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

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

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

Nice try.

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

Arrogance, arrogance.

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

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

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

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

OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on journalism.

When Journalism was a Thing.

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

The genie will have none of it.

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

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

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

You can read all about it here.

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

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

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

The past is journalism. The present is social media.

The future is F.R.E.E.D…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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