Journalism's sunny spinning of rot continues...

Everything is great at the Atlantic with having a sugarmommy…except people are leaving in droves.

Vice News is doing so great on HBO…except it just got the heave ho.

Neither one is doing as well as they pretend to be doing: in this climate, being in a national magazine would have people clinging on to that job under any circumstance.

And things don’t get cancelled because they are bringing in viewers.

So things are happening behind the scenes, but don’t expect anyone to do anything but sunny spin that rot…

A fake expert was quoted in multiple media outlets as being legitimate? You don't say, Gizmodo!

A fake expert was believed and quoted without anyone asking questions?

You don’t say!

Remember the Lying Dutchman? The social psychologist who made up his studies, and then the press believed them, for like, years?

They didn’t learn from that episode — and in fact, got even worse because they didn’t even double-check the new champ’s creds.

I wrote the book on these kinds of things, and it is common enough that one wonders why journalism never had a vigorous screening process on their so-called “experts.”

Did you read their studies? Their books? I have done so, and I have even had people who wanted to interview me make sure that got and read the book before interviewing me.

I may be eccentric and not fit any simple and sanctioned label, but my credentials are sound, verifiable, and above reproach.

And I have had people interview me who had no clue who I was at all. I have turned down interviews because I wasn’t the one who could or should speak on the topic.

So not only is this not surprising, there are a lot more fake experts being quoted even now, and nothing ever changes…

A bad deal for content providers? Now news outlets are feeling what their journalists felt all along from them.

Apple wants half the profits from subscriptions and media outlets are howling.

Bwah ha ha!

It is perfectly all right to give your content providers a bad deal. When databases first came out, writers didn’t see a single cent if their work was purchased via a database. You don’t get paid by the number of hits or reprints. It is a flat fee.

And now Apple is doing to media outlets what they did to their content providers.

The middle man is fuming, but shed no tears. Content providers also get the shaft, and this is now spreading higher up the food chain.

Look at Vice Media: this is a property that got Canadian funding, and yet has its overlord worth a pretty penny that he gambles away.

No one ever thinks to take a closer look at what’s going on there.

The structure is corrupt. That’s why nothing is working. Apple won’t save journalism, and Netflix is not a viable platform. Rot upon rot, and all we have to show for it is whining…

Jill Abramson getting pummelled by corrupt hypocrites: Just another day in the trash can called journalism.

For a profession that criticizes people viciously, journalists certainly do not like when people criticize them.

Oh, what a shock.

They either suppress information or try to tear into someone if their profile is high enough.

So when former New York Times editor Jill Abramson dissed on the corrupt and dead profession of journalism, the book couldn’t be ignored; so journalists went to attack her credibility like a rapist attacks the victim, blaming her and saying she deserved it.


Make no mistake: the level of vitriol has more to do that a woman dared call them out for their sins than the actual content.

Also note, it was the white boys who instigated this very coordinated hit.

So before discussing the guts of the allegations, let me point out that Jill Abramson made it all the way to News York Times editor.

A very lofty position in the profession. That’s as prestigious as you can get. 60 Minutes correspondent or head of a network news outfit possibly trump it.

Back then, she was doing the basic same things she did for her entire journalistic career, and she was employed and got promoted.

And that was just dandy keen for years.

But then she was a cheerleader on Team Journalism.

Now she isn’t.

I wrote a book on journalism’s ethics last year and that book was exhaustively researched.


I had no assistant. I did the entire researching and writing all by myself up in a cottage in Selkirk right on Lake Erie in the winter in the middle of nowhere because it was always my dream to write a book that way.


For five months, that is what I woke up to seeing every morning while drinking Turkish coffee. I wanted absolute solitude, but The Fabulous Ladies drove up every Sunday for brunch and mischief, and I am grateful. I did take some time out to go to Chicago to get semi-precious stones for my jewelry-making. I stayed at the fun and posh Virgin Hotel and dined at Miss Ricky’s and The Gage, but still brought my laptop to work on my book. I still have my little shower lamb from the Virgin Hotel


My book was ignored by journalists in public, though people are still buying it, despite the shut out. So much for free speech. As usual, word of mouth can break through any blacklist.

I still did an interview here and a funky one here.

But journalists couldn’t do that with Abramson. They had to stomp on her and stone her to discredit her work.

You cannot discredit mine, however. I did not go into journalism with stars in my eyes, and then turned into a bitter and disgruntled failure. I went in knowing exactly who they were, and wanted to study the profession by being a journalist for real. I conducted unprecedented and exhaustive experiments. My beat was the business of journalism and my audience were people in the profession.

When I had enough information to write an informed and empirically-sound exposé, I walked away.


I also wrote one on Fox News, and then over a decade later came When Journalism was a Thing.

