The Journalistic Paranoia Narrative continues...

Ronan Farrow is playing a very interesting gambit.

Screen Shot 2019-06-13 at 8.29.53 PM.png

What he thinks will happen, is anyone’s guess. It most likely will not work.

Lara Logan repositioned herself and got a downgrade after her own version of it, and the press merely dismissed her.

Screen Shot 2019-06-13 at 8.31.40 PM.png

Jill Abramson did it, too, but it didn’t work for her, either, and the last we heard of her, she was quoted in a very whiny and paranoid Washington Post column.

Screen Shot 2019-06-13 at 8.34.23 PM.png

Google News failed you?

No, it didn’t.

This is the same Journalistic Paranoia Narrative that the press is trying because telling people how brave they are for reporting on Kardashian ass isn’t working.

The fact that reporters are blaming everyone else for their deficiencies says all you need to know. They accept zero responsibility for the calamitous fortunes.

It is not Google’s fault. Media outlets shamelessly scrape and flat-out steal each other’s scoops and stories — and then have the nerve to accuse other people of playing those games.

There is no magic narrative that will alter reality. Journalism is flawed beyond belief, and the reason they got away with it for so long is that they had the monopoly on communications. When Big Tech opened up those lines and anybody and everybody could broadcast their thoughts, it was game over. They became archaic and unnecessary because the Internet took away their special status.

They didn’t reinvent themselves — not their methods or business model. They would have had to differentiate themselves from the rest of the white noise, and failed to do it.

Google News didn’t take anything away from journalism, but they took away people’s voices and reputations with impunity for decades. They shut out people as they made fun of others.

Now that this power is gone, the press has been hard at work trying to find that magical narrative that will turn back time. It’s not happening.

Yet we have those within the profession attacking elements of it. Logan, Abramson, and now Farrow. The first two did not actually gain much, and lost more in the bargain. Logan’s lofty 60 Minutes spot was as high as a journalist could go — so it is downhill from now on. Abramson didn’t get much out of it, either.

The jockeying for a position in a dead profession doesn’t make much sense. Creating an alternative would be more authentic, but when you play gambits instead of blazing your own path, you are always hoping to get back in — even if there nothing more to get…

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…

Brett Kavanaugh confirmed: How the Democrats failed to "weaponize" #MeToo: Shaming and virtue-signalling are not tools of war, but feints of royalty.

Not surprising as US Democrats are in a far greater dysfunctional mess than they let on. They coasted on #MeToo and this is the movement’s first real and major defeat.

Kavanaugh is confirmed.

The Left truly have no idea what they are doing, but when you build your ranks on champagne socialists and limousine liberals who do not understand that a “Resistance” movement is not a fashion statement, that’s what you get.

Trump is a shrewd man, and unlike the Left, he fights like both a general and a soldier.

The Left are acting like a bunch of kings and queens, issuing their decrees on the Troll Scroll, absolutely convinced slacktivism and carrying placards while shouting like uncivilized brats at people are the tools of war.

No, that is not the breakfast of champions.

Shaming and virtue-signalling is not doing anything but expecting servants to clean up the messes that you also had a hand in making by enabling wicked behaviour.

Turning women into helpless and delicate Victorian damsels was a big gambit and it backfired on Democrats and journalists alike.

The Democrats already lost the first time with Clarence Thomas; so this one they should have won, but didn’t because they think they are blameless and perfect, and way smarter than those on the Right, meaning they learned nothing and did the same thing, expecting a different outcome.

And the excuses the Left are puking are outrageous.

Seven FBI probes cleared Kavanaugh. You had three accusers with way too shaky stories individually, but together, they were glaring.

Ronan Farrow, who also should have known better, went to press with a story that he didn’t verify the way he did with Harvey Weinstein or Les Moonves, and it blared.

Michael Avenatti’s little nuclear bomb proved useless and many on the Left are blaming him for parading someone whose story crumbled after a simple poke.

But while many on the Left are convinced Christine Blasey Ford’s story alone would have sunk him, I do not agree. Seven FBI probes would have had the same outcome. That his mother Martha Kavanaugh was a judge, she would know the routines and the checks judges go through, grooming and preparing him, and it should be no surprise to anyone paying attention that he produced his teenaged calendars on the drop of a hat.

He was vetted, and thoroughly so, and the idea of a cover up is merely the Left throwing fits as their unfalsifiable hypothesis has just been proven false.

This is a horrific blow to #MeToo, and an unnecessary one. It would not have been if it weren’t co-opted by a political party, but everyone thought previous successes would guarantee another victory because of a “woke” mindset, and when you do that, you show how out of depth you truly are.

There is no strategy, let alone one that takes women’s experiences and natural rhythms into the equation.

But the Democrats earned this defeat. Inciting the masses is not a strategy: that is a lazy and manipulative person’s method of getting the little people to do the heavy lifting for you. It was Machiavellian to the core, but also thoughtless, and it showed.

You are not royalty. You cannot issue decrees and expect everyone to do what you want lest you shame them on social media.

But #MeToo isn’t the only loser here. Social media proved impotent as well, as well as their Big Tech overlords who have been openly rigging their platforms to favour the Left. Their billions mean squat as of today.

And it also proves that if your will can withstand the mass disapproval and you are persistent, social media is no match for you.

There will be more temper tantrums and rage puking. All of which is useless.

#MeToo should not have been misused here. The Democrats should have taken another track, but as #MeToo was the best weapon going, they appropriated it, and then spectacularly misfired with it.

#MeToo worked because of diligence. Women didn’t make up accusations: their troubles all had provenance you could follow, and could be verified by other means.

To #MeToo critics, they will now have a field day. #MeToo will also lose support from those who ride on the coattails of the success of others, which isn’t a bad thing; so long as feminists do not become dejected, or worse, not understand that you cannot possibly win every battle, and then hold grudges as you learn nothing from the mistakes of your losses. You have to change, modify and improve regardless if you were wronged in the past or not. You cannot expect others to change for you.

