Some unexpected major ass-covering thanks to the Wilson-Raybould testimony.

Jody Wilson-Raybould had let it be known that Katie Telford, one of the Trudeau 11, had promised her that journalists could be “lined-up” to spin her actions if she played nice.

The Toronto Star had a meltdown, and their public editor was trying to spin this revelation very, very hard:

The notion that the office of the prime minister of Canada — or any other politician or public official — could simply “lineup all kinds of people to write op-eds” and expect them to be automatically published in newspapers like the Toronto Star, is both disturbing and laughable.

It cynically suggests that our journalism is a passive process of publishing to appease powerful special interests.

Because it is.

The Toronto Star used its own newspaper to lobby the government for money. That comes with strings attached. They knew the kind of slimeball the prime minister was — and all this time lavished praise on his majesty without ever telling readers who he really was. They hang around him, and they hear the rumblings in the belly of the beast. Why didn’t the Star let people know what pressure Wilson-Raybould was under beforehand? Why did it take the former justice minister to drop that bombshell now?

Because the Star was too busy navel-gazing and throwing diva fits instead of doing their jobs. They will only go after a politician if he isn’t kissing up to them. Telford wouldn’t have been so confident unless she had it in the bag. The entire scheme hinged on having a positive and sunny image so people didn’t know what was going on — and a government allowing a corrupt corporation to write the law and slip it in an omnibus bill qualifies.

But then comes this knee-slapper:

Journalistic standards demand that journalists weigh any information offered for publication in any section of the Star with a strong measure of skepticism, the imperative for verification of facts and consideration of the public interest.

Bullshit.

With no empirical standards? Do not make me laugh, but this is the funniest part of this ass-covering piece of dreck:

On the opinion pages, the Star makes strong efforts to disclose any relevant information about its outside contributors to indicate to readers any special interests involved. All those who submit op-eds to the Star for publication consideration receive a detailed email that makes clear, “If you have an involvement in or connection with an issue that is not apparent from your credentials or the content of the article, you must disclose that to the Star.”

Did you tell people how you got a six figure contract with the feds? No? I rest my case.

The revelation probably went over more heads than not, but it is a serious question — and problem that needs to be exposed. Of course journalism here refuses to change — they figure kissing up to a corrupt regime ready to give out other people’s money will save them instead…

Watching the political jousting in Ottawa...

Those who get their positions through being luxury brand items do behave as if they are two feuding lords dispatch their knights to fight their battles for them. It is very predictable. Jody Wilson-Raybould and Justin Trudeau are engaging in a media match that is a very interesting narrative slap-fight.

Proxies are employed to “leak” narratives and drop little bombs to smack around any rebuttals.

The WIlson-Rabould/Justin Trudeau match is interesting in that Trudeau until this point, was Canada’s Golden Boy who could do no wrong, but now, he can do no right no matter how much his minions at the Toronto Star try to salvage his narrative that was contingent on not doing naughty things.

The National Post has dithering ditzes questioning the woman per usual, but they aren’t important players in the propaganda war here. Why didn’t she resign? Why didn’t Raj Grewal? Why didn’t the countless male politicians who did something wrong and stayed put? Wilson-Raybould didn’t do anything wrong — so why should she be expected to step down?

Maclean’s isn’t playing into that narrative, but they, too, aren’t really important here.

What we have is two outlets who are maintaining narratives — the Globe and Mail on Team Wilson-Raybould, and the Star on Team Trudeau.

The Globe painted a portrait of a real heroine here, which was overplayed just enough to hint where they are getting their dirt.

The Star, on the other hand, is trying to spin things to pretend there is nothing to the scandal and things should go back to the way their sugar daddy wants it; so you know who is leaking things to them.

Once upon a time, this would be so transparent. The articles have breadcrumbs as big as loaves. No finessing, no trying to balance that coverage. This is a serious inter-regime brawl.

Because this story is so narrative driven — and one that has a patriarchal structure, there is no wiggle room for balance — one has to be the Good Guy and one has to be the Bad Guy. Hero and villain and the rage is very obvious.

Top that off with the arrogant sots of SNC-Lavalin who are throwing temper tantrums because they are being questioned and challenged as they are not getting their own way, and what you have is a showdown.

Add that to the external threats Canada has been facing lately, this country is in uncharted territory, and politicians too busy micromanaging their image than to notice there are bigger problems afoot and a press too eager to run with whatever PR narrative they hear…

Misogyny, Toronto Star-style.

I do not understand the sexism of the Toronto Star.. They have had a hate for Caroline Mulroney from the get-go, and are really working overtime to destroy her before she begins.

This column is quite amusing:

The dream dies for Caroline Mulroney

Really? The woman is a rookie MPP and has been there, for what? Ten minutes, and you have already decreed her rising the ranks as being dead?

Shut up with the melodrama, chauvinists.

She’s got years. The buck stops with her boss — the premier, if you have already forgotten. Not her.

The Star didn’t have any of the same objections with their pet boy Justin Trudeau when he selfied his novice self into the Prime Minister’s office. The Star drooled all over him, and didn’t give a flying fuck about his lack of credentials or declare his chances to be leader leader ten seconds after he entered politics.

Look, I know it’s hard to pretend you are progressives. This elaborate charade takes up a lot of brain cells, and having to fake it by saying the opposite of whatever conservative gave you a wedgie in school is a challenge. I get it.

But here is a hack for you goobers: if you keep knocking the woman, but give the man a free pass for the same things, you are being sexist swine. The end.

This isn’t even a case of micro-aggression. This is full-on macro-aggro.

I have no opinion of Ms Mulroney. I am neither fan nor foe. You need a body of work in order to make a proper assessment, and you need to look at colleagues from other provinces as well as her predecessors before making an informed assessment.

Otherwise, it’s just sexism disguised as informed opinion. You don’t have to like her, but when you are that obvious with your woman issues, especially the ones who do not cheerlead your own personal political ideology, the problem isn’t her — but you…

Starting over in a Post-Journalism World, Part Forty-One.

