Traditional Media wants more scrutiny over their victors? You don't say!

Oh, here we go again — self-serving propaganda to fool the little people.

Screen Shot 2019-06-10 at 5.50.59 PM.png

As if traditional media doesn’t spy on people and track them with cookies.

They do. So let’s not pretend.

Legacy media is just pouty because their own hubris destroyed their own industry, and they think taming Big Tech will magically turn the tide to their own favour. Don’t bank on it. The wavelengths of the old guard and the world are not in sync anymore.

They couldn’t stop Trump. They won’t stop Big Tech.

And the world spins merrily along without them…

Journalism is still dead? You don't say, The Hill!

No duh.

Screen Shot 2019-06-02 at 3.29.44 PM.png

If you weasels weren’t so obsessed with thumping your chests and telling the little people who brave and great you were, maybe you would see the obvious.

Screen Shot 2019-06-02 at 3.32.24 PM.png

Don’t forget to show the press releases you get for your, uh, “coverage.”

You told the common class that they were special and experts without any knowledge or expertise, and then you wonder why they all put crowns on their heads and made decrees without your two cents?

Pandering doesn’t work, and neither does journalism.

Journalism is dead. It needs an alternative, and one that doesn’t actually lie to people or feed yet another nauseating narrative…

Memo to Journalists: Google and Facebook aren't responsible for your problems. You are.

Here is a headline of a piece of propaganda:

Media layoffs bring heat on Facebook, Google

Here is what it should say:

Journalists throw temper tantrums and blame others for their incompetence.

You want to know why journalism collapsed?

Read this book.


Journalism did not keep up with the times. They were irresponsible. Their damsel-in-distress act is not going to save them.

Isn’t funny that they cannot decide what contrived role they are?

Remember in December when Time painted them as valiant heroes?

And the world ignored it.

Now they are pretending to be victims.

They reported on Kardashians and ignored real abuses in the world. They reported on who got an Oscar nod instead of all the human trafficking going on. They glamourized the Beautiful People who are in bed with the criminal element, and then you wonder why your talents and hard work don’t pull you out of poverty — and then have to nerve to lie how great the economy is doing.

They act as if they are trained to verify information and then just spew partisan opinion.

And then want to force people to use a very bad product.

Facebook and Google liberated citizens by allowing them to find things for themselves and express things for themselves. Their whining is like a mobster whining because he can’t shake down people in a city because they have found a way to bypass him.

If any profession needed an invention and psychological intervention to deal with their toxic delusions, it’s journalism…

In a neo-Victorian world, priorities are based on lies.



We are in an Age of Propaganda. Up is presented as down and down as up. We keep everything and everyone at arm’s length, and it is the reason we have people mistake apathy and ignorance with expertise and objectivity.

And the ignorance is on the outside, but also the inside. Ask the opinionists about the deepest layers of a single grain of an issue, and they think they can fake it with a show of a big, melodramatic tirade.

And they can’t.

But almost no one really sees it.

Take The Hill with this silly article, for example:

Only a matter of time before the social media mob comes for you

And what happens? The world ends? The sun is too scared to rise up tomorrow?

Who are these automaton mobs on the Troll Scroll? Paid agitators and PR flunkies? Political operatives? Bots? In that sea of offended assholes, we have no standards: they could be liars who like to be shit-disturbers. There are psychopaths, schizophrenics, stoned people, followers, ignorants, and people with vested interests. Rapists, child molesters, and murderers could be raging in that toxic stew along with the people they harmed along the way. We don’t actually know the qualifications of those mobs. They could harbour prejudice or puke misplaced rage to something safer.

Among people with legitimate beefs are people who just spew. What do these people know? Their qualifications? Their understanding of the issue?

Do they pay your bills? Do they worry if you stray out too far for too long?

Have they made up their opinions regardless of the facts?

The Troll Scroll is the great tool of political misdirection of the modern age.

The priority to care what social media decrees is a sink of life, time, emotion, resources, money, and everything else.

We have more important problems that a few discontent yelpers.

Canada is in a secret recession, but we have people deny it, yet

46% of Canadians on the brink of insolvency as rates rise: Survey

I am willing to bet the number is much higher than 46%. If our tools of measurement of economic health does not factor debt (net versus gross), then there is a problem. If something happened where just enough people would have to file for bankruptcy, what would happen?

