Reuters wants to know who will pay for shoddy journalism. Seriously.

When you deliver actual news, people would pay for it; so stop asking silly questions.

Screen Shot 2019-06-12 at 7.26.52 PM.png

Subjective propaganda and narrative fairy tales is not news. Speculating on the Firm’s philandering members is not news. Celebrity gossip is not news. Sports scores is not news. Reality show trash — not news, either.

Who won Miss Small Potatoes at the country fair — not news, either.

Movie reviews is not news. Covering canned events is not news. Cribbing from press releases is not news.

Having un-empirical journalism is not news.

No one wants to pay to be manipulated.

So there is your answer…

Only followers and cowards bow to mobs and public pressure. Those who don't give a flying fuck live their lives on their own terms.

Shaming is a technique used to keep middle class people in their place.

They are insecure and passive, always looking for easy answers that someone else thought up, and if someone shames them or ridicules them in public, then that’s it.

Twitter has been an effective propagandistic shaming tool, allowing bullying, shaming, and intimidation to be disseminated quickly, efficiently, and reliability. The Stimulus-Response mechanism of rewards and punishment ensures that control of individual behaviours can be maintained far more reliably than traditional media outlets because it gives the false impression of mass consensus and organic grassroots disapproval.

But it isn’t. No one knows who is behind the taunts or how much they are being paid by well-heeled interests to do the shaming.

If Donald Trump figured out that you can win a presidency by using Twitter, then other rich motherfuckers figured it out, too. It is just the middle class geese who think this is all real and power to the people.

But that illusion is good enough to be effective.

So here we have people whining that they are getting fake activists hounding them through email and social media.

Did it ever occur to you that these people might have someone paying and directing them to do so?

As someone who has been trolled, doing some basic research shows that often, these trolls are not the real deal. They try to shut me down because if my ideas gain traction, they are out of a job because their scam is over.

Tucker Carlson is in hot water and getting slagging for being a creep, and has been targeted multiple times, meaning this effort is choreographed and coordinated. He is not backing down.

And that is the best way with dealing with political operatives. They can go fuck themselves and stop using their little minions to try to psyche people out.

If you are not ashamed, then the controlling mechanisms have no effect, and then your detractors are fucked…

Watching the collapse of rot from the Sparrow's Nest.

France 24 is a bullshit news agency, and some of their articles adhere to the old Establishment rules, making them comical.

Like how Canada is “desperate” to fill 400,000+ jobs.

No, we are losing jobs left and right here. It is frightening how fast and furious the bloodletting has been here, and how many well-groomed beggars we have in “good areas” these days.

And how television news is “holding its ground”.

I wouldn’t bet on that, either.

The Winter of Discontent is here. Stalwarts such as the Right-leaning Weekly Standard are in serious trouble.

The Drudge Report is probably the only newsy out there that is still viable, and there are no end to the stories about the collapsing profession.

Drudge reminds me of Neil Gaiman’s The Endless character Death who is the one designated to close up everything the last news property bites the dust.

Speaking of television, it looks like the network that gives you 60 Minutes had an overlord that was destroying evidence of his bad deeds. Les Moonves was a naughty boy, but was the driving force of a media outlet.

How much of the facts do you think you know come from watching a network that allowed that kind of garbage to happen?

The rot is collapsing all around journalism. It was never dealt with when it was manageable, and now the piper is busy collecting what it owed.

The Tacoma News Tribune is laying off 67 people. Mic is also going into the toilet. Thomson Reuters is letting go 3200 people over the next two years.

Any journalist want to lie in public and pretend the profession hasn’t collapsed?

Yes, there are those who think maybe because the Washington Post is saying it is hiring, there is hope.

Give it a few months, they will be slashing. This game is nothing new.

The Reality Deniers run journalism and gather news stories. If they were doctors, they would tell a terminally ill cancer patient there is hope because they still have a few normal cells left in their bodies, and fuck all the cancer growing.

Cowardice makes liars of an entire profession.

And as I watch from the Sparrow’s Nest, I see the starving predators go after each other in a frenzy.

And it is an ugly, pathetic sight…

Reuters' not-so-big gamble with AI: for a profession terrified by bots, just wait until hackers et al rig the AI, too. When you are always looking for easy answers, you never asked the right questions.