The Toronto Star’s John Honderich is at it again, using a news product to lobby the government to give the dead profession free money with this noxious column:

Where is Ottawa’s help for Canada’s newspapers?

Where is Ottawa’s help? Memo to John Honderich: they don’t owe you any money. If you are unable to connect with people, that is your problem. We have homeless youth littering the streets of Toronto, and the federal government owes those children salvation.

You blowhards are adults who had a million chances to get yourselves up to code. You didn’t, and now you want someone else to enable your delusions with cash. Forget it.

This passage is interesting:

Yet in the past decade, at least 137 community and local newspapers have folded or ceased publication. This, in turn, has led to the creation of “news deserts” where some communities are left with no news outlet at all. Many others are struggling desperately to stay afloat.

Give me a break. This is such a distortion of facts that it isn’t funny.

I worked for newspapers here in Canada, the first being the Burlington Post. The stories in those local newspapers were happy, happy soft news junk. It is not as if local papers were in the habit of uncovering real items. They covered photo ops of local corrupt politicians. They never bothered pointing out the open affairs they were having and how they rewarded their mistresses with patronage appointments, for instance. There is a casting couch in politics, and one I had witnessed as a j-school student, no less. Reporters gossiped in the corridors of City Hall about a “Council Bunny”, but none of them actually reported on it or named names.

Social media wasn’t around back then, but even in the mid-1990s, you couldn’t give local papers away for free. People were not going to spring for happy advertorials and soft news.

Social media came along and supplanted that dreck, and people informed themselves, making those newspapers useless and they shut down because that “news poverty” and “news dessert” was happening long before social media. The difference is that local businesses had no other venues to advertise, and funded those empty shells. Once those same businesses could crowdfund and advertise on Facebook and Instagram as well as Google, Trip Advisor, and Yelp, they finally had an out. Classifieds were replaced by Kijiji, and an antiquated system was dropped for something far more effective.

It is a Darwinian world. Survival of the fittest, and newspapers weren’t fit. It is a natural law, and dura lex sed lex still applies. Journalism’s de haut en bas attitude blinded the profession from seeing the obvious, and now they are paying the price.

The government is already bailing out countless anemic industries in this country; they don’t need to bail you out as well. Journalism is replaceable, and no government should fund it because the government is the most powerful and corrupt of all our institutionalized monsters, and we don’r need their meddling in it.

The alternative cannot be dependent on the government or beholden to it. Canada has always had difficulty taking actual risks without a safety net. The alternative must be done by bootstrapping alone: using whatever resources you have to make it happen.

In the US, many successful people who broke out that way advocate it, and bootstrapping is a concept that would serve journalism’s alternative well: when you owe no favours, it is that much easier to get rid of our filters and speak the truth unedited...

Starting over in a Post-Journalism World, Part Thirty-Seven.

I

Leonard Sterndale: “How do you know that?”

Sherlock Holmes: “I followed you.”

Sterndale: “I saw no one.”

Holmes: “That is what you may expect to see when I follow you.”

The Devil’s Foot

II

As someone who studied journalism by doing covert empirical experiments as a journalist with the added perk of covering the Canadian journalism industry, I can tell you the arrogant sleepwalking mindset of those in the profession.

Canadian journalism is the worst of the Western offenders, but the US is not that much far behind.

It is the reason they absolutely despise Donald Trump. He calls them “fake news” for a reason: he exploited the press with baloney for decades, and they never even challenged him, save for the defunct Spy magazine.

The New York Times got the ball rolling with a way too kissy profile in the 1970s, and they are trying to bury him now with sleight of hand skulduggery.

(Just a reminder of how the Times introduced him to the world, children: “He is tall, lean and blond, with dazzling white teeth, and he looks ever so much like Robert Redford. He rides around town in a chauffeured silver Cadillac with his initials, DJT, on the plates. He dates slinky fashion models, belongs to the most elegant clubs and, at only 30 years of age, estimates that he is worth “more than $200 million.” Flair. It's one of Donald J. Trump's favorite words, and both he, his friends and his enemies use it when describing his way of life as well as his business style as New York's No. 1 real estate promoter of the middle 1970's. “If a man has flair,” the energetic, outspoken Mr. Trump said the other day, “and is smart and somewhat conservative and has a taste for what people want, he's bound to be successful in New York.”)

But no one should buy a word they say. They not only told the little people to cheer “Yay, Trump!” for decades, they also instructed said little people to drool over countless baddies, from Harvey Weinstein to any other grifter fleecing people out of billions of dollars, and if you want details, read my latest book, where I go into detail.

Credibility is like virginity: once you lose it, you are never getting it back.

Lulling a populace by building up fake Great Men is a bad thing. Reinforcing childish narratives so that people think they know something is equally bad. This meltdown is just like a divorce: The Times got dumped by Trump for Twitter, and now all the "dirty laundry” comes out?

Remember, kids: they are rehashing everything during the time they were actively fawning over him and building up his empire.

Now, they are drudging up garbage?

Worse, no one actually cares. People have already forgotten as Brett Kavanaugh got sworn into the Supreme Court.

Protestors throwing hissy fits were getting on him for throwing hissy fits during the confirmation hearings.

He got angry.

1538078631-screen_shot_2018-09-27_at_1.00.18_pm.png

They got angry.

women-protest-kavanaugh-in-new-york-city.jpg

And at the end of the day, anger didn’t do a thing to alter the outcome.

181006184156-02-kavanauh-swearing-in-super-tease.jpg

I know that anger because once upon a time, it was Western journalism that made me disillusioned.

ello-optimized-f28cf9b2.jpg

And I can tell you right now, if that crowd got violent, they would have prove the narrative of them being aggressors and villains right.

So no, violence is not any answer.

I realized journalism became a baloney peddler, but I decided to study it by becoming a journalist.

But now that journalism has collapsed, they are trying to incite gullible middle class people to get back at them for abandoning them for social media as they simultaneously try to get to them.

