scare of the 1980s, where there were hundreds of reported cases of tainted cans, but then none turned out to be real.

Had the New Yorker been responsible, they would not have gone with the story as it stood. It was a big nothing because there were no facts or anchors. But this was a case of banking on Ronan Farrow’s past successes, but all of those stories were different in that he found corroborating evidence. This was a rush job, and the New Yorker hedged their bets as well, slipping a weak story hoping the previous strong one would prop it up.

What it did was draw attention to the weaknesses of the accusations. Contrast those accusations to those that of the women who were assaulted by Bill Cosby who drugged them. Even though there was variances in their stories, there were specific common threads. It is normal for there to be differences: when everything sounds alike, that is when a red flag suggests collusion and rehearsing.

The problem with the Kavanaugh accusations is that all had the same vagueness of details in the same places. There is something off, and I find it a peculiar common thread — that, and these stories all came out at the same time, even though Kavanaugh’s nomination had been publicized long before the hearings.

It is the reason I strongly suspect that #MeToo was hijacked, co-opted and re-imagined for political gain by people in power. This is no longer a grassroots movement, but war propaganda, and it warrants further examination. When a social movement becomes overtaken by an Establishment entity, it is misused with those trying to fight for equality first becoming exploited before being discarded and discredited.

I have said for a long time that women have a serious problem and that is twofold: (a) they have very little experience in holding power, meaning they are blind to nuances and can make bigger and more devastating errors because you cannot fake it as you have no experience and are tethered by the strategically illiterate Middle Class Ideology, and (b) there are no war manuals for women.

The Kavanaugh Hearings was an unmitigated disaster for #MeToo, made worse by the New Yorker article. Once cooler heads prevail, the fallout will even be worse: how did such irresponsible reportage be allowed to go unchallenged and unchecked prior to its publication and allowed partisan propaganda hijack the industry as well as a legitimate social movement?

If you had concrete facts, it would be one thing. Men such as Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Les Moonves, and Bill Cosby were all brought down by multiple legitimate accusations that were backed up by those predator’s underlings, witnesses, victim’s friends, family, lawyers, and colleagues — despite the predator’s wealth and resources were employed by his best efforts to cover up his sins.

The Establishment Democrats had no genuine feel for #MeToo, and thought they could grab an organic movement from the people, and repurpose it to have a surefire teflon weapon to take down a man they despise — not because of his view on women — but because he was part of Ken Starr’s legal team that went after Democratic president Bill Clinton.

One minute, #MeToo is all about empowering women to feel just like Rosie the Riveter.

500px-We_Can_Do_It!.jpg

The next, women are fragile and delicate children who have no voice and need protection.

f487e2643ee4038a263ffc0e4bdb6696.jpg

The New Yorker has much to answer for here. Women who fight for equality have never had such a good narrative and always had to deal with garbage from the Establishment.

Suffragists-1.jpg

No one could imagine the worst thing to happen was for feminism to be co-opted by that Establishment in order to keep a status quo going.

Feminists also have a lot to answer for as well: why, in 2018, are they still placing all of their eggs in the Democrat’s political basket? Why haven’t they pushed into both parties to ensure their interests are taken care of regardless of which political party rules?

And why haven’t they created an original political party in tune with what women want and need?

If you want something off the table, you have better make sure you own part of that table to have a say of what is on it and what never get placed on it.

Feminists are approaching it the wrong way: marching in the streets and working the Troll Scroll do nothing in the long-run. It is just powerless venting.

Elle is a frivolous air-headed rag trying to cash in on the pseudo-feminist cottage industry and is pandering with a narrative not aligned with reality.

True feminism is not pretending you are holding powerful men accountable when you run speculation and unverified gossip. You are causing more harm than good.

Feminism can longer be dependent on the Dems because they have proven to be unreliable as allies — they must their own path and stop being at the mercy of exploiters who see them as nothing more than objects — pawns and political weapons — to be used and discarded…

The New Yorker spews bigoted garbage again. What else is new?

