Traumatized journalists? What about a traumatized teenaged girl who saw footage of what they denied was reality?

I have made no secret how I got involved in journalism. If there was no war in the former Yugoslavia, then Alexandra Kitty would have been a jury psychologist. She would be assessing potential jurors, and making recommendations who should sit on a case and who should be rejected.

But life had other ideas, and I became a journalist.

I was never given “dark stories” to write, even though I always pitched them. I saw raw footage of dead bodies when I shot listed, but actually, the opportunity to do those kinds of stories were not forthcoming. When you cover crime stories, a lot of it involves talking to police, getting press releases and going to press conferences. Even war reporting in the modern era has reporters riding along not close to the conflict as they were “embedded” with ally soldiers.

Some who ventured off into dangerous territory, such as Daniel Pearl, were kidnapped, tortured, and either held for ransom and/or murdered. It is not as if the profession never gets in danger, but that kind of reportage is rare. You are more likely going to get to cover TIFF than a war zone, and truth be told, sadly, more people will tune to you interviewing actors than soldiers.

But this ruling in Australia that “traumatized” journalists need compensation for it. Does the public have the right to demand the same compensation if the press regularly traumatizes them?

We have had falsely accused people be demonized in the press. I know I was traumatized by the propagandistic coverage of the Yugoslav — far more than watching the devastating footage that directly contradicted what the media proclaimed.

Because when the consensus is that your people are villains, and you know that is not the truth, but the label is permanently stuck on you as you are watching footage that shows atrocities being ignored by the press, you can never go back to your previous sense of trust — and you know that that same disreputable group will do everything to make that dishonest label stick on you if push came to shove, accusing you of everything of deception to insanity.

But that doesn’t count.

What this ruling will do is give media companies the freedom of never assigning anything that can be deemed “traumatic.” Go cover the starlets at TIFF. That’s safe and cheap.

Because that’s what they are doing when they are not gossiping about Donald Trump or Justin Trudeau…

Memo to the Conversation: The Gillette ad is not a sign of a "cultural shift". It is a sign that corporate pandering is as deceptive as ever.




Boy, are some people gullible rubes.

You can fool all of the people some of the time, but it is the ones who can fool all of the time who can babble and puke sophistry thinking they know something.

Look at this piece of propaganda from the Conversation:

Gillette’s #MeToo-inspired Super Bowl ad represents a cultural shift

No, it doesn’t. It represents patriarchal misogyny repackaged to appease pseudo-feminist followers of the Middle Class who want hasty solutions to inconveniences by having some They do all the work to sweep it under the rug, and that has been going on for decades.

The Middle Class love to fly under the radar. They detest work, independent though, or real change. Just give the crib notes of what is acceptable thinking and cocktail party chatter and they will take those marching orders and march straight off a cliff.

The Gillette ad is pure bullshit and typical corporate propaganda. It doesn’t actually do anything but co-opt palatable feminism. Their sales were declining, mostly thanks to lazy men ditching shaving or basic hygiene because that is too hard compared to app swiping. Those men aren’t thinking about the women; they are thinking about their own lethargic asses and then trying to spin a narrative of individuality and self-expression by doing what everyone else is doing.

So Gillette is trying to sweet talk women into buying their junk.

The end.

No cultural shift. The difference is before their ads were targeting men and now they are targeting women to buy a product by providing their dream men who puke what these women want to hear.

No cultural shift. This is how advertising rolls.

The core message hasn’t deviated. It reminds me of a Han Hoogerbrugge print I have hanging in my bedroom called Hey Boy Hey Girl.

I love that picture, but apparently, I am in the minority. My mother always cursed and made horrid comments when I had it in my office. People look at it and wonder what the hell do I see in it.

Simple: A satiric take on typical Western thinking.

The girl is just the guy wearing a girly wig. If you watch the animation on his old site NAILS, it is animation #12. Click the “girl”, then the “boy”, then click the boy again to get the girl’s giggling.

This is how Western thinking is built: everything is patriarchal and male-centred, even when it purports to be enlightened by more feminist thinking.

It is an epic bullshit story.

It is no different than when when a kid asks dad for money and he rejects the request, and then the kid remembers there is mom and then goes appeals to her, hoping she’ll oblige.

Acting like a kid is not a cultural shift. That is knocking on doors until someone lets you in.

Gillette’s problem isn’t that men have gotten more “sensitive”: they (a) have more artisan options so they can be snooty and express their specialness with the brand of razor they use, and (b) have a more rugged option that trumps Gillette’s schtick by chucking their razors in the first place.

Whoop di do.

This isn’t a watershed moment.

