Reading the melodrama of the immature...

The Toronto Star is a sheltered publication.

How else to explain this bizarre and childish column:

The National Enquirer faces nuclear annihilation and Jeff Bezos is the mushroom cloud

Don’t be a nerd.

What Jeff Bezos did was spin a narrative. What he calls “blackmail” isn’t. Journalists pull similar shit: if you don’t talk to us, we will write the story without your spin. Is that blackmail?

Not the illegal kind. It is not as if the Enquirer has a reputation of being virtuous angels. They deal in dirt and this will not impede them.

They have been sued and lost. Carol Burnett winning her suit still being the most high-profile example — and she is a beloved celebrity. It didn’t bury the Enquirer.

He is trying to save face, and in a world where the news cycles spin at warp speed, in a few days, something else about him or his companies overshadows what went on now he loses momentum.

And in a climate where we have people of questionable motives wanting to tax the rich out of existence, it is not as if sympathy is on his side. The Enquirer is not Gawker: they know what they are doing.

No one expects the dirt mongers to play nice or fair. Bezos has a huge black mark, and one social media entry isn’t going to change the outcome.

A crisis management team will have to school him on not blaming other people, accepting responsibility for his actions, a contrite demeanour, some generous donations to various groups, and then move on with some feel-good gestures that involve having some token gesture to employees.

This is not the end of Jeff Bezos. This is not the end of the Enquirer. No nuclear bombs. No annihilation. Just a spat, and the world spins merrily along…

The re-launching of Chaser News, Part Two: Stop squawking, Vinay Menon, and just provide facts. I did when your ilk slandered Serbs in the 1990s.


When Bob Dole ran against Bill Clinton for president in 1996, he repeatedly asked this question:

Where’s the outrage?

Well, Mr. Dole, I think we found where it has been overstocked all this time: over here in 2018.

Where limousine liberals are throwing incessant temper tantrums because they did not get the designer president they ordered because the Great Unwashed did not get their order right.

So now it is the by-the-numbers posturing and moral masturbation they use to try to shame people to do what they want.

It’s like, You know, they have elections every four years in your nation, and maybe you can actually get active in the democratic process and help elect a president you can stomach then.

But then it’s this over-the-top rubbish, But those little people got my order wrong, and just ruined my cocktail party and, oh! the humiliation of it all! I come from a common democracy!

That’s why the word “resistance” is just a joke.

And if you are a stupid middle class Leftie, here is a simple diagram so you know the difference:


This is a resistance fighter who gave up his comforts for the common person without posturing or voguing, and suffered real oppression and defeat as he died for what he truly believed, and that is why he is Person #10 on the list of people everyone should know — with the caveat — for the right reasons. Do not tell me he inspired you unless you are willing to live out in the streets for months helping poor people.


This is not a resistance fighter: this is a rich and spoiled woman who not only exploits the image of someone who got executed, but everything she does makes her wealthier and more entrenched in the Establishment as she panders, which goes against everything the real fighter believed in. She is not slumming it in her mansions, limos, high-end boutiques, or plastic surgeon’s office. She doesn’t do anything unless there are photographers memorializing everything for posterity.

One of these beret-wearing people is not authentic. Learn the difference.

Which brings us to the inauthentic Toronto Star, whose entertainment columnist had an Offended Victorian Lady meltdown because some people on the Right are not buying into the Left’s narrative of slain writer Jamal Khashoggi:

The vile and immoral smearing of Jamal Khashoggi

Moral puking with no facts. That is not journalism. That is a squawk conniption.

And squawk conniptions is not journalism. It is emotional misdirection meant to force people to buy into a narrative without having to do the legwork of proving what was presented was inaccurate.

Do some original reporting. Go line by line with the accusations, and then show where these accusations are inaccurate.

If you have something real to say with facts, then cut the theatrics and present them to counter whatever you believe is an untruth. Some rationality with data, please, because your diatribe is not a hack or a reasonable facsimile of reportage.

Seriously. Do not go rage puking like an uppity braggart trophy spouse who was informed by the smirking maid that the sugar spouse was caught humping the neighbourhood dog on the front lawn.