Old school Republicans had Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev as their iconic US-Russia duo. Old school Democrats don't have anything as classy; so they have to settle for sketchy twosome of Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin.

The New Yorker tries to up-spin these two sewer of successes in this bigoted piece of tripe:

The Undoing of Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin’s Friendship, and How It Changed Both of Their Countries

The obvious bigoted slanting does not begin right away, because we have to pretend to establish a false love affair between two degenerates, but rather begins with a hilarious narrative tone deafness:

In the earlier chapters of this story, Yeltsin is embattled, facing a difficult—at times, it seems, hopeless—reëlection battle, and Clinton stands by his side, a steadfast source of support. Later, when Yeltsin feels secure in his post and Clinton, too, is entering the final stages of his Presidency, the two men are friends with an easy rapport. They exchange hugs. They joke with each other. 

Faithful Bill Clinton, yes sir. I am sure he and his then girlfriend Hillary Rodham also exchanged hugs and joked with each other before they got married and Bill promptly went off to exchange hugs with beauty queens and any other willing female around.

But who does the historically illiterate New Yorker blame for the bromance to go off the rails?

The Serbs. Liberal bigots always do.

And the American Left are horrific bigots when it comes to Eastern Europeans, especially those who are Orthodox Christians, but here is the first piece of hate speech:

On June 15, 1998, however, Clinton calls Yeltsin specifically to discuss Kosovo. He makes it clear that nato is considering military action to stop Yugoslav President Slobodan Milošević’s troops from terrorizing Kosovo.

Terrorizing Kosovo? Is Masha Gessen really that stupid? If she did anything that remotely resembled research, she would have discovered how badly the Serbs in that region had been terrorized by the Kosovo Albanians for years. Orthodox Christian churches were burned, people vanished and were killed as well as driven off the land.

And how many Serbian journalists who tried to cover the war in Kosovo simply vanished.

But to arrogant script-followers like Gessen, it doesn't count when Serbs are slaughtered because she obviously doesn't see them as human beings.

But the hate trolling does not end there. But to journalists, their wickedness knows no end: they will openly and brazenly distort or suppress any unflattering information that destroys their false narratives just to have the chance to feign intelligence and morality as they pretend to prove a point that is untrue to begin with. 

But this passage is a real knee-slapper:

Clinton calls Yeltsin to tell him that he, the leaders of France, the United Kingdom, Germany, “and the rest of the Europeans” have concluded that they must launch air strikes against Milošević. “As you know, Milošević has stonewalled your negotiator and Dick Holbrooke”—the American negotiator—“and he has continued to move his forces into Kosovo and to evacuate villages,” Clinton says. “He has left us no choice. I know that you oppose what we are doing, but I want you to know that I am determined to do whatever I can to keep our disagreement from ruining everything else we have done and can do together in the coming years.”

Yes, a bunch of well-heeled large Western countries will be bombing innocent civilians of a small, broke, war-torn nation as we feign worrying about social welfare, but we do hope to maintain Russia as a pawn in any of our future diplomatic games.

How psychopathically charming.

Especially when we then blame the Serbs for all of the universe's problems:

Clinton begs Yeltsin not to allow Milošević to destroy their relationship—in his framing, it is all the Serb’s fault. “I have always been there for you, working hard with my people to support Russia economically,” Clinton says. “I came there last fall. I was there in 1996 when a lot of people said I shouldn’t go.”

But without questioning the American president's motives, we have this little disclaimer buried int the piece:

Nineteen years later, it seems clear that one President was being more honest than the other. Contrary to Clinton’s assertion, he and the other NATO leaders certainly had a choice in the situation, and the choice they made—to launch a military offensive without the sanction of the United Nations—changed the way that the United States wields force. 

Of course they had a choice. Not listening to PR propaganda that was accessible through FARA would have been very sensible. Not falling for journalistic narratives from those who would not know a Serb if they woke up in bed next to one, would have been grand.

But journalists always draw conclusions before receiving any of the facts.

Because the New Yorker now is trying to do something quite manipulative by trying to force readers to draw an insane conclusion.

