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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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…

The View From a Sparrow's Nest, Part Two.

I loved boxing. It was, for me, an intellectual exercise, and my second trainer was in the military, and it was the way for me to figure out how power players mapped out their strategies by translating their business or political moves into fighting moves, and it was shocking how well I could accurately map it out, and then predict the success of their various campaigns by acting out their moves.


You could debate things needlessly using books, such as the Art of War, or journal articles. You could draw a rough sketch playing chess.

But the best measure of a campaign's success or failure was to get off your duff and try to box it out before going out in the real world and testing the conditions as practice.

Movement was essential to comprehending a situation. So was having a sense of humour.


Because the moment you do not see the comedy in people's seriousness was the moment began to take sides.

And a box has sides to confine you and prevent you from examining something from every angle.

For example, certain strategies are guaranteed to work, but you do not always want to employ them. It seems great in theory or when you are dealing with inanimate objects representing people, but once you humanized the strategy, there was no way that was the desirable way to do it, even if it was a sure thing.

For example, you can clear a path by destroying an obstacle. There is no shortage of war manuals that give this as an option.

You can map out the strategy in a game of chess and even go.

But if clearing a path means destroying someone's self-esteem and peace of mind, many people would gleefully do it and be proud that they had that power over people.

However, even if you are not sensitive or moral, you still have to realize that the rubble can fall on you and crush you. There will be evidence of your handiwork, and sometimes the structure you take down is attached to a more powerful structure that will return the favour.

It's why you have to be able to be able to navigate through problems on your own.


But like the concepts of Creating and Inventing, independence and individuality has been co-opted. No, dying your hair green and getting a tattoo like everyone else is not rebellious, independent, or express individuality. Armies, gangs, and prisoners used tats to create groups, not individuals.

It is a communal exercise to create and identify collectives, not individuals.

Which is one half the way people behave: their social side.

But when taken too far, the expense is the individual.

And unless we balance both and not try to use the methods of one to mask that we are neglecting the other, we end up falling prey to deceived.

And that we are now in an Age of Propaganda, that's precisely what happened.

Journalism destroyed itself. Propaganda took its place, and people chose sides, believed the distortions, and then believe they are critical thinkers who are informed.

And have been taken for a ride ever since.


There is a void of factual information with people making nonsense listicles with no common sense, telling people what comic book and antiquated books will tell people all about "modern journalism" -- never mind not a single one ever did the job.

Listicles are for followers so they know how they are supposed to march to Authority, not rebel against it to express their individuality. 

And if we have authorities who were doing their jobs and not driven to be control freaks, they could have system where both sides of our personal equations could function with equilibrium without one side being sacrificed for the other.


Fear is the guiding force of an Age of Propaganda. People are afraid and are looking for TORTEEs -- they convince themselves that constricting their thinking makes them free, but all it manages to do is confine them and lock them in a cage of their own making.

Fear is boring. Fear is uninspiring.

And you cannot soar to better places when you are shaking in your cage, and your only solace is seeing that there is a group shaking in that prison with you...