Abramson was in deep, and as much as she knows about the people in that sketchy profession, those in the profession know all about her.

So those trolls knew where to look and how to strike.

And then went batshit crazy on her in a frenzy tirade, hoping to nullify her revealing of their disgusting dirt.

They nitpicked on a few facts, but even that is under debate. Journalists fuck up on facts all the time. They do not use empirical methods.

But then came the “chargeofplagiarism! Oh, no! Run for your lives! Don’t listen to the scary woman with the book that exposes us!

giphy (2).gif

It is a pathetic ruse.

The poseur “journalists” at the garbage publication Paste really overplayed the melodramatics:

Jill Abramson Is a Disgrace to Journalism

Yeah, as if you grifters know what this “journalism” is. You are not fooling anybody, you twits. Stop using the movie Reefer Madness as a guide on how to behave. You come off as disingenuous nerds.

The only publication with any sense here is the National Review that has a more accurate take:

Jill Abramson Is a Hack, Not a Thief

I am currently reading the book. She knows who she is dealing with. It is kind of a stretch to call it “plagiarism” because the writing for both are so banal and unoriginal, that really, it is like writing, “Bob likes his new job” and then someone else writes “Robert has positive feelings toward his most recent career” and then make some over-the-top tirade because you both are writing about the same damn thing.

Seriously, no winners here. I would not classify it as a “sourcing error”, either. I would classify this as typical journalism nincompoopity, and it needs to be replaced with a more responsible alternative.

Vice is pure garbage. Sexist pretentious trolls with one who got nabbed for being a drug dealer, and Vice got Canadian government money to boot. What does Vice know about journalistic ethics?

I wrote about Vice in my latest book. They are to journalism what a soiled jock strap is to journalism.

And they’re ranting about Abramson?

And other outlets are parroting their meltdown?

I can tell you straight up my book is exhaustively researched, and I didn’t plagiarize. I don’t need to because my writing is superior to Vice hacks or anyone else in that dead profession. It would be a serious step down from my own abilities.

So yes, the pot is calling the kettle black, but who is the pot and who is the kettle is your choice.

If you want to read a book that tells it like it is that doesn’t pull any punches and fears no angry mob of hacks, read When Journalism was a Thing.

You can even read while enjoying a cup of Turkish coffee — because you haven’t lived until you had a cup…

Journalism's hot mess continues.

Not all crap is in the Western press, as “the sightings” of dead person Muammar Gaddafi in Chad is proven to be a hoax. Apparently, the Senegalese media outfits cut and paste from parody sites. Good job.

A Vice Canada’s former editor’s legal woes over this whole drug thing continue. Yeah, they don’t call it Vice for nothing, kids!

The noose around Gannett is tightening as the Asset-squeezers are not letting up so easy.

Newspaper printing has been outsourced at big dailies…as a part of asset-squeezing.

We have Reality Deniers at the New Yorker talking about Trump’s “shrunken presidency”, when his approval ratings remain unchanged. You truly live in the Land of the Stoned and Bladdered.

Oh, the the chicken littles at the New York Times are scared of AI reporters. Don’t worry, darlings, they’ll be just as shitty at the job as you are now.

And that big push how journalists are the guardians of the universe seems to be fading as circulations and ratings continue to plummet…

Journalism's continued job implosion. All the old tricks and new stunts aren't working. It is time to face reality.




I wrote the book on this collapse last year called When Journalism was a Thing, but since I am female, I get ignored. If you want a thorough, well-researched, honest, accurate, reliable, valid, useful, passionate, objective, and definitive answer to what is happening now, read my book.

The Washington Post is an outlet in perpetual denial. Journalism is dead. The end. If the Post cannot grasp or face the reality of their dead profession, they cannot see anything in front of them.

Let’s look at the headlines Drudge drudged up today:

McClatchy Follows BuzzFeed, Vice, and Others in Cutting Staff

Vice Media to Lay Off 10 Percent of Staff in Company Restructuring

And the partisan New York Times whining:

Digital Media: What Went Wrong

For years, BuzzFeed seemed to be leading the journalism industry toward a brave new future. Now that it has stumbled, the way ahead looks more old-school than ever.

Do not believe the New York Times for one millisecond: there was no promise of a “brave new future” with BuzzFeed. It was always garbage with filler, propaganda, and ignorance that never did journalism differently. It just has garbage quizzes and tacky propaganda with snark.

That’s not an actual thing to be proud of, even if you are completely stupid and without morals or common sense.

Notice that the only trick has been Trump-bashing and begging for money, and neither lazy hack is working — it is, actually, having the opposite effect.

No, nerds pretending to be hip and edgy isn’t going to save a dead profession.

