We have no journalists...only propagandists pretending to be journalists. And a global humbling is fast approaching...

I

Screen Shot 2019-04-19 at 2.20.23 PM.png
Screen Shot 2019-04-19 at 2.20.02 PM.png
Screen Shot 2019-04-19 at 2.19.44 PM.png
Screen Shot 2019-04-20 at 10.51.03 PM.png
Screen Shot 2019-04-20 at 11.13.56 PM.png

II

Remember when journalists were lying to you and told you how WikiLeaks were Russian agents?

If you have forgotten because you have Middle Class Selective Amnesia Syndrome, I have taken the liberty of giving you screenshots of the liars and what they puked in 2016.

And now all of a sudden, when journalists thought they could ride on Julian Assange’s coattails and lie once again how they are just like him, and how great WikiLeaks is, they are trying any and all propaganda to save their worthless selves because their incestuous narcissistic award-giving to themselves isn’t doing a thing, either.

Too late. Your word is garbage and so are you. You are now desperately trying to spin the Mueller report, flat-out making up stuff as you spin and distort, but you are nothing but propagandists for lazy Democrats who have absolutely no platform or plan to have one and are using that report as a misdirection so people do not see how they just want money and power by being leeches on the taxpayer’s dime as they try to convince those same taxpayers that they would be destitute without their meddling. They are grifters and scam artists who are threatening women with rape and forced baby-producing by proxy via the brutish Right if they don’t behave and vote for them.

Here is an idea: I don’t vote for either of you losers. You’re all scum. Don’t you dare threaten me with war propaganda.

Journalism keeps getting more shrill and pathetic, but I guess the stench of a rotten corpse is rancid to begin with. The martyrdom narrative is pure bullshit. They are still losing their jobs in droves. For a reason. When you lie, you don’t deserve to be employed. Fuck you.

We are risking our lives for you narrative is bullshit. Memo to journalists: reporting on Mortal Kombat 11 isn’t actually dangerous.

Trump was exonerated, and we still have people who see it and are exasperated by the press having a vendetta that is pathological and out of control, but I agree with Noam Chomsky of what is going to happen.

But I will take it further. The Left’s temper tantrums and hubris is costing them election after election. The Right surge is happening precisely because the Left are trying to shame the world into believing their opinions to be reality, and they are not. Limousine liberals don’t know reality; so their bullshit looks ridiculous and so far off the mark that they end up looking like nerds and loons. The Right’s opinions are not reality, either, but people want to stick it to the Left for their insistence on being at the top of their pecking order to humble them.

So what you have is two groups of people trying to impose their will to rig things so they always win.

You also have Big Tech who is trying to play Big Brother with their fascist censorship garbage, known as GIFCT. However, this is not a sign of their gaining power, but that they are rapidly losing clout. The Internet is a shadow of its former self.

I am now finessing my books, but that is not focus-intensive. The research takes much more than the actual writing, but the resources online are not one tenth they were when I wrote my last book When Journalism was a Thing in 2017and that was not one hundredth of what it was when I was writing Don’t Believe It!: How lies become news and OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s war on journalism…back in 2004.

That is breath-taking. Here you have all of these little propaganda mills begging for donations, and they have shit to offer. They are erasing their archives of old articles, and even library databases are a shadow of their former selves. That is not evolving, but regressing.

Wired thinks the censorship leaning of Big Tech should scare us, but I don’t agree. Big Tech is FUBAR. The Internet is a warehouse of garbage. Traditional journalism is fucked, too. What no one else has the courage to admit is that we now have conditioned people to think their beliefs are divine truth and reality. They no longer seek any information at all because they think they have all the answers with their uninformed folksy bullshit. When you have people try to indoctrinate you by thinking an unverified meme poster proves that they are right over the person with front line experience, expertise and exhaustive research, you know it is game over. Big Tech pandered to the point of shooting themselves in the foot. They are outsmarting themselves into oblivion.