But that is what journalism has become: a bunch of goofies and sillies who couldn’t even operate a sock puppet behind a piece of cardboard instructing people with pseudo-outrage.

And this column is just as propagandistic as the smearing of the same individual.

But instead of squawking displeasure, it never crosses this individual’s mind to do some sort of reporty-thingie like use evidence.

Stranger still, when said columnist is in a position to do so and is long in the tooth just enough to have something that resembles experience in the matter.

And I can easily say this as someone who went into journalism because that profession was relentlessly slandering Serbs during the Civil War in the former Yugoslavia.


The Toronto Star was one of the worst offenders in that regard, but we can include the vast majority of mainstream news outlets — who all cribbed from the same PR firms who registered with FARA. With one third of Brits wanting to see their former Prime Minister Tony Blair be sent up the Hague without a paddle for his sins regarding the Iraqi invasion, I would like to point out to them that Blair cut his chops harming Serbs in a war before it (and then advising them while getting cash money right after bombing them into submission is rich).

I was a teenager who had no journalistic ambitions when it happened. I was a teenager with ambitions to become a jury psychologist.

But the coverage of that war changed my trajectory.

Alexandra Kitty did not squawk like a Toronto Star columnist when she read or watched the news. Yes, she was livid. Yes, she was honestly scared that the Canadian government was going to round her and her family up into interment camps because Toronto media outlets were openly pondering this to the public who are calling and writing in all for it.

But she did not behave like a baby in soiled underpants and scream.

She researched. She found facts. She called. She interviewed. She did legwork.

And boy, did she prove the war coverage was nothing more than war propaganda and bullshit spewed by lazy reporters cribbing from press releases verbatim because she got a hold of both.

And then she wrote to media outlets and presented them with facts.

Back then, they could ignore dissident voices and spew propaganda because to admit their narrative was wrong would be an admission of being propagandists.

If I had social media back then, I wouldn’t be writing those letters: I would be a one-woman news organization.

But if a teenager with no prior journalism experience and no major outlet’s backing or resources could do that, then what’s wrong with this columnist?

What’s up with the tirade and the melodrama?

If you have evidence of a PR campaign against Khashoggi, please give us information about it. The fact that it comes from Right-leaning publications is not evidence: that is your Left-leaning opinion.

If you can prove contradictions, do it. It is not hard. I did it all the time. Not once did I need the say-so of a single government official in my research. Interview people at the Washington Post — ask them how well they knew him. Find his previous speeches and writings. Show us who he was as a person. Who were his associates? What do they have to say about him?

That is what journalists used to do. Now, they make demands and shame people as if that were some rational or normal alternative.

It’s not.

It’s manipulative garbage.

I don’t care if you’re offended. I care what facts you have dug up on your own.


I didn’t squawk. I presented facts and then demanded to know why the outlet went with the lies that they did. Point blank. I never tried to paint Serbs as faultless angels, but I find it interesting that we have a columnist trying to do just that.

And it’s wrong on many levels.

It is binary: people are presented as either perfect angels or insufferable devils, with no in-between. What if someone was more untrustworthy than trustworthy? Does this person deserve to be completely vilified and get a death sentence?

No, but it would be nice to understand with a realistic picture of the person. Unfortunately, Khashoggi is being exploited by the news media, trying to pretend he died because he was some sort of crusading journalist who died for the little people, and so, now, everyone should just drop social media and listen to journalists to Make America Great Again.

They tried that gambit with Viktoria Marinova, but when her killer was just a boor and not some sort of journalist/democracy-hater trying to silence her, the interest vanished. She was killed the way other young women who are not journalists get murdered everyday. Too bad.

The truth is very little is known, and what is known is issued by various governments whom the press condemn one minute, and then believe without question the next and vice versa.

And that is a big reason why journalism collapsed: it gossips and speculates, always trying to use brute force to make people see things in a certain sanctioned way, and that’s not what information is about.

It is about understanding that what is good for one person is detrimental to another, but we still must act. We must negotiate. We must research. We must understand the perspectives of other people.

That’s what rational adults do.

They do not coast on outrage.