And judging by the number of homeless people around the Golden Horseshoe, that’s actually happening.

They just aren’t being factored in.

But in a neo-Victorian world, we just don’t talk about that.

We focus on trivialities because dealing with the serious structural problems are too terrifying to contemplate.

Because it goes against the narrative.

Open-mindedness gets lost when everyone cribs from pre-set scripts. Virtue-signalling isn’t actual virtue. Troll Scroll is a playground where the bullies do what bullies to best.

And problems get worse because they get ignored.

People don’t have control over their deteriorating circumstances, but they can  browbeat strangers to modify they behaviour — or ruin their lives by demonizing them in a public forum.

If people allow that sort of b-mod.

But if people still live their lives, and stand their ground, they gain power over mob mentalities.

And when more and more people say, “You don’t know me; you do not  understand, and you do not have my best interests at heart,” the mob groups’ power dwindles.

Then the balance of focus shifts, and when the howling problems begin to demand attention, and mob-rule doesn’t work, what we have is a new wrinkle society is not accustomed to — and it is coming.

And then a new era begins…one where propaganda is no protection to that enigmatic force known to all as reality…

Starting over in a Post-Journalism World, Part Twenty-Eight.

When an industry or institution is incapable of admitting they have faults and flaws, you know the industry has been hijacked and corrupted by both narcissists and conmen who create a façade of perfection so no one would go snooping into their affairs.

They may pretend to criticize, but the verbal slight of hand always gives some sort of false Mary Sue excuse.

Such as The Hill’s recent spew from Jack Lule:

Hate the news? Blame TV

The entire column hinges on a single book by Neil Postman whose very flawed 1985 work Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business is, as usual, a backhanded indictment of a president the American press did not want to see elected. So how to justify it?.

The article offers this piece of sophistry:

With the advent of the telegraph and photography, in Postman’s telling, print is overtaken by new, electronic media with a different bias. Information is valued for its novelty and speed, not its usefulness. Beliefs are derived from images, not serious inquiry and discourse. Seeing, not reading, becomes the basis for believing.

That is assuming that print and radio before it offered serious inquiry and discourse, which it never actually did. The reading level for newspapers were for decades at a grade school level; so we can discount television for doing something different in terms of content. It has always been thirty miles wide, but one inch deep.

The piece rambles on, deferring to Postman without question, but it is this passage that I find the most telling:

“There is no murder so brutal, no earthquake so devastating, no political blunder so costly — for that matter, no ball score so tantalizing or weather report so threatening — that it cannot be erased from our minds by a newscaster saying, ‘Now . . . this.’”

I wrote news stories for television news, and I know this is written by someone who never had any actual experience as a journalist.

The amount of scrubbing and sanitizing journalists do is absolutely shocking. I made those shot lists by watching the feeds at three o’clock in the morning, and those images were vile, brutal, and very, very graphic.

What made the news was not anywhere near the level of depravity. It is sanitized to an extreme, and I ought to know as I saw the footage daily: I saw religious ceremonies where worshippers stomped over the dead bodies of fellow worshipers who fell down — and far from being peaceful and helping their fellow believer, just stampeded over them. I saw governments forcibly removed homeless people out of their shelters with chilling violence. I saw corpses of young women who were raped, tortured, murdered, and left in shallow graves where even the skull betrayed the horror of the last few second of life. All those images burned into my mind and are vivid.

And this fact completely undermines Postman’s hypothesis.

If every facet of life is sugarcoated by television because the reality is far worse, then television is not actually providing any sort of spectacle. They are downplaying reality, not making it sound worse, but better than it really is.

So Postman didn’t know what he was talking about. He made uneducated guesses and completely missed the mark, as scholars are notorious to do as they dance around a topic, and never delve into the heart by walking in it themselves.

The ramblefest ends with a contrived observation:

Did decades of television news bring us to our current, degraded public discourse? Did television news take the world apart so that we cannot piece it together again?

We have generations of Americans who have accepted the lesson that news does not matter and, bitterly, it was a lesson taught by news itself. 

No, bad journalism did that. Journalism that never showcased reality. Journalism that was never empirical. Journalism that never operationalized its most basic terms, and hence could never get a pulse on anything.

And as a professor, Lule should already know this, but doesn’t.