When journalists talk about themselves, it is alway in superlatives. It is about saving democracy or, in this case, taking big gambles. There is a huge difference between taking a risk and a gamble, it is fitting that Reuters is being seen as taking the latter -- the one where you hope fate saves your hide instead of you making changes to rely on yourself.

The article in question, "Reuters is taking a big gamble on AI-supported journalism: The news agency has announced the launch of Lynx Insight, a major new AI-powered tool that will be used in its newsrooms across the world" shows precisely why the industry not only collapsed, but will stay in their coffins:

Reuters is building an AI tool to help journalists analyse data, suggest story ideas, and even write some sentences, aiming not to replace reporters but instead augment them with a digital data scientist-cum-copywriting assistant.

Called Lynx Insight, it has been trialled by dozens of journalists since the summer, and will now be rolled out across Reuters newsrooms. Reg Chua, executive editor of editorial operations, data and innovation at Reuters, says the aim is to divvy up editorial work into what machines do best (such as chew through data and spot patterns), and what human editorial staff excel at (such as asking questions, judging importance, understanding context and — presumably — drinking excessive amounts of coffee).

This is typical of finding a passive and magical solution to augment people who keep doing the same thing, but expecting a different outcome.

AI will not save journalism. Your lawnmower will not save your personal fortunes. It is just a tool.

When I was an undergraduate studying psychology, I had the good fortune to be able to take a class in AI, and the fun was running actual experiments to test various programs. I got to "train" computers, so to speak, and the best part was there was an entire lab with about 10 computers, and being the keener, I would be one of the few to go there, and had the entire lab for myself for the entire day.

This was something I took full advantage of as I was always one to run experiments that confirmed theories, but also refute them, and I could get awfully creative and as it took hours back then to train a computer, I could run ten experiments at once, and compare and contrast the results simultaneously.

I knew a lot about heuristics. I know about logical fallacies. I knew about optical illusions in art. These were some of the points of interest I could actually test. This was promising as I had the lab all to myself uninterrupted, and could take my time and finely tune what I was doing.

What I discovered was AI was extremely easy to manipulate and fool. Not a single theory stood up to my tests.

AI was patriarchal by design. It actually was not as logical as the press releases from tech companies love to pretend it is. It is, in fact, mired in its own narrative and own confines in logic.

And this made it ripe for some very elegant and stealth manipulations.

It could not "see" multiple interpretations of a single object, for instance. It could not spot certain variables. There were countless other design flaws and limitations -- so much so, that I could make use of those flaws and create a program that would train AI software to be able to avoid spyware by developing a "phobia" to it.

Hit it once with a virus, and it could learn to "avoid" similar viruses in the future.

But it came at the same price as people who had phobias: it could get too touchy -- and then just avoid even good things because of the training. I could "cool down" the phobia by injecting a secondary AI program, just as therapy or medication could for human phobics -- but then again, you can override one AI program with another for nefarious purposes.

Nothing has actually changed in AI since then. I can still muck it up within minutes, even with the same simple methods I mucked up the cruder versions of it.

And I am not an AI programmer.

So imagine a hacker who is. 

If bots on Twitter can make damage, and Facebook problems has journalism all scared, then how reliable is AI in the newsroom? If you become dependent on computers to do your thinking for you -- if something happens, you are useless.

You can be fooled. You can become a vector. If the technology fails, you are hobbled in your job.

Because journalists don't have the right sort of empirical training, AI is not going to plug up those holes, no matter what. That won't fix the problem. It is a systemic problem in the profession that has a broken mindset. AI is not going to alter those fundamental issues.

We see many tech companies over-rely on algorithms and AI, and the backlash against them started because their screw-ups can be traced to building in passivity and dependence on technology in places where it is not the place to have it.

I have written about the limitations of AI before, and this is not the only problem with it.

The more we rely on technology, the worse off journalism has become.

The less we can understand information. The less able people have become in being able to separate a lie from a truth. The more we assume the information is accurate because it has been processed through technology.

Journalism training would require reintroducing journalists to primitivity. No electricity, technology, or even basic comforts. Throw them in the middle of nowhere and make them come in tune with their environment and instincts.

Not build a fortress of soon-to-be-obsolete toys.