GIFCT is a desperate push to salvage the Left, and it will not work. The Left are getting crushed on all sides and deservedly so. You cannot bribe people into supporting you because it is never enough and they always want more. Kathleen Wynne found that out the hard way. Doug Ford is shrewdly taking away the Ontario Left’s three veins: he slashed municipal seats so the cheap way of NDP and Liberal candidates to get media attention and incubate a voter base has been hobbled. He is setting the bar to sue the Ontario government so high so that he is now cutting off the narrative publicity and propaganda vein of misusing the courts to shame the government. Teachers and activists used this gambit too many times because they know they give the press an easy story where they can look sad in front of the camera and whine no matter how much money gets thrown at them. He takes this vein out, and they lose a “newsworthy” stunt to moral-shame the Tories. He is drastically slashing the public sector, and healthcare and education — the two collectives who still have good jobs and a strong union to throw tantrums and get away with it, are going to be broken. I will not be surprised if education doesn’t get privatized in some significant way so that teachers no longer pose a threat.

But that’s not the Right’s doing. That’s the Left always using the same gambits thinking the other side won’t notice and crack the code. Worse, if your prosperity hinges on working in the public sector where you think you have no risks and complete security, your world will collapse because you got cocky and slagged people who are being paid less and have to toil more, and they will remember your snooty attitude and get their revenge on you at the ballot. No amount of shaming and tantrums is going to save you when it’s personal.

Journalists cannot be trusted with seeing reality because they have the same blinders. They have been indoctrinated and march lockstep brainlessly not seeing that the side they picked are not actual thinkers with a moral compass. They are short-sighted and socialism is not going to save them because you need money to burn through and when you have leeches who just take and refuse to give, the black hole will swallow you up. Trying to brainwash people through shaming, narrative, or censorship isn’t going to work because all of these leftist governments are getting kicked out in droves, too, meaning it has the opposite effect.

Politico has always been propaganda garbage and sophistry, for instance. They puke propaganda, and the jealous sots are trying to smear the Intercept — which actually has factual value in a pathetic attempt to destroy anything that goes against their narrative. They should call this trash can Pollutico.

Here is a memo to you losers: the “Democratic civil war” as you misnamed it, isn’t fuelled by the Intercept but by a bunch of spoiled and manipulative rich psychopaths who want to control people and use a ruse of morality to do it, but since they have no clue what is moral, they have to fake it, and then the low-class antics get exposed.

Speaking of garbage that has been spawned from Pollutico, Julia Angwin’s pathetic attempt at starting a propaganda machine called the Markup resulted in her getting turfed before it even debuted. She got canned because her bullshit ideas on “data journalism" about technology — snake oil for the modern ages, kids — was nixed for flat-out propaganda and lobbying disguised as “advocacy.”

When you have rich liberal meddlers give you $23 million dollars, they want propaganda that pushes their interests. Not news. This was to be liberal propaganda to try to control Big Tech, nothing more. “Advocacy” is doublespeak for “partisan propagandistic lobbying”, nothing more. The Left have been co-opted by hucksters with raging egos whose con games all hinge on feeding those cancerous egos as they shame people into doing stupid things that will bleed them dry. This entire episode is a sad joke as the little parasites have jumped shipped. This is why journalism got destroyed, and then you have clueless egomaniacs such as Andrew Yang try to suck up to journalists saying he wants to save a dead profession so they’ll keep writing about him. Sure, right, likely story. Warren Buffet sees newspapers as toast? Dude, that ship has sailed years ago. The ashes have already been blown away.

But the propaganda is all over the place. We have the Canadian Liberal regime planning to use propaganda to suggest that white supremacists — who all conveniently come from Alberta, are going to pose a threat to the jittery middle class…so the natural conclusion is to keep voting for the rancid Grits. Nice try, but when Hillary Clinton tried that with her smart-ass deplorables comment, it cost the idiot the presidency. No wonder other Western nations think Canada is bonkers with their shrill and dire fake warnings.

But the Left are getting pummelled with their games. Doug Ford has realized where they are getting their money and is cutting them off at the knees. The Ontario Liberals figured out the best way to hide how weak the province was finding itself in was to give just enough money to the borderline poor to think they were Middle Class and just enough graft to the upper end Middle Class to think that they were rich. Have a nice and fat public sector making well over a six figure salary doing bullshit and give in to their demands with some fake resistance to make them feel big and powerful. Doug Ford didn’t get a single one of their votes, and then just pulled the rug out from under them. He is actually showing just how weak and precarious they were all along.

He has nothing to worry about. You can’t bribe people using other people’s money — they will always scream for more, while the people you are using to fund your racket will not tolerate it. It’s what destroyed the former Yugoslavia and every other socialist and communist regime. The Left have painted themselves in a corner because they keep going to extremist ideologies trying to be completely different than the Right, backstabbing innocent people when they cannot control and exploit them — and then trying to claim the people they betrayed as one of their own when things spiral out of control.