This was a shaky gambit, and the ones using it have a lot to answer for. #MeToo had better success in other venues targeting a different and specific sort of man. It is not all-purpose weapon to get rid of any male you do not like.

#MeToo became a one-trick pony. Women were turned into propaganda figures — all helpless and in need of Daddy Government to rescue them.

That is not feminism. That is not strength. You cannot bank on weakness or tales of woe: that can be the starting point, but sooner or later, you need to bring a new phase that has new strategies and specific goals.

#MeToo didn’t do it. People thought a single ploy was good enough forever and always. That’s a middle class truism; not the strategy of soldiers and generals fighting wars.

And the Left are inciting people who know nothing about basic strategy. Chalk it up to a generation whose parents sheltered them from failing or losing: that core of strategy was never developed. They threw fits and mommy and daddy fixed it by browbeating teachers and coaches into relenting.

You have to learn to fight like a soldier. Journalists do not know how to do that. Neither do professors. And not Democratic politicians anymore.

And that is why we have the Democrats flailing with their trash-talk and producing no victories, while anyone who can think several moves ahead always defeat them.

If feminism doesn’t want to be dragged down, they had seriously consider severing ties to that party and start from scratch — without some moralizing narrative, and with a willingness to learn and experiment with humility and enthusiasm of building something new with the lessons of the past…

Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and the difference between social media and journalism.

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is having a very bad month with decades old accusations slowly surrounding him with more than one accusation.

This sort of body-count reporting, in fact, is nothing new.

SPY1992-03.cover.jpg

Spy magazine did it to Clarence Thomas in 1992.

The title is extremely telling.

Screen Shot 2018-09-24 at 7.47.42 PM.png

The next time someone fawns over Joe Biden, just refer them to that article.

The rest of the press made it sound as if Anita Hill was the only one…and yet Spy magazine found more than one.

They started that kind of specific rock-turning, but it was ignored.

William Kennedy Smith was also the subject of that kind of reportage from Spy.

51of8l1L+fL._AC_SY400_.jpg

April 1992.

However, their impact was negligible. We had women who were harassed back then, and yet it struck no significant chord the way we are seeing now with #MeToo.

As I have mentioned before, Spy had a big impact on me, and one of the reasons was they didn’t ignore stories like those and did serious investigative journalism.

Back then, they had no support from anyone, including feminist groups.

Nor did the press give them the kind of grit of traction to make that story resonate.

But fast forward to 2018, and it is a whole new ballgame that political operatives and activists alike have realized give them an advantage. Some for the good, some for the bad, and sometimes a little bit of both.

Had we had social media in the early 1990s, Spy’s clout would have been greatly amplified. A story about numerous accounts of abuse would bypass the traditional press and make the rounds.

In 1992, you could have had a Ronan Farrow do the same thing, but not get attention, let alone a Pulitzer, and even now, unless social media gave the story a push, the press would have ignored it, if they could.

That is the advantage when you don’t have a gate-keeper slamming a door in your face.

For many people, they thought a #MeToo backlash would have happened by now, but as the old abusers have found out, they are not getting their back their glory days any time soon.

It is a number of factors. We have men grouse how horrible a force #MeToo has become, but they don’t get what happened.

Women were always sold a bill of goods that they had to endure things as they settled and sacrificed, meaning they had to be degraded in order to “play the game.”

The implied promise, of course, was they would be treated like human toilets for them to relieve their crude urges on, and they would get rewarded with some paper crown to validate their suffering.

Hillary Clinton endured and then she ran for president. Except she lost. She was a bad candidate who had no understanding of the nuances of strategy, but for those women who supported her, it proved that enduring abuse is not an actual strategy for real success.

It is a game of misdirection where you end up being a sucker and a pigeon making your abusers look like Great Men.

And then they realized their daughters and granddaughters were going through or would go through the same game.

That’s when they snapped. It is the reason it has taken off in the US: because they were lied to and cheated, and now all that bottled up rage exploded.

For young women like me, who had the strong guidance of a mother and grandmother who were both radical feminists, I never fell for it. I didn’t care about paper crowns. I was taught from an early age not to play games on rigged boards and was trained how to spot them, and how to fight against them.

Then came along Spy magazine that gave me additional evidence how important it was to take the long road and never compromise — and fight no matter what threats were lobbed in my direction.

It didn’t matter who was in authority; they were not gods to make decrees. If I had to stand up for myself in a group of my peers or a teacher, that was what I had to do. My feelings came first, and if something was unfair and abusive, there was to be no sugarcoating any of it or try to spin it as if I were in control. That was how people were tricked and fooled. It was my duty and my responsibility not to passively march to someone else’s orders.

Popularity, fame, fortune were all worthless if someone was going to try to enslave me.

I would get in trouble if I blindly went along with something that would exploit me.

It wasn’t as if people didn’t try to exploit me or do me harm in exchange for something. I always rejected it, and forged my own path, never pining for things predators paraded as being desirable things to possess, such as popularity or “fitting in.”

Spy was my real-life textbook. It showed just how predatory those predators were. They were cruel, dangerous, deceptive, and always blaming victims when they refused to be a victim anymore.

Spy didn’t take the side of predators. They weren’t fooled or beguiled, and they exposed them as being such.

What is happening now in the US is long overdue.

You are never to blame when someone victimizes you. You are not supposed to be perfect; so that’s no excuse for a predator abusing you.

Predators held power and indoctrinated others to be primed to be exploited — that is the reason fame and paper crowns are used and why they are in fact worthless.

How you are being treated is the only thing that counts, and how you treat others is the only true value that you have.

So if the abusers thought it would all die down, they are misreading the zeitgeist and ortgeist.

There is a lot of unfinished business up ahead. There is a lot of pent up rage that was unleashed.

Had Clinton won the election, the notion that to endure exploitation was the key to female success would have been reinforced, and we would have never had #MeToo and all the predators would have blithely continued.

Reality intervened and held up a mirror to those people who saw they were broken, in chains, confined, and powerless.

No, that was not the recipe for winning at life.

Yes, you took abuse, and made your abusers more powerful as you gave them your power in the bargain.

No, it is not set in stone.