So we have professors, journalists, and hybrids who don’t actually have a basic comprehension of their own profession. They are as oblivious now as they were since day one. The lack of self-awareness is a real cause for concern, and explains why journalism became a dysfunctional and dishonest mess.

The alternative can never be so sloppy or have a laissez-faire attitude toward the very stuff of its core. You have to see reality for what it is — not some spin to serve your selfish purposes, but reality.

Journalism never saw its own reality, and it is the reason it never saw its own collapse coming. It is always someone else’s fault because journalists are blameless and faultless.

Not a chance.

It is about vigilance. A profession without original thought and vigilance will always be dependent on tricks, stunts, and scripts to fake it.

And once fakery corrupts the industry, its product becomes divorced from reality, and can never truly connect to anyone.

There is nothing inherent about television to make it vulnerable to those games. There is nothing inherent about print, radio, or the Internet, either.

The only fault is the news producers.

No one else…

The Journalist Protection Act: A farce of a bill for a nonexistent profession. You needed to be licensed and regulated first.

You cannot just decree yourself a doctor or nurse. You cannot just decide to be a lawyer, an accountant, an electrician, an insurance agent, or an engineer. You can’t even decree yourself to be a real estate agent or a hair stylist.

Licensure is extremely important. Architects need them. Psychologists need them. So do private investigators and investment bankers as well as nutritionists and teachers.

There are many others not listed.

Journalists do not have to be licensed, and throw temper tantrums whenever it is mentioned as if it was going to something horrific to free speech.

No, it’s not. You are free to shriek and screech about how mean it is to fat-shame people through the Troll Scroll all you want. If you want to morally masturbate in a public forum, by all means,  go to one of your boring little j-talks and do it. If you want to spew your “war stories” about running into celebrities, the web has many fan fiction sites for you to brag puke to your heart’s content. If you want to wallow about that big meany Doug Ford, Facebook and a meme generator is your handy answer.


But if you going to out facts in a public forum, that is a different story. You do not have freedom of speech.

You have Obligation to Objectively Inform.

Just as the doctor has the Obligation to Heal.

Until that happens, journalism is a farce and a scam.

Because if they were licensed, they would be held accountable for their lies, gullibility, hacks, and cheats, such as cribbing from press releases, and withholding information that goes against their narrative. Partisan reportage would be out. No shilling for those fanatical Lefties or Righties. You would not be allowed to spew propaganda or misuse your platform to settle vendettas.

Or whine to the world how oh so very important you are.

Which brings us to a little political time-waster called the Journalist Protection Act.

Presented in a press release!

The press love the farce, of course.

Journalists are not a different breed of human being. We already have laws for harming people. Journalists are not special to need another category.

It is not as if what they are doing is actually dangerous. Standing around at a press conference is not dangerous. Cribbing from press releases is not dangerous. Writing down what the publicist tells you do is not dangerous. Speculating about celebrities is not dangerous.

Foreign journalists get tagged, but Western ones, not so much, and usually, they are in a foreign country, making the law useless.

You don’t need a law. The law has this already covered.

What the law never bothered to do is ensure that the word journalist actually meant something real with a clearly defined guidelines and consequences for not doing the actual job.

That’s what needed to be done decades ago, but it didn’t.

And this law is unnecessary when the profession has already collapsed…

Twitter is a Troll Scroll that hates journalists? You don't say, mainstream news media!

If it weren't for Matt Drudge, no one would bother with looking at articles about journalism. He is one of the few that actually remembers when they were still a thing, and throws a pity links.

The level of obliviousness in those articles is truly remarkable to the point that it should be a law that the entire profession be forced to take selfies with dunce caps.

The one from Neiman Lab is one for the books:

The universe of people trying to deceive journalists keeps expanding, and newsrooms aren’t ready

No, sillies: it has always been the same. You just kept falling for it like a bunch of sheltered rubes. I did write the book about it way back in 2005.


AI is not the big threat the article is proclaiming it to be.

If journalists were actually doing their jobs and not cribbing from processed and canned sources, such as PR, this would not exactly be a problem.

If you are in the middle of action among your fellow human beings, you are seeing reality up close.

This article is mere attempt at puffing: giving a likely story about how hard journalists are trying to verify information, which is patent malarky because the verification methods they are trying to shill here don't actually work, which is what the article is actually saying.