They are manipulating women and using their own traumas against them. It’s sad, and it is sick, but the most interesting thing in all of this mess is that it isn’t actually working.

III

The reason journalism isn’t working is that the monopoly of information has been broken, meaning the entire structure and mandate is not up to code. It is like using old-fashion special effects for a modern film and not expecting for people to notice it and laugh.

Trump saw it eons ago and it was the reason he bypassed the press. With his approval ratings slowly inching past fifty percent, he knows what he is doing.

On the other hand, the federal Canadian government and journalists do not know what they are doing. They are as stupid as stupid can be. Their ignorance could be hidden by the old special effects of old school journalism, but now nothing they do is working or remotely aligning with reality.

Trump tweaks Prime Minister Pantywaist’s nose strategically, with Trump in the role of strapping jock, and Justin Trudeau as helpless nerd whose only purpose in life is to endure atomic wedgies from his antagonist.

Like the A-list US celebrities who faced humiliation when they told their little fans to vote for Hillary Clinton, and their endorsement meant squat, Canadian journalists are mortified that they are coming off as the nerdier and duller country. Canadians like to fancy themselves as superior to the Americans, and now the USMCA has proven that Trump owns their backsides and makes full use of it by kicking it in front of the entire planet.

The CBC is hopeful the UK will rescue them from USMCA, but they shouldn’t count on it. It cannot make up the deficits, and the UK cannot even negotiate an exit deal with Europe, and by the time the dust settles, the UK will hedge their bets and make more lucrative deals with the superior US, not to mention that if the US had a superior deal, then by pride and bragging rights, the UK will demand something even more from Canada.

The Toronto Star hopes the Grits will be able to mend fences with all the provinces who elected conservative provincial governments, but they shouldn’t count on that, either. The provinces are also hedging their bets and are politically aligning to the US in order to salvage their fortunes as the federal Grits proved to be knuckle-draggers who ghettoized women with their virtue-signalling trade demands. If the economy is booming, you do not need provisions. Bring home a good deal for your country, and the womenfolk can take care of themselves and don’t need Daddy Government to make them dependent on it.

The National Post hopes there really wasn’t a loss of sovereignty, and tries to spin it with this ridiculous quote:

Others argue the change is more symbolic. “While I understand why people see this provision as a bit of an infringement on Canadian sovereignty, that’s not typical of an FTA,” said Matthew Kronby, a Toronto-based trade lawyer at Borden Ladner Gervais. “At a practical level, it has far less significance than some people are suggesting it does.”

Oh, it wasn’t symbolic: it is real and it is significant. You can live in denial all you want, but the fact that China has gone ballistic is all you need to know about the damage the USMCA has done.

China, which has so far exploited desperate countries and is buying their natural resources for a pittance (including Serbia), they have gotten rather overconfident of their own cunning, and Trump has merely stuck his foot out and tripped them up using the Prime Minister and Chrystia Freeland to do it.

As one professor also misread the signs:

“The U.S. is going to get all its partners to gang up on China, but it’s clear that Canada did this because there was a gun to its head,” said Mary Lovely, an economics professor at Syracuse University who studies trade issues. “Now Canada has its hands tied.”

Not at all. Trump went to Canada first with a better deal than what they had before: the Grits scoffed at it because they couldn’t morally masturbate in public with it by demanding frivolous ideologically-based clauses to pander to the middle class as if they were the senior partner with clout who had the muscle to do so, and Trump turned the tables, and then Canada snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

A professor is not an actual expert in the reality of the world. Professors are mere experts at theory. As they never enter the lairs they study, they are too far removed from it to make informed decisions.

We have political science professors galore, for instance, and not one has the mettle to lead this country.

We have economic professors coming out of the wazoo, and yet none of them make a salary on their understanding of markets, as they pull a safe public sector pay check.

That journalists defer to professors to reflect on reality shows how little they understand the nature of it.

When I decided to become a reporter as part of my Method Research, I had done research by taking a very good media studies course as well as read hundreds of books and journal articles about journalism from academics.

After I finished my experiment, I can tell you right now that the academics were correct zero percent of the time.

They were wrong on everything.

If I had depended on the academic study of the profession, I would have been way off course. The methods are sound, but the application is ridiculous.

You cannot hover above and be squirrelled away when studying a profession. That does not produce knowledge, but sophistry.

Academia had the methods, but not the savvy, and that is a huge problem when it comes to how j-schools teach their future journalists.

It is pure sanctioned insanity.

It is why we are still groping in the dark, believing all sorts of inaccurate and ridiculous things.

I could have believed all sorts of inaccurate and ridiculous things about journalism if I just became an academic and took the cowardly route of standing outside the profession and think the window-dressing contained the atom of truth.

IV

The reason Donald Trump has played journalists for the fools that they are so effectively for so long is the same reason why I could create a new form of journalistic empiricism: he walked among those in journalism. He gave interviews and he was accessible.

I conducted interviews and was accessible.

But I also had an assist because I used to box to understand war strategies.

Trump would have made a powerful boxer. He is one of the few people who is a savant in this area, while journalists are not savants in anything. Trump uses multiple strategies.

At the most basic level, he is a cross between Muhammad Ali and Floyd Mayweather Jr. in that he keeps moving and trash-talking like Ali, but his defensive strategies are in tune with Mayweather’s.

But Trump has something else in common with the latter boxing champion: he can set himself up as a villain and incite the crowds to root for his defeat…and then win.

Mayweather is known for it, but people do not see that Trump’s strategy banks on it. People consistently underestimate him.

More specifically, the Left and their satellite industries of entertainment and journalism, think they are more cunning, intelligent, and beloved than he is, and then march right into the boxing ring, get pummelled into a pulp, and then think they can spin a KO into a victory.

And then they keep going into the ring with the same stupid loser strategies thinking this time they will beat him.

How so when he has plenty of practice and knows your loser ways by heart?