Yes, you should expose them and liberate yourself immediately.

No, the past traumas are not your fault or reflect on you as a person.

Yes, not everyone fell for it.

No, they don’t look down on you because they respect truth.

And yes, there is always a better way if you stand up for yourself, regardless of the circumstances because it is not about applause or appeasement.

But the truth…

 

Chuck Todd's Atlantic Fiasco: When the bad guys pretend to be heroes, their own deeds call them out.

Chuck Todd's propaganda piece in The Atlantic is something I recently discussed here, but recent events have proven his deluded diva tantrum to be just that.

Journalists have been "fighting back" with their non-stop monomania hissies ever since they told the little people to vote for Hillary Clinton and the people did what they wanted without reading the memos because those memos do not serve anyone else but a few billionaires who made their dough manipulating and exploiting people through journalists for far too long.

And it is not working. Newspaper editorials recently had their own Let's Bully the President Day about a month ago, with hundreds of paper marching lockstep with the same melodramatic meltdown...and it didn't do a thing.

But Chuck Todd isn't one to talk. The Meet the Press babbler works for NBC, which has been trying to shut down Ronan Farrow for over a year: first by killing his Harvey Weinstein exposé, but when they were exposed for shutting down Farrow's well-researched piece, they tried to shut him down again, by claiming that his work was not up to snuff.

Andy Lack's memo tried to deliver the death blow in a memo, which has now spectacularly blown up in his face, especially now that their own Megyn Kelly contradicts that entire sketchy narrative.

NBC News is a hypocritical outfit, and had they been honest and truthful, they would have owned up to it all, but no, they are arrogant know-it-alls who keep making excuses as their lies become exposed.

So when you have an oblivious call-to-arms when your own sins are there making faces behind your back, you are the bad guy who is trying to pretend that you are some sort of valiant hero who will fight back.

No, you are not just the villains, but the defeated villains; as in, it's over, fellas, and you lost the game, the battle, and the war in November 2016.

You lost because you covered up your own sins as well as the sins of your little buddies.

Game over.

With NBC News in nuclear meltdown mode, Todd's nincompoopity in the Atlantic is a hilarious tone deaf spewfest. It is a complete humiliating disaster.

You don't want to meet the press because they, quite frankly, are a repulsive bunch of trolls who think if they babble loud and long enough, people will give in.

It is a pathetic piece in a pathetic publication, all while the sucker circus continues its macabre show while the world communicates with each other without the middle man...

Starting over in a Post-Journalism World, Part Two.

Once upon a time, journalism used to critique itself. You had reporters do postmortems on their missteps and even fiascos.

The healthier an industry is, the more self-critical they are. You see to improve and progress and not keep making the same mistakes over and over again, making a bad situation the one that sinks your profession's credibility.

But, when the problems are allowed to get out of hand, the situation changes: the more corrupt a profession is, the less they admit to their errors because if people on the outside knew the truth and reality of that discipline, they would shut it down.

The devious and the incompetent have no choice but to pretend they are perfect and beyond reproach as they drop a heavy curtain on their misdeeds.

The problem is when you drop down a curtain on your stage, you are signalling the end of the profession, anyway, drawing attention to the very rot you are trying to hide.

NBC News is such a place that cannot stand criticism -- the problem is journalism is nothing but a profession that criticizes other people and institutions, and if you can dish it out, but you can't take it, you nullify everything you have ever produced.

We had Chuck Todd's diva meltdown in the Atlantic trying to deflect attention away from journalism's own culpability in their own demise, pretending that they have to "fight back".

You may be pointing a finger of blame at someone else, but three fingers a pointing right back at you.

But that's typical NBC's gambit of misdirection.

NBC News Chairman Andy Lack is playing the same disgusting game on Ronan Farrow. Instead of admitting they made a mistake or did something wrong by killing Farrow's exposé on Harvey Weinstein, they keep trying to blame Farrow.

Lack's memo is truly vile. He is now trying to spin a narrative that Farrow was behaving as if he were an amateur and didn't do enough digging.

This is tantamount to professional slander. Lack is accusing Farrow of incompetence, never mind that Farrow's New Yorker article ended up making shockwaves and culminated in Weinstein facing criminal charges and Farrow winning a Pulitzer.

And Lack is spewing garbage, as if NBC's standards are really that high. Their other news reports are nowhere near the factual density as Farrow's piece. 

Farrow, of course, is having none of it. 

It has already been established the NBC's A-list news talent, Matt Lauer, was of the same ilk as Weinstein: predatory toward female employees.

And NBC didn't do a thing for years.

So NBC's excuses are rubbish.

They refuse to change or admit wrongdoing, meaning they are as corrupt and rotten today as they were when Farrow's piece was nixed.

If journalism was healthy, NBC would have admitted they dropped the ball, publicly apologize to Farrow, do an internal review, and improve as they change because that's what healthy institutions do.

You don't pile up the excuses, pretend your illness is a sign of glorious health, and then deflect legitimate criticism that is backed up with facts.

That's the reason journalism is a sham, and doesn't actually exist.

It doesn't.

It's dead.

And an alternative will be one where the mechanism of realistic and honest self-assessment is built in from the start.

Just like a healthy person goes to the doctor for check-ups and goes for tests, they do it because it is far easier to stop a problem early on than wait until it is terminal.

If you have a cancer in you, it is not a sign that you are some defective person as a whole: it is a sign you have to deal with this tumour before it gets terminal.

Journalism stopped going to check-ups, and got nasty when people started noticing how sickly it was becoming, pretending they were healthier, smarter, and nobler than their critics.

They are still playing that game from their coffins.

The alternative can never play that same game: mechanisms for check-ups must be at its core.

It is the way to ensure the lens are not distorted or become cloudy.

If you want to cover reality, then you need a disposition that is primed to see it.

And NBC's childish games prove they haven't been a real news outlet for a very long time...

Starting over in a Post-Journalism world, Part One.