If you did not bother to verify in the flesh sources, you aren't going to do any better with AI-generated images.

This is a mere Computers Are Scary propaganda piece to make it seem as if what is left of newsrooms are feverishly working to get facts to news consumers the way they pretended they were getting information on the front lines of wars when they were getting it from PR firms.

It is the same old con job, just a different angle.

But journalists were never ones to keep up with the times they cover.

This article from the Hill is another example of the profession's thickness:

Media figures lament toxic Twitter

Twitter toxic? You don't say!

It's a Troll Scroll. Nothing else. It behaves the same way journalists did when they had completely control of the communications channels because there are no checks or balances to keep people civilized or accountable.

Nor are people forced to confront their own biases, which are nothing more than rigs used so people do not have to confront their own nincompoopity.

But those sentiments were always there. It's just before people would say it under their breath, and now they can say it in public and think it means something, especially if someone backs down or retreats.

I remember having to work in a newsroom writing stories for an anchor to read. Some of the stories were silly and not up to me. I got assigned it, like this one.


Don't blame me. Mind you, I wrote serious stories, too.

And also those trendy benign ones that didn't matter.

Or so you'd think.

I did this one, and it was right off the wire.


In no way did the piece say OJ Simpson was guilty or innocent. You don't say anything in the midst of a court case. It is the reason you always hear "allegedly" until the person is convicted or found not guilty, and then you move on.

Except one angry person called the newsroom absolutely insistent that the anchor who read that said that Simpson was guilty.

No. Not at all. The wire story never implied it. I never implied it. The anchor read the script verbatim and never implied it.

As in, no hint of it.

But the irate caller heard things never said, and when the anchor offered to send a video of that actual newscast, the caller said that it would be altered.

No, that would have cost too much money, and when management counted the seconds their staff used their company-issued cell phones, they'd never go for that.

It was a misinterpretation of reality. Period.

Back then, that caller had no way of airing that mistaken perception to the public.

With Twitter, he could air any paranoid conspiracy theory with impunity, and become emboldened with like-minded followers who think they have strength in numbers. They don't have prove their misperceptions are true.

It is enough that they have a public forum.

The way journalism once was given free reign to believe their misperceptions were reality just because they put them out in a public forum.

True verification methods do not actually exist.

They never have for the profession, and the disjointed half-baked methods show they never will.

It's too late for that profession, anyway.

A mention here or there from Drudge doesn't mean a thing.

That Twitter hates journalism should not be surprising. Those on the Troll Scroll believe they have power and control, and aren't going to let go of their illusions.

Should someone snub their nose at the puritanical disapproval and gives the trolls something to talk about happily, the power begins to vanish.

Because that's what happened to journalism.

And Twitter's fate will be no different...

F.R.E.E.D. is information, not paranoid narrative.

Journalism is North America has always relied on narrative to package facts. Tell a story, even if one isn't actually there.

Here is a silly and oblivious story in USA Today with a headline that shows how out of touch journalism is with reality:

Gay Pride parades used to mean protests. Now they're an excuse for straight kids to party

I hate to burst the bubble to the LGBTQ identifiers, but pride parades were always protests for their in-group...and always a hip place to party for out-group straight kids because their parents got that ball rolling by taking them there for free entertainment. I know multiple generations of straight women who go every year to pride parades to hang out and party.

Just as there have been straight women hanging out in gay bars for the same reason.

It is usually nerdy straight white women who do not see Pride as a protest or an affront to their group because they are Princesses Without Flaw, but a place to brag to who she believes are nerdier and more conservative friends and acquaintances that she is doing something more hip, edgy, and enlightened than they ever will, and this is the easiest, cheapest, and most passive hack to do it.

What you have is two groups completely disconnected from one another who are running parallel in the same space, albeit on two different hamster wheels; so self-absorbed by their own mutually exclusive goals that they absolutely fail to see each other or comprehend how the other is actually interpreting this contrived environment.

One group thinks its parades are making a protest statement of defiance and anger, not realizing the other side interprets this as a fun and frivolous outing that someone spent time and resources putting up, and all they have to do is show up and reap the benefits. It is free entertainment and cheaper than going to the movies. It is also rarer, bringing up its cache for attending: anyone can go see a boring old Star Wars movie; but not everyone can go to a one-a-year parade.