If those kinds of strategies could repeatedly and effectively bypass journalism, then it was important to study those ways in order to create an alternative to not just journalism, but find the way the alternative didn’t fall for the same traps, feints, strategies, carny, or misdirection.

I had the answer by how I studied journalism: by being a journalist. I used the methods of academia, saw what worked and didn’t, refined and modified the methods, and turned the world into my own laboratory to gather truths.

I learned how to follow trains of thought without being seen. I learned how to observe in different ways that neither journalism nor academia did.

It became F.R.E.E.D. and in a world where people think their uninformed opinions are facts, we have no light to guide us. Just monsters.

I do not agree with the Weekly Standard that America is in decline: what they are is a nation without a credible, reliable, useful, or valid alternative to journalism.

That’s the problem. Journalism’s methods are archaic and antiquated. They no longer work. It’s trash, and when you have a profession that does everything from crib from press releases to openly steal ideas without credit from other people to flat out lie and distort, you cannot expect anything better.

You need a different angle and structure.

Journalism was used to social engineering, and now their methods are blaring, especially as they cannot alter the outcome of anything anymore. They cannot alter elections or confirmations of judges or trade deals that turn a nation into a satellite banana republic.

Had journalists walked among those they were covering without getting sucked into their mindsets, they would see reality and give real and useful information.

I found the truth and reality about journalism that way. I could have come up with an infinite number of theories, but being a journalist and creating testable experiments based on the mundane reality of the profession, gave me extraordinary insight and information.

It is why I know journalism needs to be replaced — and what can do the job: a sturdy and flexible matriarchal narrative-free empirical model that informs without trying to manipulate or become a tyrant in the bargain…

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

That the current federal regime in Canada are petty is an understatement. There is no vision, only short-sighted arrogance from small minds who have no idea what is power or what is moral, and then greatly over-exaggerate the window-dressing of it, and the ground in Canada is eroding. You cannot fake it, especially if you are shallow and mistake strutting to a pandering script as being an intelligent visionary, being so limited as to not know the meaning of the phrase “ambulance chaser.”

But the dead profession of journalism props up an inert regime because journalism has always been about pandering to power in one form of another, enabling a regime’s delusions, explaining how those who formed majorities eventually get wiped out — they bought their own hype.

The Toronto Star is a paper without a vision, but does its best to crib whatever posh talking points the Grits wrap themselves in.

It explains why they never dig deep or ask the proper basic questions. They are always playing apologists to the Grits, no matter how contrived it sounds.

They are obsessed with spinning NAFTA/USMCA as a win for Canada, and because of it, they miss the subtle signs. They wonder if NAFTA is really gone, or if the dairy industry came out unscathed, but their denials miss the big picture, lulling people into some sense of security when all bets are now off.

As I have said here and elsewhere repeatedly, journalists should have understood they were soldiers in a war where their mandate and mission was to liberate truth from lies.

War is deception, after all, and you do not take sides because both sides are fighting; ergo, they are deceiving. That is the real reason journalistic neutrality should and been empirically operationalized and tested, but that takes work, and the industry hates work.

It is no longer a game of chess, but Go; however, the NAFTA War was handily won by the US, who used so many of the 36 Stratagems of War, that this is the starting point of F.R.E.E.D.

What stratagems were used that the knuckle-draggers at the Star missed?

  1. Cross the sea without the emperor's knowledge: The US used the ruse of fake goals to reach a significant and real goal that was far more valuable than the fake goal: eroding Canadian sovereignty. The deal requires Canada to defer to the US on numerous matters. That the Grits did not see this should force them to resign, but this is Canada, and apathy is mistaken for patriotism.

  2. Besiege Wèi to rescue Zhào: The US attacked Canada by going after something Canada held dear: the NAFTA treaty. To preserve as much as it could in order to maintain the status quo, Canada capitulated on things it should not have while fighting doggedly for garbage that wasn’t essential. They were played.

  3. Wait at leisure while the enemy labours: The US created enough chaos and took up a lot of Canadian resources: while the Grits were under siege and chaos, the US didn’t break a sweat. They got the federal government scrambling, and having to re-arrange and cancel their vanity photo ops, and managed to deflect their attention away from the real goals.

  4. Loot a burning house: While the Grits were having childish slap fights with the Opposition Tories, neither side could see how badly Canada was about to get hosed. The USMCA was a Trojan Horse, and a bloodless coup that no one in the Canadian government saw coming because they took the US for granted.

  5. Make a sound in the east, then strike in the west: Pretend to go after dairy, but really force clauses where Canada cannot do international business without clearing it with Daddy US first. There were other provisions that the Grits gave into because they were wanting to tweak Trump’s nose and doggedly fighting for things he didn’t care about. That’s the art of the deal, Trump psyched the sheltered pantywaists, and Canada looked like a banana republic run by gullible buffoons in the bargain.

  6. Create something from nothing: Trump thumped his chest, making demands for things that weren’t important. Canada never questioned the ruse. Then quietly, the real takeover began and Canada wanted a deal in the worst way, and got it to their specifications.

  7. Sacrifice the plum tree to preserve the peach tree: The US "gave in” to a couple of things they weren’t caring about, while going in for the kill. They slew Canadian sovereignty with stealth and silence, and where most countries would have riots in the streets for such gross incompetence, Canadians pretended everything was back to normal.

  8. Stomp the grass to scare the snake: The tariffs stomped the Grits and scared them into not pulling back and seeing what the actual war was about.

  9. Lure the tiger off its mountain lair: How this was done is an example of strategic US cunning. Canada has always marketed itself as “nice” and “polite.” Trump lured the tiger away from that narrative, and the Grits showed the world their true cocky and petty selves. That diplomatic advantage is gone, and don’t think just because the home team refuses to see it, that other regimes are as blind.

  10. Tossing out a brick to get a jade gem: The US lured Canada into showing their weaknesses with their careful public campaigns. Psychics play sitters that way by means of a game of “hot or cold”, and the US played the sitter nation of Canada perfectly.