Chuck Todd's sophistry in The Atlantic is as cringeworthy as it is completely out of touch with reality:

It’s Time for the Press to Stop Complaining—And to Start Fighting Back

A nearly 50-year campaign of vilification, inspired by Fox News's Roger Ailes, has left many Americans distrustful of media outlets. Now, journalists need to speak up for their work.

This is a paranoid conspiracy theory and a form of misdirection: journalists have no one else but themselves to blame for their death.

Yes, Mr. Todd, journalism is dead.

Journalists spewed a lot of lies. On purpose. For personal gain. Fake news, and I chronicled it all way back in 2005 in my book Don't Believe It!: How lies become news.

And Roger Ailes had nothing to do with it, as he was also a news producer whose feints and ruses I wrote about in my second book OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism.

So let us get that misconception out of the way.

Journalism was in trouble for many reasons, and I chronicled that in my fourth book When Journalism was a Thing.

You had your Stephen Glasses and Jayson Blairs. You had your Janet Cookes and your Kim Stacys. Your profession cribbed off so many PR firms and press releases during hard news events such as wars, that to now wear a fake halo and pretend you are all some kind of moral authority is a real gag.

Have you forgotten how many of your own were ensnared in #MeToo? Your colleagues. Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, the Big Boys.

Rose was with CBS, but Lauer, he was at your network, Mr. Todd.

NBC.

The network that killed Ronan Farrow's story.

So your spinning in the propagandistic Atlantic is as pathetic as it gets.

Bottom line: your wicked cult did it all to yourselves, and you are no better than those priests who abused their power by abusing children and covered it up.

Enough of your garbage.

Journalism is dead.

Good riddance.

Besides, Mr. Todd, it is too little, too late.

Journalism is over. Finished. Gone.

And now it is time to start over in a Post-Journalism World.

Yes, Mr. Todd, you forgot to read the memo as you were busy writing your temper tantrum about how everybody else is to blame but journalists.

A post-journalism world isn't something on the horizon: it is happening now.

Journalists can complain or not complain: they are no longer relevant, and their profession is no longer a thing.

Deal with it.

They ignored the nuances of the Fourth Medium to their detriment. They were so used to telling the little people what to think that they didn't see the people went marching on this spinning globe without them.

But we have a huge void to fill with the next generation of information disseminators.

Journalists are too ignorant and arrogant to change their ways. They are declaring war on the dead Roger Ailes, instead of realizing that the war is over and journalism lost.

And it deserved to lose. It earned its loss.

Why is it Ailes' fault? Because he didn't walk lockstep with your propaganda, and chose to use his own instead?

What a perfect world he ruined presenting another viewpoint? If only he stuck to your little script, it would be all so very glorious for your kind?

That is not what killed journalism -- or its façade.

If you cannot see reality, then you cannot be left in charge of reporting it. The end.

And it is the end of journalism.

But when a curtain falls, it will rise again, but with a new act on the stage.

Journalism is a relic of a bygone era when people were at their mercy to get their information, and to disseminate it.

Those days are gone.

Because we will see the rise of another medium, and it will also change the way we live in this world,

That is the reason why a new replacement to journalism is beginning to emerge now.

The old guard are tone deaf. They are too tainted to be credible, reliable, valid, or useful.

They use old methods when those methods no longer do what they are supposed to do.

And when you have an Establishment journalist writing in an Establishment magazine about "fighting back", what you are saying is you wish to wage war on the people to keep a tyrannical status quo in place.

Because that is what journalism was: shackles that prevented people from being able to bypass the gate-keepers to speak to the world directly -- unedited and unfiltered.

Right now, we are living in a Post-Journalism World. It is one of pure anarchy, and it is devoid of any reliable and valid system of gathering information for a general audience.

But the seeds of the alternative are already in place.

It is F.R.E.E.D.

It is the system of getting information without the egotism and drama as well as the narrative and the sloppy methods that have no empirical value.

It is a creative science whose laboratory is not in the Ivory Towers, but in the real world.

I ran myself as a test subject for years.

The backbone of F.R.E.E.D. is Method Research.

It is a far superior way of gathering information. It forces those gathering information to be vigilant, disciplined, humble, and active, something journalism always failed to do.

Mr. Todd may be barking orders to no one in particular, but F.R.E.E.D. does not play those childish and self-serving games.

Journalism is dead.

And it is time for those in that dead profession to try their hand at adulting -- meaning facing the reality and truth as they finally admit their own responsibility for their own destruction...

NBC and CBS under scrutiny: just who watches these watchmen?

CBS is investigating the behaviours of their own little generals.

And now NBC is under fire over Ronan Farrow's work -- with more revelations to come.

It is not a good time for network news' carefully staged images.

Journalism reminds me a lot of the Catholic Church -- once the final word of all ideological matters in Western thought and always portrayed as the avatars of morality.

Then came those who were abused by those authority figures, and while the church was rocked, it still had clout, and now the clout is dwindling as people no longer see the institution as being superior in moral affairs than they are -- and a lot lower.

And we are strictly talking about abuse of children. If we were to put other dark deeds of the past on the table -- such as their aiding and abetting the fascists who slaughtered Serbs during the Second World War, as well as other dubious dealings, their image would be much, much worse.

But the networks are now in the same boat: looking sketchy and deceitful. It would have been easier if their ratings and hold on public mindsets were stronger, but they aren't. 

No one actually ever to bother to watch these watchmen. They got away with things because like the Wizard of Oz, they managed an air of mystery as they made themselves look larger than life. They had gravitas, glamour, and mystique, and that brought them decades of clout.

Today is a different story. Even the Fourth Medium we call the Internet is fragmenting and losing sway on many fronts, but the Third Medium television is in far shakier ground, and the reason these stories are emerging, which is miraculous, given the nondisclosure agreements that are typical in network television...

How well has #MeToo really been doing lately?

Not too good. Apparently someone wanting to discredit actress and Harvey Weinstein accuser Asia Argento by saying the pot was calling the kettle black.

Maybe blacker, as the young man in the centre of this muck was under 18 at the time.