The other group thinks here is a fun and flamboyant little party that is Instant Cool Fun and has nothing to do with icky things such as politics or telling off their own psychographic.

This phenomenon is nothing new. I know lots of straight people who have been seeing Pride as a Fun Thing To Do for decades -- and it's not even to show solidarity -- just to have some fun standing around and then rave to their Middle Class friends. Some of these straight parade crashers have even gotten insulted multiple times by those on the other side of the line in the sand, and never saw it as such, bragging with a completely opposite interpretation of those cutting remarks. No matter what Pride organizers say or do to make it clear what the intentions of this outing are, it will not be interpreted that way to their target audience whose lofty self-assessment filters out any negative implications.

They think they are perfect, as in without flaw; ergo, they never think, say or do anything wrong. Good luck having a parade with a message that implies the opposite. The word breeder is turned into a term of endearment to those stay-at-mall moms who see a Yummy Mommy every time they stare at their smart phone taking another selfie, and then all words and actions become nullified in the bargain and those protests are misinterpreted as something chic, slightly naughty (think 50 Shades of Obliviousness), but still acceptably mainstream kawaii, and that rainbow flag might as well be shucked for a Sanrio character, perhaps Kuromi.

It is akin to having two groups of people being tricked into wearing virtual reality glasses, and have no idea what is front of them is not what anyone else is seeing.

So, how to do you ensure facts can bypass self-preserving filters when the audience's interpretations of reality have a narrative that is rigged to ignore your intent?

Narrative is a problem when it doesn't align with reality, and when it doesn't, it becomes propaganda.

And right now, we do not have news. We have paranoid narrative, which is just another way of saying propaganda.

Journalists lost their minds in November 2016 when all of their decrees that no one was allowed to vote for Donald Trump fell on deaf ears. It was a shock that they still have not gotten over, and it should surprise no one that their breakdowns are getting out of control.

They are blaming Trump for separating children from their illegal immigrant parents, when it wasn't too long ago, they thought little boys who travelled hundred of miles allegedly by themselves was just so darned cute!

Which means these sentiments are mere Morals of Convenience, and it rings hollow, even with those super fake crocodile tears. For those of us who had sounded alarms about this global problem for years and were ignored, we are being ignored again because the facts we find still do not align with the journalistic narrative.

It must be maddening for the Western press whose tantrums help build the Trump brand and have turned his voters into his guardians. The press has even gone to smear with all sorts of sick allegations of incest, and nothing.

Even The Hill is starting to clue in that this whole Trump as Hitler propaganda campaign is not helping a dead profession resurrect itself. The rest of the press is not clicking with that reality.

I am surprised they haven't accused the First Family of cannibalism yet.

They did with Serbs, however.

Journalism, and "investigative journalism" is nothing but a joke -- and one filled with self-serving motives. The Russians are being made into the Villains who got Trump elected because it is too humiliating for the press to admit that one man could entirely bypass them to become president.

Here we have McClatchy -- a rickety media outlet with no teeth, babbling about how the Evil Russians are trying to "tear Americans apart" with their propaganda.

File it under "National Security."

Of course, the McClatchy story is meta-propaganda: it is propaganda about propaganda.

And it is pure bunk.

The entire purpose of the McClatchy propaganda and paranoid narrative is simple: to force monolithic thought and rig it to favour McClatchy.

The paint themselves as noble authorities and the subtext is clear: Villains want to divide us; ergo the solution is for all Americans to think alike and we will issue the directives on what you are supposed to think because you are not smart enough to know how to do it yourselves...

And don't vote for Trump in 2020. You are forbidden from having a nation with diversity of thought and opinion.

This is what so-called journalism has sunk down to: proving the Clash was right on the money with the song Know Your Rights.

It is just another scary story used to try to regain the power the press once held but lost because of their own arrogant and irresponsible nature. 

Nothing else.

That's not journalism. That's a scam.

Besides, nations have been meddling in other countries's affairs for centuries. The US does it all the time, but see their meddling and breaking up of other countries as Good for Democracy. Journalists have been doing it -- and it is the reason they are trying a little misdirection themselves: if they point out other people's meddling, no one will be looking at their meddling.