I am certain poor Julian Assange had no idea how badly he’d be used, exploited, betrayed, maligned, and vilified. Journalists treated him like the devil as they broke him before trying to exploit that same broken man as their puppet by now pretending they think he is a saint. Too late, assholes, you already locked in your answers in 2016.

He was hopelessly naive, however. He honestly believed that if he told the middle class how they were being manipulated, they would rise up as they became enlightened. He had no idea it is the middle class who set these rigs up, exploiting both the rich and the poor so they don’t have to do any of the dirty work themselves or actual have to take a risk and then look foolish if they were gasp! wrong or failed. Then they can pretend they are smarter, wiser, and more moral and interesting than anyone else as they pretend they are keeping their hands clean. Assange rubbed their noses in their reality, and they turned on him for rocking the boat. He had no clue and no chance.

If he wanted to change the world, he should have filmed middle class people feeding their kids for free with shitty Costco food samples and then bragging about the smartphone they bought on their Facebook pages, and then called them nerds. That would have started a motherfucking revolution.

Big Tech pandered to that same class telling them how rich and famous they’d become, and then everything exploded and got out of control, and now they are trying to put the demon back into Hell. No dice, let alone a paradise.

Big changes are coming, and for the Left, the shocks are just beginning. They are decaying faster than they should be decaying, and that always hints at some internal crisis because someone who did all the work and thinking for them either left or was underestimated and kicked to the curb or died.

And the middle class are quietly hedging their bets on the Right, while the National Post’s solution is to drug everyone with microdoses of LSD so that people are too stoned to care about the world collapsing around them (memo to you losers: emotional apathy is not a good thing to have: it means you have no sensitivity to your surroundings. It is a coward’s lazy escape).

I see the games of the sucker circus, and I still chronicle them. I am not naive like Assange, however. I register my observations, but I have my own reasons for it that have nothing to do with changing the world for others or doing their thinking for them. I’m not your mother.

By the way, remember when journalism had the courage to admit their faults and not puke bullshit about how great they are?

No?

Try this Atlantic article from 1996.

Screen Shot 2019-04-25 at 3.34.58 AM.png

But that was when journalism still was a thing…

Are we brave enough now to admit that journalism is no longer a thing? Or am I still the only adult in The Room.

I

latestbbok.jpg

II

Aside from the intellectual theft I deal with on occasion, my other big problem is getting people to look at reality.

My latest book is ignored because in an industry filled with children, being the lone adult makes professional life difficult.

I am a reality. I don’t sugar-coat. I do not fellate. I tell things the way they are.

So, how is journalism these days?

Dead.

The AP is whining about it here:

Decline in readers, ads leads hundreds of newspapers to fold

Hundreds of newspapers? You don’t say!

The Wall Street Journal is kvetching about it here:

Facebook Wants to Feed Users More Local News. There Just Isn’t Enough of It. 

One-third of Americans live in a place where the social network can’t find enough local news to feed its aggregator

Facebook is corporate spookery and tyrannical oppression. They can go to hell.

Even the Intercept is losing steam:

The Intercept, a billionaire-funded public charity, cuts back

Why?

Because none of it is empirical. I have written about F.R.E.E.D. here and in my last book, an alternative to journalism for a very long time, and there is a publisher who seems to think they can just crib from me. I will not let that happen. I have been knocked about too much already.

But when a profession is corrupt and still thinks it can play the same games, it cannot see the obvious, no matter how hard they try to pretend that nothing is wrong…

Big Tech's Bad Boy wants a double standard on privacy? You don't say, The Intercept!

Jeff Bezos bitches about his own privacy being invaded but maintains his superfabulous fortune by invading other people’s privacy?

Say it ain’t so, The Intercept!

I happen to respect Glenn Greenwald. The world must frustrate him no end for its never-ending slumbering nincompoopity.

But that a Titan of Industry is throwing an epic temper tantrum as he is pissed off that someone did to him what he has done to everyone else is par for the course for a tyrant. They know all about their rights as they trample over yours.

What happened to him wasn’t blackmail. It was doing business. It is negotiations, no different than when you are in a civil suit and the two sides play hardball, pulling out what they have to rattle the other side’s cage. Plea negotiations in criminals matters play the same game.

