Poynter goes Nazi.

Those pretentious pricks who pretend to be journalists had the gall to have a blacklist of “unnews” outfits, all conveniently the ones not marching lockstep to the sanctioned ideology of the oppressive Orwellian mainstream press.

They caught shit for their Nazi-esque behaviour and took down the site.

Memo to Poynter: all of journalism is “unnews”. It is nothing but propaganda, and you showed your true disgusting colours.

Poynter is propaganda trying to indoctrinate the clueless Middle Class. It is pure garbage.

Yes, I am back, and I have a lot to say about a lot of things. My manuscripts are done, and while I still have pictures to take for my art book, the writing is completed, and I am just putting finishing touches on things, which doesn’t eat up my days or nights…

Memo to Poynter: Just how many journalists have to be fired before your profession faces reality?


Gannett is slashing jobs and Poynter is whining about it. When all those people in the Rust Belt lost their jobs, journalists didn’t make a big deal out of it, just labelled them as idiots and fascists for voting for the presidential candidate who was the only one with a job platform.

Now that journalists are being discarded like used toilet paper, they act as if they were wronged in some horrible way and it is a national tragedy.

The press are acting as if a political cartoonist losing his job was akin to him being murdered.


Not even close.

You have journalists who keep doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome.

Wrong answer, kids!

Rats and pigeons being trained to modify their behaviour pick up faster than you are…

Method Research, Part Six: Journalism's collapse was a long time coming. I had front-row seats to that disaster. And it has nowhere to go but down.




My book on what we now call “fake news” came out in early 2005. The Philip Merrill School of Journalism at the University of Maryland tried to combat it in their own flawed and unempirical way and it shows.

No science, no method, and what you have is someone pointing out things without understanding. My book did it better and was more thorough.

And yes, I keep a track of those things. Notice they merely talk about “hoaxes”, not propaganda, manipulation, or public relations.

It is my business to know the goings-on in j-schools.

Because you can see that j-schools don’t know what they are doing because journalism collapsed.

The methods of information verification aren’t actually taught.

And these days, journalism has been reduced to being a system of anarcho-slavery: you have properties beholden to political parties for survival, meaning all you have is propaganda, but no guiding force to ensure it is actual information.

And when Poynter asks Did we just experience the hardest decade in journalism?, the answer is, Yes, and you ain’t seen nothing yet.

The worst is yet to come.

Journalism is a house that people who own it neglected it, justifying the archaic wiring, the asbestos, and the rotting foundation. It’s tradition! Don’t touch a thing! How dare you suggest we need renovations? Are you a Russian agent or a fascist?

I am neither. I am, however, a Method Researcher. What that means is I have the ability to inspect structures because I study them, test them, and fix them. I know what is up to code and what is a hazard.

And the house collapsed. You don’t have to be a Method Researcher these days to see it.

There is no end to the self-pity and self-aggrandizing, just look at Splinter News’ little cringey bullshit they recently spewed: why don’t you tell “young journalists” that they are as much of the problem as the old guard: all, regardless of lack of experience or exposure, that they have their set scripts and opinions, and are nothing more than obnoxious propagandists whose ideology is no solution to anyone’s problems, including their own?

When you go into a boxing ring, you are going in to fight. You don’t just train: you are developing strategies based on your opponents and your own strengths and weaknesses. You know you are going to get hit, but you understand the risks, and you keep moving.

The way you fight a war. You are going in to fight. You don’t go in blindly.

But journalism never saw itself as a profession that had to bother with strategy. Read the textbooks of the profession. For an industry that has people brags with “war stories”, there isn’t much of their ways that resemble strategic combat.

It is more like bullies and snots of high school. Playground taunts and temper tantrums is what we see.

When I entered journalism, I had an understanding of boxing. I understood that you don’t just slap around hoping to hit something: you have to have a plan.

And if I could uncover everything that I did with Method Research, why weren’t journalists doing the same thing?

One reason is that journalists are idea stealers and observers: they think that just observing and cribbing someone else’s ideas will make them passable experts. Newspeg is a nice way of saying something is newsworthy just because other people are talking about it and reporting it.

That kind of intellectual arm’s length relationship makes it difficult to know what you are actually dealing with — how many people have strong opinions on things they know nothing about: their “logic” and “reasoning” applies to the outer layer — the façade. The atomic make-up of the issue is something they know zero about.

That was always journalism’s biggest problem.

I didn’t have that arm’s length problem. When you are among those you are studying, you cannot make up narratives, nor do you fall for the groupthink.

It’s like trauma: it doesn’t just go away even if it goes away. It stays because it left an impression. That’s why people become humbled when you were passing judgments on people who have gone through something traumatic and then have it happen to you. All of the sudden, you don’t whip out easy solutions like an arrogant moron.

When you observe at arm’s length, you do not allow things to whisper their enigmatic secrets to you, and you have something significant to work with. The non-obvious things.

We are made to connect to other people, but these days, people are too disconnected: that’s why it is too easy for people to try to destroy people on Twitter. No connect or understanding of empathy.

Journalism always faked their ideas of objectivity. It is the reason the profession collapsed. They never bothered to define or quantify their terms, let alone conduct studies on how to better do it, or use those methods as journalists.

It is why we have a world groping in the dark: we need facts. We need a genuine love for them as well as an understanding of what facts means or how to apply them.

I wanted to understand journalism. I wanted the facts.

So, I became one. I never assumed I knew what it was all about because I was arm’s length away from it.

So I went into its heart and did tests. I observed and I listened to its echoes as I walked inside.

I had front-row seats.