Screen Shot 2019-01-22 at 12.26.14 PM.png

So don’t overthink the corporate press release…

Misunderstanding Reality: Why the Conversation should just shut up.

The Conversation has always been the dumb person’s attempt at thoughts, and it shows. It spews sophistry and appeals to authority without questioning their own simpleton methods, and this article is no different:

You can’t characterize human nature if studies overlook 85 percent of people on Earth

This is a direct appeal to political correctness and a misunderstanding of diversity, but I am not going to tackle the nuts and bolts of the article (I could if there is a demand), but how my own career contradicts this.

As in, real-life application that trumps spewing.

It is posh these days to think people all think differently and different culture and races are different.

Throughout different times and places, every place on this globe has had misogyny, xenophobia, violence, inequality, tyranny, war, exploitation, and patriarchal structures.

Your culture can have no virtuous airs over any other culture.

Propaganda from ancient times is identical to what is being spewed globally right now.

Where people get it wrong is that they have an obsession with the content of their thoughts. They think it makes them different.


There has always been competition and pecking orders.

We have aways had castes. We have always had inequality — socialism and communism had it as bad as capitalist societies. People rig things to benefit them and their relatives.

I know because I have bothered to look at cultures other than Western European ones.

Every society has had their own weapons; so when people tell me how violent some designated Them are, I always point out how their own culture is equally violent, too.

And then I rattle off their own in-group’s sins.

You may have justified it or become adjusted to it, but that’s not the same.

That is a myth.

What people look at is content.

So let’s take a gender-based one.

Women think they are the only ones who society pressures into worrying about their bodies.

They will cite anorexia as proof that their gender is the only one to have this problem.

There are men who suffer from it, the ratio is skewed.

And then women get smug with me.

And I say, yes, the content is starvation.

But what about the structure?

Men are also pressure to have muscles and abs, and their outlet is to abuse steroids, which is no less dangerous.

You may have one group starve themselves, but other pump all sorts of dangerous things into their system to achieve the same ends.

The content differs, but not the structure.

We look at shallow difference, while ignoring the silent similarities.

The human brain is the same regardless of race or nationality.

And we are far more alike than different.

When I was a psychology student, I didn’t just study and memorize theories in psychology or take anyone’s word as gospel truth.

I went out a tested that theory on different people in subtle ways to get feedback and verification.

And I could have a diverse sample size.

And lo and behold, the results held up.

If we are looking at 15% of a global population, that is a fair sample size.

Besides, studies usually rely on a single profile of a test subject: a first year university student.

There will always been variation and difference, but even for the same subject depending on the conditions.

There should be diversity in empirical testing, but that is true for studies looking at content.

But structure of thought is remarkably consistent.

Because we never question the structure of thought.

Testing is a form of intangible biopsy. You do not need to drain someone of all of their blood to see what is going on in their bodies.

A few vials usually does it.

What we need is diversity of structure.

And anyone can take up that mantle.

I have, for instance.

We have to stop thinking that there is no such thing as unity.

Diversity is one half of the equation. Unity is the other.

And we have to stop thinking that we are better or superior to others.

No, we are humans.

And that is scary enough as it is…

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...

Why we need an alternative to journalism now.

If Journalism was an E! True Hollywood Story, everyone would say, "No wonder that has-been crashed and burned."

News Corp working overtime in their propaganda campaign to stop Facebook. They never got the Internet, thinking it would be a MySpace generation, and hedged their bets wrong, and now that they are no longer the cool kids, are trying to stop progress to reclaim their past glory.

And while Facebook is clueless about journalism, those who pretend to be journalists don't know what makes good journalism, either.

It is still a profession with rampant abuse, and Charlie Rose's reign of terror was always accepted because that's the cutthroat ways of journalism.

It is a profession that is deluded, as the Conversation that thinks there is such a thing as quality journalism.

When you have no empirical methods of research, never pushed the limits of your assumptions, and allowed lies, propaganda, hoaxes, fake news, and misinformation into your own product for decades, then keep quiet about having "quality journalism." You had a monopoly on disseminating information that propped you up, and its rigs ensured you had a captive audience. Everything the profession knows about "quality journalism" is wrong because of it.

The Globe and Mail's knee-slapper of a self-serving editorial has it backwards:

Democracy’s immutable need for a free press

No, democracy needs information -- but it doesn't need journalism.

Journalism has betrayed the truth too many times. It has sparked needless wars, convicted innocent people, allowed grifters to be presented as legitimate titans of industry, framed racist and sexist narratives as immutable truths, and blinded people to real dangers while playing up trivial non-issues as important distractions.

Journalism is a quack science, plain and simple.

And democracy needs an empirical science to give them the facts.

Not this kind of farce.