Someone pretends to wear a halo in the press. Someone else knows this is a bullshit story, and gathers dirt exposing that this halo is a lie. They push it for all it is worth. That it happened to Bezos isn’t a tragedy. In the old days, he would have just stoned him to death for adultery because those cootie carriers were bad for the gene pool. Today he can blubber on Medium how the big meanies had his dick pics and dance around the room with them laughing and calling him names. He and Tony Clement ought to start a support group for spoiled white men in power who are total dweebs who don’t get how this whole Internet thing works.

That anyone is entertaining Bezos’s narrative is a bigger dweeb. He cheated and got caught and exposed. He has no expectation of privacy in 2019, and he knows it. He is just trying to deflect attention away from his own stupidity that is going to cost him lots of billions.

Own it, Mr. Bezos, as small as it is.

And good on Mr. Greenwald for keeping sensible in these impossible times…

How defending Jim Acosta and throwing Julian Assange under a bus could cost journalists a whole lot more.

The narcissistic and short-sighted strategies journalists employ are a sign that this is a profession that does not think about the future, consequences, or strategy.

They painted WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange as some sort of Russian agent or dupe because his group revealed unflattering but accurate truths about Hillary Clinton. It was all true, and everyone knows it.

Instead, they were jealous, and now some are realizing how dangerous things will become if Assange is prosecuted.

The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald said it best:

Over the last two years, journalists and others have melodramatically claimed that press freedoms were being assaulted by the Trump administration due to trivial acts such as the President spouting adolescent insults on Twitter at Chuck Todd and Wolf Blitzer or banning Jim Acosta from White House press conferences due to his refusal to stop preening for a few minutes so as to allow other journalists to ask questions. Meanwhile, actual and real threats to press freedoms that began with the Obama DOJ and have escalated with the Trump DOJ – such as aggressive attempts to unearth and prosecute sources – have gone largely ignored if not applauded.

But Greenwald is the lone sane man in that journalistic nuthouse. The obsession the press has with hating Trump has blinded them to how stupid their knee-jerk spasms are or the consequences of their childish games.

CNN’s Jim Acosta is not Bob Woodward. He is not breaking news or doing any actual journalism. He is a clown who behaved like a moron, and when he lost his hall pass, journalists defended him, which was a supremely bad move.

The White House banned a single idiot for being an idiot, and a low-class one to boot. No one else from CNN was barred; hence, they should have taken a hit on Acosta, and then leave it alone because if it becomes a shoving match, they are unevenly matched and the regime can do worse things that cost everyone much more in the long run.

They went to court and cheered that Acosta was allowed back in as if this would be the last of it.

Stupid, stupid move.

Now there will be rules in place.

Rules that had never been there before.

And now it dawned on the press that the rules will far worse than what they had before.

And they have CNN and Jim Acosta to thank.

Politico was very naive when their headline blared in part:

Trump discovers new weapon against media

Never considering that Trump's banning Acosta was a probe for him and he was actively seeking that weapon all along. Acosta’s selfish antics was a costly mistake and the press should know by now what happens when they resort to nose-tweaking Trump.

They never think ahead. They never plan ahead. They have some narrative running through their heads that they are good guys and if they slap back, everyone will back down and they will win.

Memo to journalists: at what point do you wake up to reality?

At what point do you change your ways?

You have had people like me research and point out rationally why you were actively being the agents of your own self-destruction.

You chose to ignore me and shut me out repeatedly.

And you chose to give free publicity to a knuckle-dragger like Acosta and cheerlead him even though you all know who he is.

You earned this wallop.

You earned the fallout because you never listen to people who speak the truth because they are brave enough and loving enough to see reality.

That is the reason you all have become a joke.

You were cruel to Assange, and he was an idealist who had a good idea. He is in over his head, and you are all responsible for it.

He knew what direction it should have gone. He has flaws, but he knew something and had a piece of the puzzle to your resurrection.

Now you whine.

But you were always lousy friends to the truth, and to the people who actually were trying to do something to save an industry.

Shame on you for that.

Shame on you for being as selfish as you are….

The re-launching of Chaser News, Part Three: Chaser was the Feminist Intercept before the Intercept. Remember that.

Open Democracy once whined that there was no feminist Intercept, which I called out as bullshit because there was Chaser Investigative News Services, that was a feminist-based hard news site that was geared for people under 30 and I ran it a decade ago. It was to bring investigative methods that were superior to the standard of the profession to people through social media. I had a hellacious time with it. I did all sorts of stories that had a common touch of things were relevant to everyday people, from how unsafe schools were to a missing woman who turned up at a Take Back the Night Rally and was accidentally photographed by a newspaper photographer to women who were doing hard time for first offences that were minor, and I even was working on cult recruitment on university campuses.