It never had to be this way. I cannot stress this enough: its collapse was entirely avoidable. Do not blame the Internet. Do not blame Donald Trump. Do not blame other people.

You do not take care of your house, it will crumble. You can paint it, add some potpourri, and a brand-new doormat, that doesn’t deal with the roof, the wiring, or anything else.

It needed Method Research. It needed open hearts and minds. Journalism as a profession deserved better than what it got from those who worked in it…

Journalism's propaganda games continue: If you have to tell people how great you are – you aren't.

Journalism's sickness continues, and the timing could not be more interesting, given the release of my new book.

Poynter has some interesting propaganda trying to spin garbage:

200+ newspapers will write pro-journalism editorials. Will they also listen?

220+ newspapers having to sell their rancid and outdated goods.

200+ do not report anything else but self-loving advertising.

200+ newspapers are co-ordinating a self-serving public relations campaign in their product that they claim has something to do with reporting the news.

This is the industry equivalent of a mental breakdown tantrum after a failed intervention.

The beginning of this meta-propaganda is interesting:

On Thursday, more than 200 newspapers will publish editorials in a "coordinated response" to President Trump calling the press the "enemy of the people." Each publication will write its own editorial. 

You obviously are trying to deflect attention and since the facts do not back you up, you must resort to gathering together and hope if you all repeat the same message, maybe people will believe you.

I wonder how many real scandals you will not cover because you are literally wasting copy inches on nonsense.

If you wanted to be relevant, you had to work for the people. Not care about your image.

The article then makes a very biased swipe:

Right off the top, let me say that I wish the president would knock it off with the "the press is the enemy of the people" nonsense.

It is unpresidential, unproductive and untrue.

No, he is not wrong. He is absolutely right. The press failed the people, and this Day of Temper Tantrums proves it.

It is narcissistic and self-indulgent, and a misuse of the product. 

Trump knows who he is dealing with because he made a career of getting hard news attention for absolute nonsense.

Journalists are not the good guys. They are villains in a story with no heroes.

They don't get to wear white hats by any default.

How many times did they crib from press releases and not disclose this fact to the public?

How many times have they suppressed important information?

How many times did they print hoaxes, lies, and propaganda as truth?

They are an enemy to the Truth.

They have been for a very long time because real research takes effort, and you still get a byline to boost your ego even if you write about Kardashian nonsense.

But Poynter piece is so one-sided and egotistical that it defies all logic and reality:

We will protest again that we are really good for democracy, that we are vital to the nation … and the people who agree with the president won't give a damn what 200-plus newspaper editorials or a thousand editorials have to say.

Oh, aren't you clever?

What a manipulative paragraph we have here.

Journalism hasn't been good for democracy in a very long time.

Remember all of the predators that you have lionized and turned into Great Men, knowing full well that they were rapists and swindlers?

You made the likes of Kenneth Lay and Bernie Ebbers legitimate.

You shilled wars; so this "we are good for democracy" is just self--serving narrative.

And, of course, anyone who has been burned by a deceptive media in the past are just too stupid to see you as the heroes, is that it?

It is that manipulative propaganda that proves the profession is absolutely incapable of seeing reality.

The second they can create a fake pecking order where they place themselves at the top with no proof -- and discredit anyone who has a legitimate grievance proves this isn't about journalism at all.

Shame on Poynter.

But it goes on in various manipulative forms:

Scholars say that prejudice begins with reducing humans to categories. We learn prejudice by watching our authority figures, including parents and, I suppose, presidents. The authority figure convinces the followers that the categories of people they should hate cause them harm. The authority figure then hardens the hatred by repeatedly reminding the followers of the connection between the "threat" and the "category."  

Here is the writer who has just accused the president of creating prejudice by creating categories...and then does the same thing. I see, the author's categories are divine and unerring, and everyone who disagrees with him is a bigot?

Are you serious?

And appealing to authority doesn't make it right.

I love this question:

Why won't sound reasoning change the public's mind?

Why didn't sound reasoning from people who outlined journalism's problems change journalists's minds?

You haven't presented any sound reasoning. Just excuses.

Journalism has burned too many bridges. It has alienated people who now have the means of bypassing them.

Why don't they see it?

Simple: they are rote by nature, and want to go back to the days where they held all of the powers, and people were captive to them.

It is akin to an abductor who holds people hostage honestly wondering why his captives escaped and ran away from him, and offer reasoning such as this one:

We have to make it safe to change your mind.

No, you want your old power and glory back. The end. Get with the times and say goodbye to the ship that sailed away from journalism 20 years ago.

The article spews and babbles:

So the editorials Thursday will create a lot of chatter. Trump backers will call journalists whiners and journalists will counter-attack. Twitter and cable news will have a ball with it all.

And Friday morning we will be right where we were this morning. Divided.

Unless you and I are brave enough to listen to a point of view we didn't wake up with this morning, seriously consider that view and weigh it.

But notice this author makes no mention of reality or the fundamental weaknesses that brought journalism to its knees. It makes excuses for a coordinated journalistic propaganda campaign, trying to sound reasonable while being oblivious to reality.

As if journalists have never made an error or caused serious damage to the world.

And at the end, tries to sound reasonable:

Whatever you write in your editorials, are you willing to listen, too?

Journalism forgot about the listening. They have a narrative that they are flawless Mary Sue heroes, and that anyone who points out their numerous faults is too vulgar and stupid.

I spent my entire adult life researching how badly journalists were doing their jobs.

They never listened or took it seriously.

That's the reason they are no longer a thing.

And when this gambit failures, are they going to finally wake up and listen with reality at heart?

Don't kid yourself. They just want their power back to do what they did for years without consequence...