  11. Remove the firewood from under the pot: By not keeping NAFTA, this is what the US did. Their victory was in renaming the neutral “North American” into a caste title where Canada is at the bottom of the pile.

  12. Disturb the water and catch a fish: By creating confusion with the first round of negotiations, the US caught the real prize by the end of the second round: a say in a foreign government’s affairs. From sovereign nation to satellite within the span of less than a year, and without an actual military invasion to pull it off.

  13. Replace the beams with rotten timbers: What USMCA did. That was a mere warm up act.

  14. Point at the mulberry tree while cursing the locust tree: Trump doesn’t name people directly, which should have been the warning sign of which playbook he was using, but no mainstream Establishment outlet saw it.

  15. Feign madness but keep your balance: Another one of Trump’s signature strategies. The Grits honestly thought they were smarter, more sophisticated, and more cunning than the Go Master without peer. They were the rubes who lost their nation’s shirt in the bargain.

The Toronto Star, had they even basic training and competence, should have seen this a mile away. I did. 15/36 stratagems used and the Star could not see a single one.

Of course not. It is all about trying to make facts prop up a nationalistic narrative.

A news outlet that cannot spot a single ruse is not an informative outlet. It is just slacker propaganda with grifters trying to fake it.

Nice try.

F.R.E.E.D. goes much deeper than the war manuals — it is about lateral and critical empirical thinking as it turns the world into a laboratory. None of this sophistry the Troll Scroll spews with millions of little wannabe kings and queens who honestly believe their decrees have more value than horse dung.

It is just babble and spew.

F.R.E.E.D. is about facts and logic that breaks down the games.

War is deception. Narrative is propaganda.

And journalism is dead because it never could go beyond its confines.

F.R.E.E.D is about breaking confines of thought and methodology to create maps of knowledge and wisdom. Not with sophistry or nose-tweaking, but with facts without narrative…

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

The Toronto Star is a newspaper that has used the feint and ruse of gravitas and bravado to seem more enlightened than it ever has actually been.

It never learned humility or reality. Just take this advertorial packaged as a column:

A new era of ethics for journalism

It is pretentious and over-the-top hard sell, and is quite amusing as it does not align with reality in the slightest:

Most important, in this new era of misinformation and dwindling trust, when journalists must work harder than ever to earn the trust of our readers, I believe strongly in the accountability and transparency of having a well-thought out guide to journalism standards – and of making it easily accessible to readers. To that end, a link to the guide is now embedded on every piece of content on thestar.com. Links to the guide are also published on all other Torstar news sites

There is no “new era of misinformation.” We have always had the same misinformation, and more importantly, the same kinds of misinformation. I wrote the book on journalistic misinformation in 2005, and I covered decades of ground. It is not as if the Internet is actually any different than a wire service or a PR firm disseminating a press release — both reach hundreds and even thousands of outlets globally, and they in turn disseminated that information to a worldwide audience.

The first Gulf War was predicated on a lie. The entire planet was fed this lie. Journalists were wholly responsible for disseminating that lie without question.

The civil war in the former Yugoslavia had multiple PR firms spreading lies and misinformation, and the entire planet of journalists parroted those lies without question.

So where is this “new era”?

There isn’t. That itself is a deception meant to fear-monger and uses both a sink or swim logical fallacy, as well as an appeal to authority: Trust the Toronto Star, little people, because there is the same old dreck coming from us, but we are going to repackage it as we try to convince you to give up your freedoms and mindlessly defer to us.

There is no “new era” of journalism ethics. It’s a dead and antiquated profession that wore out its welcome, and some in the profession have finally clued in why, though they could have just read my latest book that already outlined that reason.

The Star likes to strut and crow as it marvels at its own inflated sense of worth. If there truly had been a “new era”, there would be radical educational overhauls, governing bodies, empirical methods, and a whole slew of other things, but as nothing has changed in the profession, it is just trash talk.

But the Star thinks that if bluffs and decrees it so, people will buy the hype.

And that is a highly unethical gambit to play.

Journalists have become partisan propagandists who pretend to be activist crusaders, even though they are uninformed, untrained, and unskilled. They are shallow and are reactionary, issuing stern and puritanical Victorian decrees without evidence or context.

That is precisely why they have lost all sense and credibility.

The alternative is not about chest thumping or pretending that you are superior to your audience. It is about being First Among Equals in terms of fact-gathering.

There is no “crusading” or “activism”. That is a poor man’s form of lobbying, and lobbying was never an ethical profession. Telling people what to think and how to think is the stuff of egomaniacal and exploitative cult leaders and war-mongers, not information disseminators.

Keep your self-serving and partisan opinions to yourself. No one cares. Just find the facts as you understand their atomic essence.

That is where journalism utterly failed: they never understood the currency or lifeblood of their own profession. They have zero understanding of what is a fact, let alone truth, reality, perception, and interpretation.

So no, there is no “new era” in the ethics of journalism.

But there is new era of an alternative to journalism: one that is molecular at its core, as it builds and expands to the Infinite…

Primal scream therapy, Toronto Star style

Doug Ford did something groundbreaking when he won his provincial majority this year that made it a watershed moment for this province, and possibly this entire nation: he won a majority without courting Toronto.

Donald Trump won the presidency by bypassing California and New York, and those states have been fuming ever since. They think they are superior, cunning, and the centre of gravity and Trump proved they were just two states in a nation of fifty.

Ford did the same thing to Toronto. He humbled them. He proved they are just a city in a province full of cities and towns. You win some battles. You lose some battles.

But when you lose what is seen as a critical battle, but still handily win the war, you reveal a reality that trumps truisms, and that’s what Ford’s win actually did.

We now know that Toronto isn’t the be all and end all of getting your majority.

In fact, his majority was bigger than the former Toronto-based premier Kathleen Wynne’s when she got her majority in the previous election.

This victory altered the centre of gravity in this province. Hamilton, another big city, also went NDP and were yet again shut out. The big guns became the little guns that misfired.