I have always said #MeToo was a response to shoo out Trump from the White House. That infamous tape of him spewing vulgarities to Billy Bush was supposed to sink him, and it didn't; and so, ramp it up and exploit women who do get abused in the workplace so that the natural conclusion would be the Big Meany Who Spoiled The Left's Narrative Has To Just Go Away.

Middle Class women wanted a female president, and they were denied, and #MeToo hit a chord with them, and rightfully so, but #MeToo was a form of war propaganda. The fact that it was used as such doesn't negate the fact the sexual harassment is a real thing.

But I find it interesting how well coordinated the pushback has been in journalism, the place where many of the accused were employed in positions of power.

#MeToo was a social media-spawned movement, and for one that was supposed to take down Right-wing men, it took down far more Left-wing players instead.

I also find it interesting that the New York Times -- the one who had the story on Weinstein a decade earlier but axed it, are the ones to go after a Weinstein accuser now. Ronan Farrow inconvenienced a lot of media players, and the game of chess has just gotten dirty.

But this is all American limousine liberal kerfuffling, and the worst of it all, Republicans have been whole-hearted on supporting feminist causes because of the number of liberal men who have been exposed to be workplace terrorists, but with social media, control of the narrative is impossible because there are so many voices.

Even Twitter, which openly admits to being on the Left are wholly responsible for Trump's victory. Their current censorship mode is damaging their brand and their power. You may want to rig a board, but you can do it in a game of chess where you allow only select number of pawns on the board. Social media is too overcrowded, and you wind up with stones with no titles, meaning it is a game of Go where the point is to surround a target.

This is the reason #MeToo could thrive as a legitimate Go strategy, but we are now seeing the handicaps of each new game starting to weaken the original victors.

But these players are all rich, famous, and powerful. The US is playing a political war and the soldiers on the board happen to be rich white actresses. As the New York Post once bluntly observed, Harvey Weinstein was picked because he no longer had clout.

#MeToo resonated because it was based in truth: in places where people are starving in a land where the wealthy hoard and exploit, the differences are stark enough for the poor not to be able to lie, spin, or justify their destitution, making them ideal pigeons to recruit in an army whose message is to liberate those pawns from oppression.

We have the same dynamic and structure of manipulation, but only a First-World rather than Third-World grievance.

But that is happening in the US, while Canada has something far more disturbing transpiring right now, yet is flying under the radar.

While overall murders are down in Canada, the number of women and girls getting murdered in 2018 is going up. The number bandied is 79 from January to June, but that is only culling from media reports, which is a very incomplete way of gathering data. If we were to go by missing persons reports, police filings, and court cases to look for numbers, it would be much higher.

But don't expect much play because these are ordinary Canadian women not usually in a public profession who have to wrestle with the Alphas and get dirt under their fingernails as it goes against a narrative that this country is safe.

I always said the problem for women -- particularly ambitious women is that they have no war manuals that are in tune with their natural behaviours, realities, thinking, and circumstances. There is no cultivation the way men have had it for centuries. It is the reason why when get this far in their battles, they reach a point where there is a slaughter, and it is a shame.

Because women are afterthoughts. We don't have self-defence taught instead of physical education in grade school for girls. We don't have the foundations for any of it. It is why women are usually groping alone in the dark wilderness, and become exhausted as they must fight a thousand wars just to have a decent life on their own terms, all while they are expected to lose focus by making dinner and hanging the laundry...

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...

Breaking the Cycle of the Fake Arenas: Journalism perfected it. Twitter stole their bit. And why both are con games.

I

It never ceases to amaze me how naive and gullible people can be. Educated people with doctorates are no more savvy than the person who never spent a day in school.

They are being constantly tricked by pathetic ruses because they see walls where there are none.

Here is a short list of Truths for you to ponder:

1. We have 7.4 BILLION people on the planet. 

2. You will never meet 99.999% of them, meaning these are strangers to you. They do not pay your bills. They do not call to see if you are doing well. They have no idea that you actually exist. They all can live easily without you.

3. This pool of 7.4 billion people you will never know exist will not all agree with anyone on any single point. Mass agreement does not exist.

4. You do not need a single one of these 7.4 billion people to agree with you.

5. 7.4 billion people can, in fact, disagree with you, violently throw tantrums and insult you, and you can still be The Only Person In The World Who Is Right because if you base your case on observations, research, facts, experiments, and other verification techniques and they blindly follow the dictates of someone else's lie -- the results will be in your favour regardless. The number of followers or agreers is immaterial and irrelevant.

6. You do not need to waste time engaging people who blindly follow other people's decrees to be proven right. They are trying to force you to submit to their lie so they don't get inconvenienced by reality.

Got it?

Have these Truths penetrated your mind?

If you still cannot grasp it, imagine you have been attacked by a group of thugs out of the blue as you were walking to work, and somehow, you manage to escape, but not without some major internal injury. You go to the hospital to get treatment, but the doctor on call decides "it's not that bad" and the police don't believe you because you don't look as if you were assaulted and as there were no witnesses or security cameras, they decide it is less work to file in the paperwork than believe you.

Worse, someone overhears it, and then uses their smart phone to record it and posts it, saying with repulsion that you are a liar because both the police and the doctor don't believe you.

And all the posters run with this assessment uncritically, it goes viral, and 7.4 billion choose that day to all agree and then malign you.

So, did it happen?

Of course it did. Experts can be wrong, lazy, corrupt.

Or perhaps one of those attackers is the mayor's kid, and he knew where to attack you without being seen.

Now, suppose someone who sees the video starts to ask questions, and gets flayed by those naysayers, but persists. They start to do research, ask questions, and discovers that, yes, you were attacked, and helps you get to a town where the doctors are thorough and the police do their jobs.

So, did it happen more so because one other person chose to believe you by verifying what you said was true?

No, the past is the past. It happened regardless if no one believed you, one person believed you, or all 7.4 billion people believed you.

It just happened.

So 7.4 billion people turn into white noise. Mass opinion does not actually count for anything at all. It is a red herring and a misdirection. Reality operates independently of our beliefs and so does the truth.