VTS_01_10001074.jpg

It got some attention. Not enough, but considering how little resources I had at the time, it did get talked about.

scan0008.jpg

I had even gone as far as to have talks with former 60 Minutes producer Don Hewitt, but as I recounted elsewhere, we did not part on good terms.

But it was not its time or place. The ideas of a hard news outlet founded by a woman wasn’t going to fly.

You either give in to male tropes of what women are — or what females idealize themselves to be. Going hard after women in power a certain way is still taboo.

But it is necessary as women do not have any playbooks or war manuals designed with their realities and rhythms in mind. That’s why women are always having to claw and on foreign territory, never ones of their making. It is why qualified women get pushed aside and the ones who appeal to sexist sensibilities often usurp those positions, and then make things worse because they are in over their heads because while their shallow windrow-dressing seems right, they have no deep core to actually see the job through.

And that is why so much of what happens in the world is an enigma. Rex Murphy mused in the National Post wondering why the Brett Kavanaugh hate just vanished.

Simple: because those women were pawns exploited by the Democrats in a game of chess, and they lost; ergo, do not draw attention to that failure, drop what isn’t working, and use another set of pigeons to do your dirty work.

I have wondered for a long time why feminists still bother with the Left when it is more than obvious that alliance is garbage that isn’t doing what could be done in days, let alone decades.

We have professional blunderer Chrystia Freeland make a big, old mess out of NAFTA that — had she had what it took do to the job — would have done it months ago without fuss or muss, all while having it fly under the radar. Instead, she is actually trying to spin this debacle as not a big deal, when it was a disaster of the worst sort. When you turn a nation into a vassal state, you fucked up.

The detractors are not “wrong”, they were wronged. There is a big difference. When you are a child, you always spin and deny responsibility, trying to pull one over mommy’s eyes because you have little respect for her or understanding of your own cunning. Adults own up, and are brave enough to be blunt.

If you can never admit you are wrong, then you are never right.

Just look at Hillary Clinton, who wanted to be president, but never learned to own up to her failings, always behaving like a child who has no control, so she can blame others for her missteps.

Not only did she lose a race where she was the odds-on favourite to win, she is learning now, that the Left see her as a problem.

So, to be clear, the Left were never behind her.

And here she goes, blaming Russia for not winning.

And if you spin a narrative that you weren’t making mistakes, then you never change, and keep doing the same thing, expecting a different outcome.

When I stopped Chaser Investigative News Services, I did so because I wasn’t gaining traction. I pulled back, and then explored and modified, coming up with A Dangerous Woman Story Studio, which I still do as well as publish books with traditional publishers.

But when I decided to resurrect Chaser, I wasn’t going to make the same mistakes.

I did a lot right, but not everything. A lot of external factors not of my own making caused problems, but some worked in my favour, and others had no impact, either.

I like when things are my fault: it means I have the control to right and modify things.

If it is out of my hands, then there isn’t much I can do.

But it didn’t stop me from trying again.

And I can do traditional publishing ADWSS, and Chaser News.

I am not the same woman I was when I started.

I am a far better woman now than I was back then.

And that is reason to celebrate. It will not be the same old story, or the same old escapade and adventure.

Women who have some sort of attitude problem are fairy princesses who always need some man to install them in their position.

Women who don’t have that problem, can create their own worlds on their own. They aren’t fairy princesses, but warrior and philosopher queens who become eccentric and enigmatic empresses who live life on their own terms.

And we need a new generation of women to strive to be empresses who grow and change as they learn and evolve.

Women have no yet unleashed themselves, and this has become some putrid Victorian Age of prudes and judgemental ninnies who never create something new.

I am not playing into that rigged con, and it is the reason I am eager to start something new that pays homage to the old — but always with the future in mind and at heart…

Follow the PR: When journalists all walk lockstep, there is a silent general giving the marching orders.

The Intercept has an interesting piece about how CNN's "blockbuster" story turned out to be a dud.

But in all the talk about the series of similar strategic misinformation articles and all of the vitriol, no one is asking a more basic question:

What PR firms and experts are coordinating the coverage, and who is footing the bill?