Toronto is now experiencing what countless Ontario cities and towns have experienced for years: not having an actual in with the reigning regime. No premier. No cabinet ministers. No MPPs. They are now alone in the wilderness with the ineffectual NDP who have no means to pander to them. Hamilton is used to the political pauperism and don’t see anything wrong with their losing strategy, but Toronto is another story.

The biggest blunder an electorate makes is by falling for the notion that you are supposed to vote ideologically. That is not the breakfast of champions.

You vote with pragmatism. If your representative is in the government and a cabinet minister, your fortunes fare better than if you voted for the losing team. When Hamilton used to do that, they thrived. When they lost the pragmatists, they became impoverished, and now are praying that weed will save them the way Niagara Falls and Windsor thought a casino would save them.

Anyone can promise you the moon, but unless they actually have a chance to arrive and then deliver, you are wasting your vote. The end.

And Toronto blew their vote in a spectacular fashion, and now what has happened all along to other cities has now reached them, and they still don’t know what hit them.

They were always a high maintenance city because everyone falsely believed that if you didn’t capture Toronto, you weren’t part of the game.

And then Doug Ford waltzed in, laughed, and proved it wrong.

His guerilla-style parachuting in an unlikely PC leadership race sucker-punched Hogtown’s elite, and even I didn’t think he’d win that race, given Brian Mulroney’s daughter Caroline was running and had the name and the connections to win. She flubbed; Ford didn’t, and he won.

And in a short time, he took the province, and Toronto never saw it coming or thought what would happen if someone they haughtily tore to shreds by their media for years was in charge of their fate.

But Ford changing the province’s centre of gravity did more than make Toronto’s elite have bricks in their designer pants: his victory greatly weakened the Toronto Star.

If Toronto is just another Ontario city, then the Star is just another local newspaper. They lost clout. They are not the essential chroniclers as they brand themselves to be. They are just like the people in the small towns they ran away from the first chance they could.

They could not dethrone the late Rob Ford. They could not stop Doug Ford from getting a majority.

And now that they are just another local newspaper, their clout diminishes even more.

Their non-stop screaming over Ford’s reducing Toronto city-hall from designer 45 seats to the off-the-rack 25 seats is a humiliating blow to the newspaper. The subtext is simple: council was bloated, and an inflated council means its value was vastly overvalued. If the Star went along with the higher number without question, it casts a light on more than just their credibility — but their motives as well.

It is the same as if a teenager is used to a lavish allowance, but then step-parent sees the huge family debt and then slashes that allowance to a modest amount. It may not be a big savings, but it is a signal that the time for unrealistic hedonistic pursuits is over. You may fancy yourself as the next rock star, but your guitar playing stinks, you’re always warbling the same old unoriginal song about your alleged greatness that no one else wants to listen to, and now it is time to hunker down, stop making demands for more money, and get your own house in order as you pull your own weight.

But the brat is going to scream about how “unfair” it all is, no matter what.

And leading the temper tantrum is the Star with this amusing column.

They are trying every manipulative trick to tell the little people how horrible it is to live within your means. It is just so, like, unfair, and…just déclassé.

They are trying to appeal to women by feeling sorry for Caroline Mulroney, who, despite no previous political experience and is a rookie MPP, has a very posh position within the government.

Their “argument” is that she campaigned on things that go opposite to what the premier is doing now.

So what?

That’s called having a job. I may work for a company and vie for the top position, but if I don’t get it, I still go to work there, and do what I am paid to do, even if I would run things differently.

It’s called life.

You often work for a company that gets bought by another one, and things change: you either go with the flow, or you find another job elsewhere. This is the reality for countless people in their everyday lives.

Kathleen Wynne did many things differently than her predecessor Dalton McGuinty, meaning his way was not her way. She didn’t take her toys and go home, but when the top spot was free, she ran for leader and won — and there were Grits in that party who would have done things differently if they had the job. The Star’s argument is silly and reaching.

But then the column keeps appealing to elitist authority as if that meant something: her dad doesn’t like what Ford did. Big deal; I don’t like what Brian Mulroney did to this country, either.

And Bill Davis doesn’t approve? Old school bristling at new school? Knock me over with a feather, what a shock.

But the silliest nitpick comes here:

When the premier demonizes judges as political appointees who dare not judge him, let alone overrule him — claiming that an elected premier reigns supreme until the next vote, free from judicial scrutiny — does the attorney general not caution him, counter him, or contradict him? 

Let me see if I have this right: the judge editorialized the legislation, which is not what he is paid to do, presumed facts and motives not in evidence, patronized the premier like a schoolboy, and issued a decree with no merit that would have been overturned on appeal, and that’s just fine and not a waste of time and money? We don’t question that ruling because it panders to Toronto? Really?

But we throw a fit that Ford shut down the games and moved ahead with something he is within his rights to do?

If Caroline Mulroney truly believes in her vision and that she would make a good premier, she’ll tough it out. This is the perfect education for a rookie. You don’t get a clear path in life: you have to fight tooth and nail for every step that is worth something. You don’t learn or grow if everything is handed to you on a silver platter. You grow when everything works against you.

But only if you see your own shortcomings, acknowledge them, and then change.

Not by howling and whining that the big meany premier said you can’t have endless helpings from the goody bag.

In other words, know your place. It isn’t always at the top or at the centre of attention where you get everything your own way with no consideration of how everyone else is doing.

Kathleen Wynne made the fatal error of giving Toronto all the mother love and attention any city would be blessed to have — all while creating the largest non-sovereign debt in the world, and even gave Hamilton that generous lifeline of basic income. Hogtown and the Hammer both repaid her by voting for Andrea Horwath. You made your bed, children.

You showed your worth, your gratitude, your savvy, and your loyalty.

You served as your own lesson why it no longer pays to pander to Toronto.

At least Ford learned that lesson.

Too bad the Star hasn’t…

Canadian newspapers begged for money. Ontario government decided they could do more than just bypass the press...