But their propaganda is based on an old model that is no longer in sync with a changing world, and it comes off as pathetic, self-serving, cringeworthy, and obvious.

It is the reason journalism is no longer a thing. Those in the profession are willing to throw half their population under the bus to reclaim their old power.

And you cannot resurrect that kind of information dissemination through the old methods because you still have immoral elements who would hijack, sabotage, and co-opt any attempt to improve the product because when you are dictating to the little people what to think, your motives are not to tell, but to sell.

Not to inform, but to persuade.

And that's not what the world needs.

It needs facts, data, and evidence free of those strings.

Enter F.R.E.E.D.

It is a method that liberates facts from narrative, and in such a way that it is useful to a general public.

One that already has their own blinders of narratives tainting information coming in.

But if there is a way to present facts that challenge narratives and propaganda, then we break a barrier.

And we can separate fact from narrative.

We have activists who are our flare-guns: shooting light on issues and people who have fallen into the cracks. They may have important information, but they often come with narratives that skew too much in unrealistic fables, moving too much into PR territory.

F.R.E.E.D. is the system to ensure those lost voices are heard and those lost souls are seen, but in a realistic light. They may be victims, but they are also mundane people, just like everyone else. Not better, not worse, not special, not deficient.

F.R.E.E.D. gives their facts and realities equal footing without the added public relations baggage that often hides the facts we need to know to find the right and just solution.

F.R.E.E.D. is about removing the compulsion to deify and demonize people as it rebels against labels. it has respect for audiences. It doesn't tell them how or what to think.

it gives them the fuel to drive their thought, however.

it is much more than just a laundry list of facts, however.

It shatters illusions and delusions. It shows reality to find truths.

it passes no judgement, but it does not use shame to condemn people, either.

Let the facts speak for themselves by opening up each atom to unleash what we need to know.

It shifts thinking away from narratives and asks questions such as why do people do absolutely everything except the very thing needed to be done to solve a problem?

That is the first and core question: Why do people stay locked in their own prisons when they can make their own key to their own freedom?

That was journalism's job: to find the keys to freedom, and they did everything else but that. They saw the lock and then a bad thought took hold: why not keep that lock in place where we have a captive audience who will listen to us as we promise to find that ever-elusive key for them?

And then the Internet hit them like a tidal wave and tore the door open, and the captive audience escaped.

November 2016 was the first realization that the door of the cell could no longer keep everyone in -- and they went in all sorts of shocking and unpredictable directions.

In a world of freedom, journalism is not the conduit of information anymore.

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

Memo to The Hill: Journalism has been its own worst enemy for more than the "last few weeks." This mess took years to create.

The Hill tries to have a pulse on things, but when your model is flawed, it is a game of hit or miss.


There is an article that really doesn't get it, and that it is written by a communications professor makes it all the more distressing:

News industry suffers from self-inflicted wounds

The hypothesis is that the troubles sort of happened over the span of the last several weeks.


It was in a mess long before that. Long before 2005, when my first book on the industry came out.

There is a lot of unhelpful babble, but three parts are worth noting:

The nation yearns for a news industry that realizes its First Amendment promise to serve as a public surrogate and fuel the information needs of a democracy. 

This is the nanny theory of what journalism is supposed to be. It is not reality, and not respectful of the public. They are not "yearning" for anything from the news industry because they discovered this thing called the Internet, and were led to believe that this machine will solve all of their problems and fulfill all of their fantasies. The news media pandered to it, and now is suffering the consequences. This thinking is not aligned with modern reality, but the next part is a doozy:

It will take courageous leadership to turn the news industry around. It will take corporate leaders who have read the history of why a First Amendment was created in the first place. It will take leaders who have read the ethics codes of the Society of Professional Journalists and the Radio Television Digital News Association. 

No, there is no courage from the "leadership" -- who is this They you think will somehow do a complete about face and shuck financial comforts for idealistic notions? How old are you?

It will not be "leaders" who make any changes. Those were the menaces who chose their egos over reality for the last few decades. These magical and benevolent patriarchal nannies do not exist.

And this appealing to authority would be funny if it weren't for the fact that the article takes old untested decrees from various organizations as some sort of divine truth. If you do not question the very notions that got you in trouble, then do not expect a miracle.