It was the same game during the civil war in the former Yugoslavia: when all reporters spew alike, they are all relying on the same super-source, and always a PR firm. Someone pays for the coordinated guerilla attacks.

When a person, company, group, or even nation are getting besieged, there is almost always someone funding the bad coverage.

If someone wants to place the lens on where it ought to be -- that's where you begin to look...

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 nostalgia dilemma: You cannot cling on to the past if you ever expect to have a future.

The Intercept is one of the last actual investigative journalism outlets still in existence. It is not perfect, but then again, that is not a criticism and no one should be competing with God, anyway.

It is an outlet that has value, but there is an article that is instructive, but not for the best reasons, and the headline itself is concerning:

SEYMOUR HERSH’S NEW MEMOIR IS A FASCINATING, FLABBERGASTING MASTERPIECE

Fanboy drooling is a red flag that the rose-coloured glasses are wrecking the ability to see reality. It is a book review, and normally, a positive review for a book is perfectly acceptable.

But the argument and context of the review is very wrong.

Before I go into why the article is troubling, let me explain the problem of pining for your glory days in a professional context.

11518666_bodyshot_300x400-1200.gif

For journalism, the crux of their problem is that it is a profession that had a glorious past...only because they had a stranglehold on disseminating information to a mass audience. The rig favoured them; so they could essentially do or say whatever they wanted. Detractors did not have the same luxury, and could be painted as villains with impunity, meaning they would be dismissed.

When your entire structure is built with a rig as your foundation, you better make sure it stays solidly in place, or else, everything collapses.

You also better know that your fortunes depend on that rig, and not on your methods, abilities, and knowledge.

Should the world change and the rig is removed, you lose everything in the bargain. If you are prepared, you ensure that you can use an alternative to the rig, and not rest your entire fortunes assuming that rig is there for infinity.

The Internet blew up the rig.

Journalism did not prepare for it.

And it all came crashing down.

So, what should you do afterwards?

11518666_bodyshot_300x400_zps25e7d613.gif

Go back to the past and pine, using what happened before as a benchmark or gold standard?

Of course not. The past has a different set of circumstances. The present showed the weaknesses that the past did not take into account. If you want a future, you move away from the past, let alone not hold on to it.

Nostalgia blinds people the same way quack medicine blinds people: just because something feels good -- or even feels better than usual -- doesn't mean it is good.

Once upon a time, people drank Radithor and felt great...until the radiation poisoning kicked in and they died horrific deaths, literally falling apart from the very thing they used to improve themselves.

Journalists never comprehended this reality. The rig that gave them power was also the very thing that prevented them from improving and expanding their profession.

Which brings us back to The Intercept's review.

It is a review that pines for journalism's Radithor. It lavishes praise for Seymour Hersh, an investigative print journalist whose new book Reporter also pines for the same toxic brew that felled a profession -- and its subset of investigative journalism that Hersh hypothesizes was superior to the regular variety.

The problem is that we have journalists pine for the Patriarchal days of journalism where racism and sexism was rampant; where narrative structures distorted the perceptions of reality, and where people's lives were destroyed by investigative journalists who never thought their methods through, nor bothered to use empirical methods to help destroy their own faulty assumptions.

It doesn't mean there wasn't any good journalism. Back then, given all of the confines at the time, it was good. The problem is that journalism is deficient in a modern world where every factor has changed.

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it -- just as those who don't understand the subtext of history. It is not enough to know history -- you have to understand how it relates to both the present and the future.

And being nostalgic proves that those who don't know the present are doomed to use a faulty past to mess up the future.

Instead of merely praising the glory days, a better review would have questioned how much of that past would actual work in an evolved world.

You do not have to be disrespectful of those who worked hard in the past and paved the way for those living now, but you do have to understand that those in the past lived in a different world than the one you are living in now.

It is why following a romanticized script is a recipe for disaster.

And why an alternative to journalism has to break away from nostalgia in order to be the profession of the future...

11518666_bodyshot_300x400_zpsd073f43d.gif

Why we settled for garbage journalism.

I

I graduated from McMaster University in 1994, Summa Cum Laude. A decade later, I was the first female recipient of the Arch Award for career achievement. 

My degree was in psychology, and that degree was crucial for my career as someone who studied journalism by working as a journalist.

I got my latest copy of my alumni magazine, and there was an article that I found very distressing.