Now, let's suppose you were vindicated, and people who threw stones at your reputation were called on the carpet and got a taste of their own vile medicine. You sued the lot of people who could have cost you your life, including the busybody who filmed your suffering and made fun of it on social media, and your case made textbooks, history, feature films, and the like.

And someone thought you had it made, and decided to say it also happened to them, even though that is a lie.

If no one believes them, is it a lie?

If one person believes it, is it a lie?

If all 7.4 billion people -- including you believed it, is it a lie?

Of course it is. The beliefs and opinions have no relevance on the veracity of the fact that someone fibbed for whatever reason(s) they had.

Egotism and insecurity has infected the information stream. We look for validation from people who in no way have any way of making a point true or false. It doesn't matter whether they are patronizing with a smile or a sneer, opinion is not relevant to a point's veracity.

If humans, as a collective, were a realistic species, they would cease to look for like-minded people to validate their beliefs.

But they got into an unnatural habit of looking for shortcuts and then once they stumble upon a script that suits their worldview, do not let go of it.

People such as Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis and Nicola Tesla, for instance, were disbelieved, with Semmelweis getting committed for telling what turned out to be a fact.

Yet people fight all their lives to have other people believe them, envy them, admire them, love them, deify them, worship them...but right or wrong, lie or truth, people waste their lives looking for validation and vindication.

Even Mother Theresa ain't Mother Theresa.

But truth is truth. It doesn't need your drooling accolades to prop it up -- nor is your disdain of its existence going to make a single dent in it. Get over yourself.

It is why I never understood the Great Men goobers who think their opinions have worth. Their prattle is prattle. Their insults are meaningless. Their flocks have no minds, hearts, or souls: those suckers just hedge their bets that their leader will be The One who saves them from life.

And you cannot have one grain of respect for that cowardly lot.

Religions promised to save their followers who complied without question, but now in the West, people are walking away from the notion of a Santa God.

Right now, the News Gods are political ideology and the Internet -- and both are not going to last very long as deities.

But there was one Deity that had a relative short stint at the top: Journalism.

It managed to fool a lot of people for years, but it lost its clout, but while it had it, it could get away with it by manipulating the optics in a certain way, and for many years, the pigeons fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

II

But it wasn't a church where the cult of Journalism preached to its flock: it was an invisible gladiatorial arena. 

The most striking example of it was on the Fox News Channel and it was a simple show called The O'Reilly Factor.

The arena even had a name: The No Spin Zone.

Bill O'Reilly had real success of it for years, and I had chronicled just how he rigged the game in my book OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism. I had devoted an entire chapter to how that game was played.

The idea wasn't new. Journalism's fake arena was an absolute staple that gullible people went on in the mistaken belief that they absolutely had to go to the fight they were invited to attend or else they were cowards, liars, un-American, whatever con job was needed to lure a pigeon into the arena.

Public relations firms and image consultants made a very good living training people to be able to handle themselves in these fake arenas. Publicists and agents would issue a list of demands to soften the abuse.

However, what most people didn't understand was there was no actual reason to enter the arena. It wasn't real. It wasn't innate, natural, essential, or anything of the sort.

It was a scam.

It was a way of getting mileage on the cheap. Media outlets didn't have to pay these suckers to come on their shows, studios, or newsrooms to "defend" themselves. There was no value to it. 

And worst of all, these "newsmakers" were goaded to it by being chased by scrums of reporter who stalked and chased them in public. That was symbolic to let this person know who was the predator and who was the prey -- only the prey was labelled predator by the press who then shook these people down for interviews: well, if you are right, you will subjugate yourself to our demands that you give us free fodder for our outlets. We will be hostile to you, and you will look bad regardless of what you say or do because we stick on the labels and we set the terms of engagement that are rigged against you...

However, in all of these gladiatorial games, none of these interviews had much value: a reporter could uncover someone's wrongdoing without ever speaking to that person. Ronan Farrow did not have to corner Harvey Weinstein to talk to him at all, for instance.

You find facts that both confirm and refute, and then weigh them. You do not need to demonize or deify anyone. The truth is the truth.

But people bought the hype. They thought Mike Wallace and Sam Donaldson running after people meant something. It didn't. It was just for show -- optics, really, of how the valiant reporter was hunting down The Bad Guy.

Never mind that even now, some of these alleged Good Guys use racial slurs and did untoward things to others, but even as they are being exposed, they still try to wear the Hero label with babbling how they must sacrifice themselves for the little people as not to “become a threat to the mission ....of healthy independent journalism.”

They never take off the masks of deceit.

And yet proclaim that unless you go into their rigged arenas, you are deficient.

No, you're not.

There is no logical reason to play the game, especially not on their terms.

Because there is no empirical foundation to justify the need for that fake arena.

It is as if a fox browbeat a lamb into coming into his den to prove it is brave and honest -- has nothing to hide.

The lamb has nothing to hide, but has nothing to gain, either, by becoming the fox's next meal.

What is truth is truth. What is reality is reality.

Journalism's success absolutely hinged on having the monopoly of the public narrative, and it meant being the gate-keepers of information.

But then along came the Internet as technology did not have to get journalism's blessing or approval.

And then people could bypass journalism entirely.

Donald Trump used Twitter to get his message out.

Even in Ontario, the PC Party wisely ditched not only the fake arena of journalism, but also the other fake arena of debates, winning a decisive majority without ever subjugating themselves to anyone's decrees or dictates.

You do not need to justify or explain yourself.

More and more people have hit upon this revelation: you do not have to answer to anyone in that kind of forum. It is contrived, based on no empirical foundation, and is self-serving and rigged to favour those running the arena.

But it is not the death of the gambit.

Twitter -- the troll scroll and the sewer of social media -- is trying to pick up that mantle, but not with the success many of the rage pukers are hoping it will.

III

The entire premise of Twitter has become: My insults make it so! My disapproval is the last word and final say because I called it! Nyah! Nyah!

You are not Alpha and Omega. Stop deluding yourself.

The ruse works only if the sucker you are targeting backs down.

If the person is not a sucker or fooled by games such as Got Your Nose, they can ignore you, and do, think, or say whatever they wish without your approval.