The last part brings all this puerile wishful thinking together:

Without confidence in the news media, citizens turn to social media or the guy at the bar for their information needs. Worse yet, many citizens today just tune out the news altogether. An uninformed citizenry, with no suitable surrogates in the news media, is left disabled in addressing the serious issues the nation faces.

Unfortunately, journalists have proven to be less credible than the guy at the bar, and people do not look at the guy at the bat at all -- they have an opinion, and stick with it without self-evaluation or question -- journalists never saw the changes coming, and so, became irrelevant.

That kind of damage takes decades to come to fruition, so to speak. The underlying arrogance that journalism will be relevant again misses the big picture: if an industry cannot see reality, then it cannot report on it. It lost its credibility and it is not getting it back.

And we don't need journalism. We need information, and these days, we can create new alternatives to a profession that once had it all, then gambled it all away for fleeting moments of narcissism. It had better been worth it.

The question of who is paying Michael Avenatti hasn't actually been answered.

The Hill had asked the question here.

And it is a very good question.

Stormy Daniels's lawyer gets a lot of free advertising on news shows who forget to question him, and take his every accusation as gospel, which was never the job of journalists.

He supposedly "answered" this question, according to dysfunctional and questionable media property Newsweek:

“Once again (for at least the 20th time)–ALL fees and expenses of this case have either been funded by our client, Ms. Stephanie Clifford, or by donations from our page,” Avenatti wrote in a statement he linked to a tweet through Dropbox.

“Further, no political party or PAC is funding this effort. No left wing conspiracy group is behind this. And no big fat cat political donors are leading the charge,” Avenatti added. “Get over it.”

Let's try this answer again.

It is the "donations" part that is cause for concern in light of the nature of the allegations.

Donations can be a very good way to circumvent the rules, particularly the Foreign Agents' Registration Act, or FARA, something I have mentioned on this site repeatedly.

There is a lot of renewed interest in FARA, and it is something that is very relevant to US lawyers. If a foreign agent wished to make trouble and foot the bill for someone who could, in theory, take down a nation's leader, they would -- if they paid the bills directly -- have to register with FARA.

But if you channel the money indirectly, through donations, or even crowdsourcing, it is a way to keep your role out of it, all while the client in question can pretend everything is above board and no foreign interests are involved.

So Newsweek didn't answer The Hill's original question, and given the stakes, I seriously doubt there isn't vested and foreign interests getting involved.

FARA hasn't been much enforced, but it is an important law that is supposed to bring transparency, and considering Avenatti's free pass in the media, he is far more than just an attorney -- he is acting in the capacity of a PR flunkie.

If we had actual journalists, they would be grilling every shark they net. They don't. They pick sides, and spew gullible propaganda because it is the lazy way of doing their jobs.

And this is a question that needs to be answered because it hasn't been answered yet.

New York Times' Editor's grasp of journalism is out of control: Does anyone in the business understand they are irrelevant?

Journalism collapsed because those in the business never kept up with the times. They were the gate-keepers who once held all of the cards. Social media broke down those gates, but instead of seeing the depth of seriousness of their predicament, they went on as if everything was the way it was before.

They became increasingly irrelevant until the day a newbie politician used Twitter to become president of the US, and then they were no longer part of the public discourse.

Dean Baquet of the New York Times seems completely obliviousness that the world gave the Times its redundancy papers, and has the nerve to say that Donald Trump's rhetoric on journalism is "out of control."

No, it isn't. Trump saw an opportunity, and he took full advantage of it -- and won.

He didn't need journalists' collective blessing to win.

Once upon a time, if the press didn't like you, you were done. Now, it is a badge of honour, but within the foreseeable future, no one will care about even that one way or another.

Journalism is a concept that has run its course. This is not say we no longer need people finding and disseminating facts, but the model we have now is deficient, corrupt, broken, and inadequate.

Just as j-school deans have no clue, either -- and they are training people who want to enter a dead profession. They are lecturing Sinclair Broadcasting over their little promos -- and yet, it is thanks to their short-sightedness that the profession never changed or stayed relevant.

You have a rotted system that no longer functions -- and we have people in that profession blame everyone else for their woes: Trump, Russia, Facebook, hedge funds, you name it.

They never blame themselves. They think the same scripts, hacks, and cheats still work -- and because they aren't working, they want the entire world to change back to the old ways to accommodate their own life theories.