It was about a so-called "fake news" course taught by Mark Busser -- and after reading the article, I knew this course had no merit or value for anyone wanting to truly spot fake news.

All of the "tips" given will not help anyone spot real news from fake.

And I should know as my research predates Busser's.

In 2005, I wrote Don't Believe It!: How lies become news -- which was the guide in spotting fake news, and was around long before anyone was talking about fake news -- including Mac (two colleges had offered my course to students -- Mohawk in about 2000, and Niagara in about 2010, but those courses were never a go).

Busser's thesis has a serious confirmation bias that nullifies the idea that "fake news" is somehow different than traditional news.

As Don't Believe It! proved -- fake news has been in real news for decades -- so why are you bothering looking at URLs? The sensationalism has been part of mainstream news from the get-go.

My book was the guide to seeing hoaxes, lies, propaganda, and fake news in any publication or broadcast.

Mac is doing an enormous disservice to students with a weak hypothesis that appeals to authority.

Because propaganda hinges on that very logical fallacy.

Fake news is in the regular news.

Just take a look at this article  in the Chronicle of Higher Education that uncovered that a widely-quoted student loan "expert" -- in fact did not exist.

"Drew Cloud" was quoted in many traditional media outfits.

And he was a phantom.

In 2018.

"Fake news" is an invention to explain away the Left's failure to capture the White House in 2016. We always had propaganda leaflets being dropped from the sky. We always had people spread lies on the outside.

But we have always had journalists do it, too, and unless you deal with that reality, proclaiming to teach people how to spot "fake news" is futile.

It is the reason journalism got destroyed, and yet those journalists are still acting as if everything is normal. The Chicago Tribune is happy it voted to be unionized when they won't be around long enough for it to matter. No matter how many temper tantrums they throw about ownership, never realizing they can no longer attract anyone else.

Journalists are hated for a real reason.

Journalists are hated for making up fake labels to describe people to make them seem like an enemy Them. The National Post is trying to make an accused mass killer in Toronto seem like he was an alt-right "incel" hater -- never mind that people who knew him since boyhood report he was always troubled, meaning he went through multiple systems and institutions over the years, and he always slipped under the radar. There were warning signs for years, but if we ask hard questions, people may get offended; and so, we stick a label, pretend a killer is from a different planet, and we can keep with our old habits and not rock the boat.

Journalists are hated for sucking up to people and ignoring the rot. The Post congratulated Toronto for warm fuzzies in light of the massacre, instead of wonder how a young man with serious problems was ignored until he exploded. Why do we look to close our eyes shut when there will be people who will never be okay ever again? There is an orphaned boy, but who cares when we can give out paper crowns so we don't have to deal with destroyed sense of peace?

We may throw money at a problem, but problems are a black hole that drain resources unless we marched right into the eye of that storm to confront the problem head on.

Journalists are hated for their partisan virtue-signalling, such as the Toronto Star that got offended for people assuming the massacre was a terrorist act.

It was an act of terrorism. It was not political terrorism, and no race, religion, or nation has a monopoly on terrorism. You have people driven to kill -- quite literally -- because they want to destroy strangers.

And the are hated for their dishonesty and double standards as we have those who spew hate, and then deny they did it -- pretending proof isn't proof.

I have studied those lies for my entire adult life, and I decided to do something about it.

II

Academia has problems admitting any culpability in how journalism collapsed, but they are a big part of the problem. They taught those at j-school the craft, but nothing about the science. Academics who weren't journalists are equally useless because they have a romanticized and inaccurate understanding of journalism.

You cannot have a course in spotting fake news if you have not made your primary living working in journalism and know the realities and truths of that industry.

Journalism has a serious weakness because it never understood empiricism. You have two professions with different, but equally debilitating gaping voids in their knowledge -- and no, you cannot just study journalism and think you understand anything about it.

You have to work in it to see it. 

Journalism always shunned the experimental. Academia always shunned the reality.

You need the actual field to be the laboratory. 

As someone who looked after someone who was completely bedridden and disabled, I was always frustrated at the so-called devices used to aid those with mobility problems. They were wobbly, for one. They weren't comfortable, and often made more trouble than they were worth.

I knew without a doubt whoever invented them wasn't disabled. They could walk, get up, and had no idea of the basic obstacles a person who cannot move actually faces.

People don't understand that just one step at the front of their house is one step too many. I remember one nurse who was telling one man who was a recent amputee on a fixed income he could go home -- his house had "just" a couple of stairs, and he was trapped. She told him he could order groceries online -- and ignored him when he said that he couldn't afford the delivery charges, inflated prices, or even a computer and Internet connection.