And the ridiculous mantra that “the future is digital” has been dealt a deathblow.


When you use old tricks and stunts and never admit that what you are doing is not working, that’s what happens.

The medium is not the content. The medium is not the structure. The medium is not the mandate.

The medium is not the saviour.

The lazy ways of journalism have not saved them, and the fact that the new generation of outlets have collapsed the same way proves once and for all that the model is broken beyond repair.

Get the memo, children…


Memo to Vanity Fair: Online garbage like Vice, Vox, and Buzzfeed produced bullshit fairytales for cowards. That's why they are tanking.

Vanity Fair, has some bullshit trying to use a brain cell to figure out why garbage like Vox, Vice, and BuzzFeed aren’t working:


Vice, Vox, and BuzzFeed, among other companies that once heralded the dawn of a new media age, are now grappling with decidedly old-media problems.

Because they produced bullshit fairytales for cowards. They had nothing real to offer. They snarked, and produced garbage that was worse than what traditional bullshitters were puking out.

The motherfuckery seemed hip to shut-in nerds and reality deniers, but they offered no substance.

The played it safe, and the reason garbage like BuzzFeed could get dumbass investors to give them Benjamins during funding rounds.

And investors are timid wankers who look for safe.

They hate calculated risks because that requires brains, heart, balls/ovaries, and then take lunatic gambles instead.

BuzzFeed is fragmented bullshit, while Vice is sexist bullshit.

Vox is pathetic sophistry emo bullshit.

And not a single one of these smug bullshitters reinvented journalism. They didn’t improve it, or produce a single story of any value. They are the trailer park of the profession.

Because that would take guts, and none of these egotists have it.

These are journalism’s feral and neglected progeny, rooting around the profession’s dump and cobbling together whatever garbage they thought they should settle for.

And we wonder why journalism collapsed?

Vanity Fair should get a clue once in a while and stop churning out this kind of clueless garbage; it’s not journalism, either…

A peculiar publicity stunt...

Masked men storm a newsroom, make mess, and go out of their way to give them a bad "award" for their negative coverage.

As an intimidation tactic, it is a very poor one. Charlie Hebdo it is not. It is far too immature and cringeworthy to be anything but a stunt.

In fact, it guarantees a news outlet will write about it, whine about it, thump their chests about it, and then other media outlets and organizations will howl in unison.

Vice will milk this for all it is worth to build up their image which has taken a beating in the last couple of years with a reputed editor drug dealer and sexual abuse in the workplace. It works in a media outlet's favour; so much so that you don't see those old movie throwback gambits these days.

Yet it is not unprecedented, but you may be surprised to know the context was not an extreme right wing group, but a feminist Left that took place on March 18, 1970, when a group of over one hundred feminists stormed the offices of the Ladies' Home Journal to make demands that the nearly all-male staff have a better grip on women's coverage and issues.

It was an all-day affair and three years later, the first female editor took the helm of the magazine.

The reasons were different. The method was very different. And the outcome was also different. In the 1970 Sit-In, it placed the heat on the magazine and made them accountable. This latest stunt -- and it is a stunt -- works in the publication's favour. Only someone who wasn't media-savvy would think such a move would frighten a publication or make them look bad...

Does the state have the right to look at a reporter's notes of a named source?

Vice was always an unreasonable facsimile of journalism, and now they are throwing a temper tantrum all the way up to the Supreme Court because they interviewed an accused terrorist on the record and the RCMP wants access to the unused information the reporter has.

This is an interesting case, and it is definitely a game of chess. When you do not understand the nuances and the landmines of being a fact-gatherer as you focus on sensational aspects of a story, you become vulnerable to those who see opportunities and grab them. The execution of the story was a tactical error, and watching the fallout is instructive.

The RCMP didn't ask for secret sources, and that is important to note -- it's a new twist, but Vice is using old scripts to fight their case:

Still, the media group said there will be a “chilling effect” if people involved in potentially illegal activities fear their comments to a reporter will be used against them in court.

This argument is nonsense, given that people in "potentially illegal activities" have to fear any and all of their comments to anyone will be used against them in court. You talk to a reporter who can choose to publish anything or everything you say, you are taking that risk for a reason. You are an adult. 

Yet this issue is not as cut and dried is it appears. Discount the "chilling effect" babble Vice is using, especially as their workplace was abusive, and had their own troubles with an editor trying to use his position to help his drug dealing.

But it is also the standard non-reason journalists whip out whenever they are asked to do something they do not want to do.

The issue isn't about protecting anonymous sources: it is about whether or not unused data from sources who are speaking on the record can be used by police. Sometimes, the information doesn't fit with the narrative of the article. Sometimes the editors cuts it because there isn't the room. Sometimes the reporter is saving it for a book or documentary. Sometimes the information would undermine the angle of the article. And sometimes, it would prove the article isn't true.