It has gone out of control. Journalists are losing their jobs in droves -- and instead of seeing what they are doing wrong -- they are still looking for scapegoats and whipping boys to take the blame.

Nothing will change. The jobs will vanish. The outlets will close.

And they will still blame everyone else except the real culprits.

The New York Times is a concept whose time has come and gone. We do not need a paper of record -- we need people who gather facts without narrative who aren't afraid of seeing reality and truth.

That is not something you will find in a dead profession, however.

It has to be made fresh from scratch...

What happened to CNN? It lost its mandate, and then lost its dignity.

The Hill has an interesting piece about CNN's loss of dignity and obsession with the American President's sex life than some other more relevant and less salacious goings-on in the world. That CNN lost its audience is a given, but it has been tabloid-esque ever since Bill Clinton's impeachment soap opera and OJ Simpson's murder trial. It remembered those stories packed in the house, and now it is a replay of the same old script.

Tabloid is about novelty, however. It is a guilty pleasure that has short legs and requires constant one-upmanship to keep it going -- and it requires a puritanical narrative that is very much Us versus Them, but the Us is very specific -- veer and attack one of Us, you alienate the core.

CNN's foray has but a single villain. Nothing else, and it's platform requires a different platform, not the oldest of the news channels.

But CNN's troubles began when the Fox News Channel debuted. It is something I discussed in my book OutFoxed way back in 2005: CNN was never created to consider competition. FNC, on the other hand, was made to take down CNN. It is the difference in mandates that sealed the fate of CNN. They could never adjust and now they have been struggling and drifting ever since...

Playing Go, not Chess: why the US news media is incapable for deciphering the man who defeated them.

The little pantywaists never did understand Donald J. Trump. The Hill is one of those publications that has it wrong, as usual.

The headline in question is amusing:

Robert Mueller is playing chess, not checkers

The problem is Trump is playing Go, not chess.

Chess is the small man's game.

Go is for the smarter ones.

There is a misconception that knowing chess makes you some sort of strategist.

What it makes you is a drone who memorizes rules as you become boxed in by your own rote skills.

Go ups the ante, and makes certain the game is not about getting crowned.

But surrounding your enemy by removing liberties.

But chess is the method of Patriarchal Storytelling: you two two levels of characters: the ones with titles -- and a king -- and then the second level of faceless pawns that are, in essence, cannon fodder.

Chess is not a game. It is the structure of Patriarchal storytelling.

Go is superior in that it is about pure strategy, without the confines of a narrative.

So if Mueller is playing chess, he is out of his league, as he helps Trump clear a path, and is given enough leeway to turn the tables.

But the US press lacks the deep intelligence to see what is happening.

Mueller would easily best conniving Canadians. There have been many Canadians who pulled stunts in their home country -- where there are lax, if any, rules, laws, or regulations. They get cocky, and now think they are brilliant, but the pickings here are slim as people do not have the money they pretend to have.

So, emboldened, Canadians go to a bigger pond, trying to pull the same stunts on Americans.

And then the Americans promptly arrested them, divest them of their ill-gotten booty, and throw them in the slammer.

Because it is easy to overestimate your cunning when you are being thrown softballs.

Trump is no stranger to scrapes. What fells most people, doesn't work on him, and he usually ends up besting the seeming victor.

Let's take Spy magazine.


Spy was a very smart and gutsy publication, and unlike the mainstream press in the 1980s, it did not drool all over Trump. It didn't gush that he had nice teeth, or was a brilliant businessman.

They made fun of him, and the had scathing, well-done articles to the like. They even proved that he'd cash a thirteen cent check.

He wrote complaint letters. They pinned it on their wall. He said they'd never survive, but when his luck seemed to run out, it looked like Spy would have the last laugh.


Except Trump recovered.

And Spy no longer exists.

He was right about him.

They were wrong about him.

They played chess with a man whose natural inclination is to play a game of go.

The press is confined to chess for one reason: it is the game with a built-in narrative.

Go bores them because it is beyond the journalistic paradigm.

Had they been more empirical in their methods, this wouldn't be an issue. You can see bigger and more covert games when you are not always in search of a story, but of facts.

But that was never the way reporters operated, and their deficiencies are more than apparent in their work.