Journalism collapsed. It is a dead profession, now spewing propaganda -- which makes it garbage -- but we have people pretending everything is just fine.

You have academics behaving like that nurse -- offering "obvious" advice that cannot be applied in reality under any circumstances.

And the reason their advice is meaningless is that they never studied journalism as journalists.

I did.

I did because I was sick of garbage being paraded as information.

People settled for that garbage because we had a deficient profession pretending everything was well, and those who study them never picking up the obvious because they were too far away to see the real structure problems killing it.

Everyone appealed to authority, and then thought bad things would just go away. Journalists kept patting themselves on the back as they gave themselves awards. Academics ignored the problems and their focus of study never included the most critical factors, meaning they wouldn't see the inevitable fall of an entire industry.

Had they been forced to study from the eye of the storm, they would have been as disturbed by the rot as I was.

Academia enabled journalism's collapse because scholars bought the romanticized ideal of the profession, treating traditional journalism as a gold standard, when it was lead that poisoned the information stream.

And that is not acceptable. 

We need information, and a way of getting it, and having it disseminated.

Journalism -- had it been useful -- wouldn't see its fortunes crumble in this way.

Academics had as long as journalists to study the profession and find solutions, but they never did.

III

I will be off for a couple of weeks, but I will be doing something else other than exposing the rot in journalism and their enablers when I return.

I have a new method, and am getting close to reveal it.

This post is just an introduction to my new home -- and I will see you soon with something new to offer... 

 

 

Journalism as advertorial: From tech news to hard news, it has all become advertising.

A couple of articles touching on the same theme in different ways. The Intercept has a solid article about 60 Minutes' softball interview with Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman with the author of the piece asking the hard question:

Launched on CBS in 1968, “60 Minutes” has been described as “one of the most esteemed news magazines on American television” and has won more Emmy awards than any other primetime U.S. TV show. It claims to offer “hard-hitting investigative reports, interviews, feature segments and profiles of people in the news.”

Got that? Award-winning. “Esteemed.” “Hard-hitting.”

So why did the segment on MBS resemble more of an infomercial for the Saudi regime than a serious or hard-hitting interview?

Because it was an infomercial -- or more accurately, an advertorial. It was a fuzzy bunny that added no real and hard facts. 60 Minutes has not been a hard-hitting program for a very long time. It may go after easy targets, but should the newsmaker be media savvy, it is a different ballgame.

But at least The Intercept was perceptive enough to see it, but not all outlets proclaiming to do journalism can. TechGenix was on the other side of the spectrum, with an article getting all huffy because people believe tech news is fake news:

The only way that I can think of to debunk this one is to talk about the way that tech journalism really works. Some of the major tech sites and publications do employ staff writers, but the vast majority of the tech journalists that I have met over the years are freelancers like myself. Although there are exceptions, freelancers are usually given a great deal of autonomy regarding the things that they write about. For example, nobody told me to write an article about fake tech news. I have a certain number of articles that I write each month, and the topics and content are up to me.

This isn’t to say that topics are never assigned. Sometimes they are. For example, I recently had someone ask me to write an article about Azure Active Directory. Once again though, the substance and the tone of the article was left up to me. No one told me to say that Azure Active Directory was the greatest thing ever to come out of Redmond, nor did anyone ask me to write a hit piece. It was up to me to decide what went into the article.

That isn't quite true. There are junkets. There is graft. You have a form of fake news in most tech stories -- but the form it takes is advertorial writing. It has always been too deferential to the industry.

image.jpg

It rarely asks hard questions -- usually after a scandal explodes, and one that should have been seen by journalists years ago.

39d25bd74315eebfed3c24abe3f2647e--editorial-design-magazine-covers

That is the reason more people are now dismissing tech news as fake news -- they can sense the sunny spin and the positive coverage isn't journalism.

And they are right.

But it is easier to take the path of least resistance and be perky and positive than ask hard questions. Confrontation is tough. It is easy to do it on social media where your outrage is buried amid others as there is always safety in numbers. But when it comes to being the lone skeptic who sees it first, it is not the happiest of situations.

It is no excuse, however. It is not a profession to get a pat on the head and a lollipop. It is about finding truths in reality.

And that takes courage, something the profession has lacked to its own destruction.