Here is the first premise:

By bypassing the Security Council and establishing the United States as the sole arbiter of good and evil, it paved the way for the war in Iraq, among other things.

Here is the second premise:

Later that year, Yeltsin anointed Vladimir Putin his successor and signed off on a renewed war in Chechnya.

Do we see where this is going?

What is the subtextual thesis of this dreck?

Blame the Serbs for Donald Trump getting elected.

Pathetic, New Yorker. It's just sick and stupid.

Perhaps if Western journalism actually did their jobs without the malicious innuendos and didn't keep their populace ignorant and misinformed, you'd have a healthier society than you do now.

Just a hypothesis, but one with far more evidence than blaming Serbs for your profession's own deserved demise...

Corporate tribalism, Media Cannibalization, and the limits of #MeToo.

The entertainment and communications industry got hit the hardest by #MeToo, which is very interesting and instructive.

The movement is not a universal phenomena. It never has been, and the most vulnerable of the predators mostly come from entertainment and journalism.

It is a case of media cannibalizing itself for various reasons: it is already weakened, represents a bygone era where people can relate less with their old-fashioned worldviews, making their actions dislikable to a general public, come off as arrogant villains, and the only people becoming interested in their travails are other people in the same profession.

Ronan Farrow's article on CBS Great Man Les Moonves is a very insular piece. The people most upset are those in the industry. Most people have no idea who he is, nor do they care. This is village gossip. 

Broadcasting has been hit hard by the Internet and streaming services, such as Netflix; his clout is nowhere near what it is presented. The Great Men and Titans of Industry in this realm are shrinking every day.

The brouhaha is being amplified, but the Great Men are finding that when there is a first sign of not seeming perfect, those brutes in suits reveal their true nature, and corporate tribalism takes over, bringing them down.

But this works best for weakened industries. In this case, communications. They look for their weakest player, and cut them out. For CBS these days, they are in a legal battle with the Redstones, and it is a losing one. Moonves behaviour was open. If there wasn't a lawsuit, he could easily skirt the accusations, but the lawsuit gives the network a perfect excuse to jettison the troublesome cargo. 

But Moonves is not behaving quite the same way as the most of the others on the #MeToo hitlist. There is still a shift, and a sign that the method is being studied and manoeuvres are beginning to emerge.

But it is still an in-house phenomenon. This is still mostly about the ugly reality of the Communications industries -- who they reward, and how those people got to the top.

It is a how the feints and ruses of certain predatory people, how they climbed to the top and the stratagems and games they played, and the scripts they followed to succeed.

It is also the reason why their influence collapsed: when communications was liberated, habits began to change, and new thinking patterns began to emerge.

Ones the predators and communications dictators had no control over, and when they their iron grip began to erode, those underneath them began to panic and revolt -- and why #MeToo took down many tinfoil titans in their wake.

But it is hardly the end of it -- and with a shift in tactics, it will take on a different course, much sooner than we think... 

Structure is strategy: how the static nature of journalism turned into a vortex.

Ronan Farrow is one of the last people out there who actually can be considered a very good journalism. He is thorough and methodical, and I have no issue with his intent or integrity. 

But the old journalism model is impeding him, all the same.

His latest New Yorker piece has exposed CBS chairman and chief executive Les Moonves for sexual harassment, and CBS is investigating the allegations by getting an outside counsel (just as "mediators" employed by a corporation to settle disputes with employees are not as impartial or objective as they are made out to be, I have never been a fan of the practice).

We have articles looking at different angles of the meta-story of Farrow's piece. Moonves is still on the job.

But this story is playing out very differently than Farrow's piece on Harvey Weinstein. For one, the more charismatic Moonves is staying cool. His wife is unwavering. The New York Post has had positive coverage of him, and he has supporters questioning the timing of the article.

I am not going to talk about the veracity of the allegations or judge one way or another. I am going to completely ignore the content of the story.

What interests me is the structure of this story and compare it to Farrow's original article for the New Yorker that took down Harvey Weinstein and sparked #MeToo, and look at the fallout of both from the standpoint of a boxing match.