And you are left shouting into nothing as your disapproval is emasculated and proven to be impotent.

And in fact, those who rebel against the tidal wave of tweets by ignoring the bait and continuing to do and say whatever they want and need, are proven to be stronger.

Imagine being the person who is unfazed and unmoved by the old biddy outrage of millions.

They prove to be weaker than the one person who knows truth is truth and reality is reality, and opinion's meddling is worthless.

Twitter is a life sink and a time-waster. It didn't have to be, but it drifted into the ideological gutter because it cribbed from a failed industry. Well played!

Journalism failed because it played those games, and then outsmarted itself. Sooner or later, you clue in that there is a certain fun in giving the troll scrollers something to talk about.

It's like watching those helmet haired old ladies look as if someone shoved manure deep into their nostrils just because you wore a red shirt to church.

People can nag you on Twitter, and you go on living your life, not needing to validate or justify a thing.

Because whether people agree with the truth or not isn't relevant.

It is facts that show us the reality to get us to the truth that counts.

Twitter is not built to last. If more people ignore tweets (and they will because sooner or later, reality points out the obvious), it loses its appeal. It tries to intimidate, bully, and shame people into backing down.

Just ignore it and don't back down. The end. It is not as if ideologues are open-minded and reasonable people who will ever admit to being wrong, manipulative, or controlling.

If someone cannot get a gang to bully you into submission or change what you do or believe, then they will abandon it because it gives them no power, but it does wonders for the person who can stand up to brainless mobs who have more free time than common sense.

Snubbing those invitations to degrade yourself with a slap fight that will not prove a thing is liberating.

Which brings us to F.R.E.E.D.

IV

Why the old and antiquated gladiatorial arena is failing civilization is simple: it is patriarchal, binary, deceptive, antagonistic, and rarely, if ever aligns with reality. It is one of the worst ways to gather relevant information.

Even the phrase L'esprit de l'escalier is a de facto admission that even seemingly "winning" an argument is meaningless: if you can think of a rebuttal after the fact, then what is the point of a fight?

To vent? To control others? To force people to follow you? To destroy? To harm? To hide your fear?

We can always justify anger. It is not hard to wear a halo as you are chasing people around with your pitchfork. People getting chased are not going to see you as an angel, and they certainly will not see themselves as a villain based on your say-so.

We let things go, however. We don't question things. We don't do our homework by doing legwork (and no, scouring Facebook propaganda meme posters is not homework). We don't find facts that refute our theories, let alone find the ones that confirm it.

Journalism made it seem it got the facts, and in the days when print ruled, it very often did. 

Television came along and it need to hook viewers -- and its showmanship brought in a very unstable and troubling factor into its calculations: the ambush interview.

Notice, however, it was not that ambushing of television that brought us Watergate. It was print, and the reporters who did it were not resorting to using a fake gladiatorial arena.

I find it very interesting how the profession conflated fact-finding with ambush carny. The former takes work and skill, while the latter is mere smoke and mirrors.

F.R.E.E.D. is the system that has reality at its core and truth as its mandate. You can throw all sorts of words out there, but it is a very different thing to have those words have meaning and value.

Journalism was all about cruelty and sensationalism. I find it interesting that post-Trump, the industry hitched its ride on #MeToo, even while their own were being exposed, and sobbing over those people who want entry into the US without going through the regular channels, even if the situation is nothing as it is being portrayed -- and that other Western nations are having the same breakdowns because the migration of tens of millions of displaced people is overwhelming various countries who were never equipped to handle an influx of people who have no resources, skills, education, guarantors, or plan.

Many of these people need serious medical attention that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the healthcare systems aren't even equipped to handle aging populations such as the Baby Boomers.

The traditional model of fake combat has the Left screaming we must let everyone in without a plan, while the Right are screaming it cannot be done.

Who's right?

Neither side, of course. You have a series of hard, serious questions to ask. You do not just throw a temper tantrum one second after something has happened.

What is the situation? What are the resources on hand? What is the investment -- and what is the return? What are the consequences of the actions? Even well-meaning actions can be disastrous one way or another.

Say, you let people in and the economy collapses -- perhaps as a result of a flighty and impetuous strategy, or perhaps some other factor, and as a result, there is a debilitating disease outbreak and the refugees that were taken in were hit the hardest, and then they blame the policy for their woes, and it causes serious problems later on with never-ending lawsuits and "solutions" that may bankrupt the country, making it vulnerable to outsiders who will exploit it, causing further weakening.

Or, you keep people out, and they congregate near the border, and desperate and disillusioned, they become prime pickings for terrorist cells who recruit them, and there is carnage and instability to the point where personal freedoms are curtailed as a "solution."

And you can never bank on any "best case scenario" because it has yet to happen in the history of mankind.

So here we are, in 2018, where people think tantrums on Twitter can solve the world's problems.

We didn't solve problems with journalism: it was made to seem as if they were because there is always a sunny ending where the reporter swoops in and saves the day for democracy...except it didn't.

It didn't stop crime. It didn't even stop certain criminals from re-offending.

So what to do with an influx of migrants?

If you have been reading up until now and expect me to spew out some opinion off the top of my head, then you obviously haven't been paying attention.

Or were hoping I was some flighty hypocrite.

I don't know, but with F.R.E.E.D. we start to find out.

We don't "duke it out." We find facts. We don't paint people as victims, villains, heroes, or heretics. We find facts. We get information. We will most likely not like what we discover. We start to formulate plans we can begin to test.

We don't act like asses on the Troll Scroll. We don't try to shut down people who point out problems that go against our opinions. We find facts.

People will raise concerns. They are not to be dismissed. If you want to let in an influx of people and someone raises concerns about the affordability of such a massive move, you do not try to demonize them as being bigots and then hope a personal attack will make them go away so you can impose your will on them.

You find facts about costs. You find facts about people already citizens who are up the queue and how much they are going to cost you. You find facts about the resources you already have. Then you find facts on how much it will cost to bring people in.

Then you find facts on alternatives, such as sending foreign or peacekeepers to destitute nations.