Vice's argument is curious: “This case involves conscripting the media as, in fact, the investigative arm of the state,” as their lawyer argued...

...And yet, journalists, for decades, have conscripted the state as the investigative arm of their industry. When there is a court-issued publication ban, journalists throw fits. When police hold back information, they thump their chests. They liberally use police as sources, and crib from their press conferences and media releases.

The problem is when you make demands from one side, they want the ability to do the same to you.

Should the police have the right to take the unused information from an already published story, even when it is a fishing expedition? 

That also is not a simple question to answer.

The world has recruited journalists for espionage over the decades. Sometimes spies have used the cover of reporter to do their jobs. There have been laws preventing the practice in some countries, but it is no guarantee that those laws will stay on the books.

Journalists have also swapped information with the state in order to get other information. "I'll show you mine, if you show me yours," is a gambit that often nets scoops and exclusives, but at a moral price.

In the US, there is the nebulous Espionage Act of 1917, that penalizes those who leak classified information. The Obama Administration had used the law more than any other administration, and there is always a chance a journalist will be prosecuted, even if it hasn't happened yet, and given today's political climate, it may happen sooner than we think.

What does that have to do with the current case? A lot.

The state will have disinterest in the vast majority of stories journalists do, and if they want access to what journalists have, there are numerous ways of obtaining it without the journalist ever handing over those notes and missives -- or even being aware it is happening.

There are only three places where the state is going to care: crime stories, terrorism, and classified information. It is the latter two where we can expect outside interests to meddle, and the state can use it as an excuse to want to see whether something sensitive has been leaking out.

With the Russia hysteria going on right now, the story journalists have been overplaying can come back to bite them. If the Russians, for instance, are so adept at propaganda as to alter the results of elections, then it stands to reason, they've been doing the same to reporters, and hence, their work has to be vetted, as perhaps something in the unused pile may have something more sinister that the hapless journalist missed, and when your story is about a terrorist propagandist, it sets up the perfect excuse for rummaging through your laptop.

The source wasn't afraid to talk to Vice. He wasn't afraid to burn up his Canadian passport on YouTube. I am not surprised the RCMP picked this particular story from this particular pseudo-journalism outlet to push for the right to look at anything an outlet chose not to publish. The usual sanctimonious journalistic babble rings hollow in this case. The story was used for shock value and to maintain that edgy persona. No one at Vice actually thought the angle of this story through.

If the Supreme Court decides the state was within their rights, it won't much matter because journalism has been weakened to the point of being inert. It is not much of a victory. If the Supreme Court takes pity on the profession, the state can always find another way to get what they want, as they make hints that the reason reporters didn't do the "right" thing was that they are a little too sympathetic to terrorists. When it is a forced choice between freedom of the press and personal safety, there is no competition to the middle class: they abandoned the news, but will still march for gun control.

For journalists, they lose even if they win.

In a world where privacy is a quaint and almost non-existent notion, any alternative to journalism has to take that reality into the equations because the old guard never did...

America's violence problem. No, it is not a gun control problem. The bombs are now getting in the way of that narrative.

Journalists have been smug with the "Gun Control" narrative, but now after bomb #5 has exploded, we can finally put that deceptive narrative to rest. You have had another shooting reported this morning, but also another bomb.

So while agenda-driven media outlets such as Vice pretend that it is gun and not video games, let the critical thinkers look at the reality.

America's culture is a violent one. Violent video games, violent tv shows, violent songs, violent movies, violent books, violent sports, and violent comic books. Violence is glorified. Violence is seen as a solution to problems.

If someone disagrees with you, then they are a villain with no redeeming qualities. They must be punished, and forced into submission to your way. It is antagonistic, and reinforced incessantly.

You have generations completely immersed in popular culture. They spend more time staring at various screens than living out in the world, and have formed unnatural habits.

And those habits dictate that at the first obstacle, become aggressive, set a static narrative rigged to your favour, and then remove that obstacle by any means necessary.

There have been consequences to a violent culture: death and destruction that mimics war zones.

It is not a gun problem.

It is a violence problem.

Why are so many people so violent?

It is an elephant in the room: journalists do not want to offend people; so they blame something that cannot talk back: the guns.

And let that divine They do something about it.

If you want a civilized society, you have to face reality, and the reality is that there is a glorification of violence, and its methods are reinforced in our stories repeatedly. Deal with the violence, and the desire to buy guns goes down with it.

Stop talking about gun control. Start looking at the problem of violence control. Humanize the issue and start finding out why you have so much violence terrorizing its own citizens when it is supposed to be peace...