I am going to mention a series of painfully obvious observations, but there is method to the madness: namely pointing out the limitations of journalistic TOTTAW: The One Trick That Always Works.

In boxing, you have a ring where the action is confined. You have two opponents who fight in the ring until (a) one player flat-out knocks out the other, or, (b) one player technically knocks out the other, TKO.

Now, we don't just take two random people off the street and throw them in the ring. They train. They have trainers who work on their strategies in how they will fight a specific opponent. You don't just throw a barrage of punches. You have to constantly move around the ring. You have to be aware of your surroundings, ensuring your opponent does not corner you, and you have no where to go so he can keep punching you. You have to know how this person fights: what are the strengths and weaknesses.

Boxing and war have a lot in common.

But it also has a lot in common with journalism. 

The problem has been that journalists have been sticking to the old structures and methods for decades, while their opponents get an army of people to help them fight better: they hire lawyers, former journalists, PR firms that also hire former journalists, crisis management specialists, researchers who do market research, image consultants, and find all sorts of ways to up their game.

Media outlets do not hire former PR mavens, lawyers who ate journalists for breakfast. The structure and methods have not changed.

Ronan knocked out Weinstein for multiple reasons: it was a sucker punch, Weinstein's clout was already waning, and no one ever got to go after a titan like that in that way before when it came to allegations of sexual harassment.

Those in the entertainment industry were pretty much blindsided and were unprepared for that attack. They are used to being puppet masters who deflection attention away from their dark secrets with lots of shiny and pretty things and bombastic brag.

The story was unprecedented in many ways, but life does not happen in a vacuum.

People who get to the top in those cutthroat fields are there because they are exceptional strategists. They have campaigns. They delegate, meaning they have image armies at their disposal. They read the signs, and then adjust accordingly.

They hire people who specialize in radioactive clients, and they start preparing for these kinds of stories. If you think you haven't had people readying for it, and will be able to turn the tables, think again.

That's why you cannot count on TOTTAW: that one trick will work until someone else figures out the game and comes up with a counter-strategy. They can inoculate people from the narrative. They can use sophistry to spin perceptions. They can recruit others to support them in public. They can use proxies to offer counter-narratives. They can change masks on demand: being aggro alphas when they are in the gladiatorial arena, and then bullied little children when they are being called on the carpet for rigging a fight or cheating.

And they can take a patriarchal narrative and co-opt it.

Because structure is not just a way to deliver a content of a communications: it is also strategy.

And structure is something that journalism never gave a second thought. Static patriarchal is it.

If you are going to disseminate information, then you have to test the limits of structure, always working and refining because people you wish you expose are not some dolls in a box who just come out to be paraded when it is convenient for you. 

When you go after people who make their way to the top, it is a very uneven fight.

It doesn't matter what the content of the information happens to be. 

You are going in with the notion of disrupting a status quo. People do not like change. They do not like the idea that they could have possibly be wrong in their opinions at cocktail parties or Internet forums. They memorized the rules, and that should be good enough for eternity..

Journalism had rigs that benefitted them until the Internet took them away. The static nature of their structure and techniques comes in with the assumption that you can repeatedly use the same methods and your targets will always respond the same way.

main-qimg-4e15926a804d3ae7fdc0998f46fa78ee-c.jpeg

Comparing the two articles, they have the same structure, but the responses on the subjects of the articles show a learning curve on their part. Weinstein is a textbook case of crisis management "don'ts". Moonves, on the other hand, is a textbook case of standard crisis management "dos". At this rate, the next one may very well find the system to neutralize it, and turn it around to their benefit, or come as close to that as possible. If there is a system to crack, it can be done. #MeToo broke the narrative that women ask to be harassed, but this is not the end. A new narrative or ten can be spun.

It is why structures have to be fully explored. It is the strategy you use to reflect reality.

The outcome of this latest story is something I cannot speculate on, but it is very interesting to see structural strategies emerging on one side of the equation, but not the other...