And then you line up your facts and get to work.

But you also find facts about other potential issues regarding culture, assimilation, housing, healthcare, mental health, education, employment, and the like.

In other words, we do not fly by the seat of our pants. We do not try to play the propaganda card by putting out "a face" on the story: one deemed a saint and the other a sinner.

We do not use narrative.

We line up our facts.

And then the solutions begin to emerge -- the ones that have the best chance of success and consensus will present themselves.

There is no need to waste your life on Twitter, raging about things you know bupkes about.

Journalism kept trying to rig outcomes with increasing frequency, and it harmed society as new and innovative solutions that weren't obvious were suppressed.

It is time society grew up and stop acting like children who have no idea where and how money comes to pay for things.

Liberation comes from facing reality to find truths.

Not by wasting your life trying to boss people around because it will not turn your lies into truths.

That is just playing a con job, and trying to bait me into your fake arena won't change that truth -- or me...

Cable Networks spew partisan propaganda? You don't say, The Intercept!

I love how Glenn Greenwald's piece is passionate about exposing the obvious.

Cable News is mislabelled. It should be Cable Propaganda because it is all about telling ghost stories to bored and clueless middle class people who want to sound informed, but think watching television is how one becomes informed. 

I wrote a book on the Fox News Channel's shenanigans, but had my publisher Disinfo asked me to write one about CNN or MSNBC, I would have done it because their structures and motives are the same -- it is just their content of assumptions that are different, meaning they are just as partisan, only for the other side.

You can't actually have an "all-news" channel because that would be too expensive to fill the airwaves with enough real news. You have to fall on opinion. It is cheap filler.

That's what cable partisan channels are doing right now. Ronan Farrow made a mistake of trying to put some real news on NBC's airwaves, and they shooed him away for bringing in some facts about how a mean old Left-wing Hollywood guy was preying on women. It didn't fit their narrative that people on the Left are as virtuous and perfect as Catholic priests were seen in the 1950s.

No, no, no. Middle class people do not want to take any risks: they want a sure thing with guarantees that they will not have egg on their face for hedging their bets wrong so their older siblings can laugh at them and feel good for all the wedgies and noogies they gave to their nerdy sibling. They want TORTEE: truisms that sound right and will get them trinkets without fuss and lots of envy.

The cable partisan outlets must pander and shamelessly so. The more opinion they have and the more melodramatically they present it, the fewer audiences members will leave them.

Because even that gambit is not actually working. Those in that genre are becoming desperate because people prefer their own ignorant opinions on Facebook than the ones on cable. There are people who do nothing but post propaganda posters on their social media sights, trying to force everyone to think and act like they believe they are thinking and doing.

North America has no journalism. The Intercept is probably the last little flicker of it.

The problem is society actually needs drama-free information that is in your face. People want to run away from reality, when they, in fact, cannot actually do that. Reality is everywhere and if you don't deal with it, it will deal with you.

An alternative to journalism has to take that into consideration, and not worry about pandering to a broad audience. It has to be the place where those who have courage to face reality can get informed so they can find the truths that will help improve their reality by having a better understanding of it.

It must be absolutely frustrating for an educated man such as Greenwald to see those partisan outlets seemingly get away with garbage. It used to bother me, too.

But not as much anymore. It is not as if I am resigned to it, but I know there are people who think sticking to a pseudo-morality script will chase all their problems away and don't see that the script does not play in the real world.

And that's their lives to waste.

But I have my life, and I don't play those games.

I can create something new. I do not expect adoration or mass acceptance, just as I never expected mass acceptance with my fiction writing.

Yet it still needs to be done, and I am doing it without a script, but with enthusiasm.

Because there is something liberating when you don't follow a script, and are willing to experiment, explore, and create.

You learn to embrace reality and truth before you realize when both flourish under your care, they repay the favour with interest...

Journalism's downfall and moving on from the rot of desperation.

Where did journalism go wrong?

The better question is how did it go wrong?

You do not have to look anywhere else but this profile on Ronan Farrow, one of the smattering of people who could be considered the ideal of a journalist. The fact that we had decades of women being abused in the workplace, particularly in the communications industry -- but it took a white man to make the grievance a legitimate one, tells you everything you need to know about how worthless journalism has been all along.

Or, you can look at the dysfunctional mess of the Denver Post, which is an primitive and infantile reaction to a reality that has been a long time coming. Newsweek is also a mess, but the overlords put a clamp on the public tantrums. It isn't changing the situation, but those screaming fits drown out what has been really happening: childish narratives used to distort perceptions of reality.

The problem is perception is not reality, no matter what kind of slap fight you choose to engage in. Had journalism been a healthy industry, it would attract a different sort of ownership.

But the worst of it comes the willful ignorance of that reality that demands our attention, but has been deflected by journalistic narrative.

Take this propaganda piece from the New York Times on the "renegades" of the "dark web." The piece is pure deception: here are Establishment professors and authors voguing for the newspaper. The are not renegades. They are old school and well-heeled academics who formed little online groups to indulge in the café culture of Europe. That is not news.

The same filters are present in a piece from the Conversation about the hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright -- two women who had no trouble having blood on their hands with their Machiavellian and opportunistic political policies -- and their subsequent financial exploitations of those inhuman policies -- but then the author of the piece proves he had learned absolutely nothing of his own lesson as he believes a younger generation are somehow better.

The author -- a professor from my old alma mater who should really know better -- didn't bother reading the words of a young Hillary Clinton to see that she too was once one of those voices who seemed to preach idealism -- and yet it was all calculated dogma proving she was willing to betray those ideals for a better political position. Her own undergraduate thesis screams that we cannot merely take youthful musings for granted, especially when the methods and messages are too close to Clinton's for comfort.

The profession has proven itself unteachable. You can either waste energy trying to resurrect a dead corpse -- or work toward nurturing a new life to create something new.

The misogyny that women's issues are only important if a white man says it is won't do.

The selfish tirades won't do.

The delusional narratives won't do.

The blindness to the past won't do.

So moving on is the more rewarding option -- and the more constructive one...