Oh, the squeals and howls are funny. After begging the federal government to give them money to mess up, journalists have now seen the Ontario PC Party create their own facsimile of news.

The press is having a meltdown. The NDP, who have finally clued in that they have as much power dead insect, are having a meltdown. They may try to stall the inevitable wasting taxpayers' dollars, reintroduce bills that will not go through, and deny their own antics, but they are just an carnival act in a sucker circus.

The Tories, on the other hand, have wasted no time in exercising actual power. You know, the perk of winning an election and not being happy because you lost.

Journalists have been relegated to getting even more unsightly frown lines on their faces as other people steal their act and realized it is not hard to do these days.

Because journalism didn't improve their methods, other people and groups have been able to mimic their style, and just bypass them completely. Communications has not just been democratized, it has been co-opted.

If they have money, the groups can make their own news. If they cannot, they reject interacting with journalists entirely, but the pool of people reporters can count on is dwindling rapidly

But it is not entirely new for this province. Toronto Police have been doing it since last year. 

So we are seeing a squeeze out taking on a new form -- it has been going on for a long time, but now, the panic is finally beginning to kick in...

Presenting the Partisan as Normal: When journalists try to push make the ideological mundane.

Ontario is in for a a series of major shifts that will alter its current sleepiness in a matter of months.

The US got that ball rolling because they have a president who smelled a weak prime minister, and they are going to push it for all it is worth.

And now after almost fifteen years of Liberal rule, we have a Conservative government who did not waste a moment knocking off all the campaign promises from their to do list. 

Doug Ford is not talking about "stretch goals." He is just keeping his promises, clearing the deck to bring in a completely new system to the province.

I am not going to babble whether this is a good thing or a bad thing as I do not have a crystal ball. I can say that he got elected by being very open about what he was going to do, and people voted him in because of it.

If they did not want it, they would have stuck to the Liberals or voted in the NDP if they wanted the extreme, more expensive version of it.

So you have a province who is very divided, but not so much that the Tories didn't get their majority. They did and had a clear mandate. They won the election. Not by the skin of their teeth win, but a confident one.

That is the reality of the province.

But to Ontario journalists, they do not actually comprehend what that actually means.

They are reporting on certain issues in a very partisan way that makes their reports deceptive. They are taking ideological beliefs are trying to pass it off as facts and news, and it is not.

So, first off, let us be clear: Doug Ford said he was going to scrap the 2015 Sex Ed curriculum.

The massive tome found here.

It clocks at well over 200 pages. I seriously doubt one percent of Ontario parents actually read that thing. I am not a parent, and I have read it. It is long, tedious, cringeworthy, ideological in places, and not as progressive or as sensitive to realities as it is being portrayed.

It babbles. A lot. It has the typical authoritative arrogance and condescending tone that is comical as life is far more complicated than the take home lessons in this work implies.

It is not enlightened. It panders to certain marginalized and abused groups, which, I suppose can be construed as something positive because they are usually just shut out as if they did not exist.

Mind you, when I had to take Sex Ed in junior high in the 1980s. it was the same: underwhelming and not as helpful when you tried to use what you learned in the real world. My mother had already taken care of my Sex Ed, complete with making me read the book Love and Sex in Plain Language, which was not a bad book as a starting point. It wasn't patronizing, which I appreciated.

Many parents didn't like the changes from the 1998 version (but many didn't like the earlier versions, either, as one of my first stories as a newspaper reporter in mid 1990s dealt with a group that thought the old one was just dreadful, but they were merely preying on parents' fears and were actually angling to replace evolutionary science with creationism in the classroom). Many parents did. Most parents had no clue one way or another because reading that manual with the care and focus it requires is a real drag. 

If it were up to me, I would quiz parents on what is in that book, and then listen to all the excuses about how busy they are to do so, even though they repeatedly tell me against my will what is happening on Game of Thrones and with the Kardashians.

But people had strong opinions regardless. Kids are kids; they pretty much are trusting good sports who go with the flow, having the goodwill to believe what they are learning is relevant and important. Bless them for it.

The parents who didn't like it did not let it go. Tanya Granic Allen nearly made a political career from that disdain. People put up with spiralling utility, gas, and mortgage costs, but this was their line in the sand.

Doug Ford promised to repeal it. He got voted in. The End.

So that is the reality of the situation, and you would think if journalists were doing stories on this fact, they would seriously and deeply take that critical factor into consideration.

But no dice.

They are behaving as if Ford just stormed in uninvited, made a tyrannical decree against the will of every parent in Ontario, and did away with it on his own.

That is not what happened. Not even close. You had a very unpopular curriculum put in place, and now that side of the fence was listened to because they were the ones who voted in enough numbers to matter.

Watching CHCH's report on it this evening was amusing because it has the hack of no-brainer streeters and an "expert" who would naturally pull toward one side of the issue.

Newsflash: people lived for centuries without this Sex Ed curriculum. Most of the world has not had it, either. Somehow, life flourishes and goes on. Let us not have some sort of silly sink or swim argument here.

The Toronto Star is playing the same game, exploiting a grieving father who lost his daughter after she was sexually exploited to the point she took her own life -- and he gets some comfort in believing that this would have prevented his daughter from dying, complete with his Very Sad Face guilting people that the Star lives to parade.

I doubt very much that education would have changed anything in that tragedy. When you leave a group of unsupervised teens in close proximity together where they are all intoxicated, you have a lion's den where any cub or wandering lamb is going to get harmed.

That's nature. Cruel, cold, heartless nature in a room filled with inexperienced, enabled teens who cannot control those new surges of hormones as they all compete, lie, dare, insult, bully, and goad each other because they don't know what consequences mean.

There is no education on the face of this earth that is going to trump that toxic stew.

You could lock every one of those teens in a closet, chain them, and make them read and study, as you isolate them from the outside world. That could prevent it, but that is also sick and abusive, and would be even worse as it prepared them less for the realities of life. Life is filled with risks and gambles, and taking extremes won't help. 

Life is also filled with tragedy, and the hardest lesson to learn in life is sometimes bad things happen to good people, and it cannot be stopped. There is no If Only. There is only What Was.

Many people take their own lives. Many people get bullied, but don't. Many people don't get bullied, but do. We assume one action is linked to another, but we cannot always assume there was a solution to a problem.

That one of the boys expressed regret sounded more like regret that he was inconveniently labelled a rapist than that his victim felt despair with no way out. No school lesson can dispel that sort of selfish thinking. No magic wand can reverse it.

If we had actual journalism, we wouldn't have propaganda pieces that distort reality. You have people who wanted that curriculum for their own reasons. You had people who were against it for their own reasons. The party that spoke to the those against it won. 

That was a major platform, and yet, journalists covering the campaign didn't pick up on it. Instead of mindlessly running after candidates at corny photo ops, they should have done their research, looking at the salient issues from multiple angles, and seen why this issues was resonating with a lot of voters from across the province without making rude and haughty assumptions.

Now, there is howling where there should be reason. We have all sorts of untrue to life morality tales being spewed. That is not what we need to hear.

We need facts. We always do,

The problem is we rarely ever get them.

Dear Toronto Star Editorial Board: Don't talk to us about anything wearing those blinders of yours.

The Toronto Star gets perpetually snitty whenever someone says something that goes against their narrative. Their latest temper tantrum is a silly rant about White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders's comments that Canada has "taken advantage" US's "niceness."

That isn't entirely false, particularly when it comes to US media. Our television networks have been airing US shows for decades, and their journalism products have been scraping US media, too. Americans have been our employers for a long time.

Even our entertainers, from actors to singers to authors, made serious breakthroughs because the US market accommodated us, embracing us even though we are more liberal foreigners.

They don't do it all for free, but they could have been a lot worse to this country, too. They could have made all sorts of frightening demands. Considering how lop-sided the dynamic has always been, Americans could have made it a living hell for us. Countries who are close to Russia, did not have the same freedoms and we are far less diligent and hard-working than the US, and we have still reaped a lot from that relationship. We are geographic captives. We have no place to go, and their size compared to ours should be a big hint that we have often taken Americans for granted, tweaking their noses whenever we get a chance.

So now there is an American president who doesn't cut slack. We are not owed that slack. We are a nation whose very survival hinges on the goodwill of our more powerful neighbours.

The Toronto Star should think very carefully before babbling something as ignorant and arrogant as their op-ed piece.

Sanders isn't wrong. Americans do not actually need Canada. They owe this country absolutely nothing. They can shut us out and not even feel it.

On the other hand, if the US were to slap us with sanctions or merely stop trading with us, and we become a Third World Nation in short order. We'd immediately have to deal with a surge of unemployed people, and our tax base would shrink, and considering how much we sink in social services, it would be a domino effect, and our comfy lifestyles would go right out the window.

The Star has always had some bloated swaggering ideas that do not align with reality. The sense of entitlement is obvious with their demands the federal government pay their bills or else democracy will end.

And now they are getting lippy with a country who has the fate of this country in their hands.

Canadians needed a press not throw fits. They needed a press to find facts without snarky and uppity commentary.

These are very volatile times for Canada, and we have a Prime Minister with a chip on his shoulder, arrogantly talking down to Ontario's new premier in publicfluffing off sexual harassment allegations even as he exploited feminism to suit his own political ends, among other things (voguing on the taxpayers's dime and having lavish conflict of interest vacations and then fluffing it off as if the rules do not apply to him).

This is a federal regime that spites its own provinces when they want to forge their own way. The vindictiveness is very open, and very authoritative.

Canadians need information, not haughty swipes. The Star honestly confuses its uppity ignorance for data. 

When Americans were in a good mood and there was no Internet to weak their clout, they could get away with not knowing the difference, and worse, getting it wrong.

These aren't those days anymore, and they still making the same toxic mistakes, refusing to learn anything in the bargain...

Journalism's terrorism against Facebook continues as they hope you ignore their targeted marketing at people.

Before I begin, let me remind you about Chartbeat:

The story of your content.


Data tells a powerful story — about your content, who reads it, and what’s possible.

It calls itself:

Content Intelligence for Publishers

In other words, traditional journalism is gathering intelligence on its audience in order to manipulate people into buying their shoddy garbage.

Journalism's stealth marketing is nothing new, and I had written about how newspapers used their circulation department to tailer-make their campaigns for Presstime magazine way back in 2001.

So let's get that out of the way.

The current "scandal" Facebook is facing is a manufactured because Big Data has been around for as long as social media has been around. People want to Live Out Loud, but do not want anyone to profit from it.

And the intelligence gathered from Facebook would be suspect given that people use social media to put their best mask forward, not necessarily reveal what is true.

But journalism's psychological terrorism and propaganda is in full force because they are jealous that Facebook was more successful at it than they ever were.

Toronto Star is instructing the little people to "unfriend" Facebook. The Atlantic, ever the Left-wing propaganda machine, is spinning their own skewed narrative.

They are drawing big huge dots, hoping people will abandon social media, and then go back into the cage.

Facebook has had it too easy for too long, but they gained power because they provided a free page page to people and businesses, but had to fund their sleek machine.

So it collected data and allowed others to do so as well -- including traditional media outlets.

But the current campaign reminds me a lot of the last Ontario PC leadership campaign. Patrick Brown -- the white guy was #MeToo'ed, and he was kicked to the curb. Then you oh-so-very conveniently had two polished female candidates who had clout, connections, and money to sashay in because the media narrative dictated a woman had to win.

Then Doug Ford strutted in, and won. The white guy.

Media narratives aren't what they used to be.

Journalists are trying to scare people out of their wits, and there is no need for it.

Because they are hoping to deflect attention from their own sins and decay, hoping people will relinquish their autonomy.

There are simple ways to deal with Big Data without giving up your own voice.

Because that's what the journalistic narrative is trying to force down your own throat...