They draw maps of where they are, and where they need to go, then they compare their map with other people’s maps.

That’s how you measure how close or far apart you both are to reality.

I learned that lesson when I was researching the media’s propaganda games in the 1990s.

I learned that had the press not meddled and foreign governments were told to shove off, the country would have most likely been forced to negotiate realistically and pragmatically, with no side being allowed to delude themselves and their people that they were going to get something for nothing.

Instead of telling people there to be outraged, they should have been told to calm down, shut up, and think about tomorrow with a realistic filter: if you knuckle-heads are broke when you are together, you are not going to be living like kings and queens tomorrow with fewer resources and a bill for your area’s debt to the IMF.

And no, waving little flags and chanting chauvinist puke is not going to bring you superpowers to fly you up to the top of the pecking order.

So, screw outrage.

It is counterproductive, and an internal lie. It deceives as it distorts perceptions.


Chaser News is slowly gearing up, and it will be one that will use the F.R.E.E.D. method, rolling it out in bits and pieces — and for various reasons.

It will not be a regular news outfit. In the beginning, it will be more of a living textbook, showing factual literacy in the process.

I am working slowly and methodically, though I also have several other major obligations right now, and they are biggies, and require my focussed adulting.

Chaser News of yore was an eccentric and enigmatic experiment of mine that was a triumph in creating literary optical illusions. I will discuss more on it later.

Chaser News was short for Chaser Investigative News Services, but while the Chaser part of the name will remain, it will be rejigged.

It was also a deeply personal venture where you got to know me, from my taste in music, art, fashion, perfume, and comic books, to my boxing, opinions, and my various quirks and idiosyncrasies.

The problem the first time around was that people preferred me rambling about me more than the stories I covered. I do not wish to be impersonal, and I am not someone who has a filter, but this time, I will take that into my equations, and do it in another way so that Alexandra Kitty isn’t doing the pop culture beat as she is discussing what makes her tick.

A lot has happened to me in the last decade, and it wasn’t easy.

But despite the obscene obstacles that just literally came out of nowhere, that cascading catastrophe didn’t stop me from starting A Dangerous Woman Story Studio, which has been going strong since 2013, writing a book, and starting this web site with the intent of bringing an alternative to journalism to life. It didn’t stop me from teaching art, for instance.

Or living my life on my terms.

When I began Chaser News in 2007, it was literally an uphill battle: no funding and no support, but it was a picnic compared to the obstacles I have personally faced now.

I said back then that if I waited for a convenient time to start anything new, I wouldn’t because there never was a convenient time.

I will discuss all of that here, because there is a lot to understand about what women face, particularly those of us who see tomorrow very clearly, but keep having to fight a thousand wars each and every day just to bring our visions to life.

So when I see a spoiled brat in a limo talking about resistance, I know she is an exploiter and a manipulator who really has no clue about what life is all about.

It is not about outrage.

It serves no purpose.

Nor is it about acquiescence.

That also serves no purpose.

It is about creating something new when the old no longer functions — or better still, keep improving and evolving the old as you face and fix its deficiencies before it becomes necessary to scramble to build something new to replace it.

That’s what the original Chaser News was going to do: I was going to be a private journalist who would find stories, and then find the facts for people to find solutions. Not an private investigator, but a researcher so that those on social media had a guide.

It didn’t work out that way, and I am relieved.

This version will not be that kind of outlet.

It will be personal, but not in that way.

Without the theatrics or rage puke.


Memo to the Toronto Star: What is this "we" in "If we can't fix Facebook"? You couldn't even fix your own woes.

Mark Zuckerberg's waste-of-life testimony in front of the Establishment was just one of those silly acts of sanctioned insanity we do to make us feel as if something is being done. He did not have to take an oath. Most of those politicians mugging for the camera have no idea how this whole Internet thing works, and if they had real questions that required hard data, they could have merely subpoenaed them. Like so much journalists cover, it is mere theatre to placate the middle class, nothing more.

This little production number wasn't actual news, and hence, should have been skipped entirely.

But reporters made it sound oh so important.

How silly.

The Toronto Star decided to sound all huffy and serious about a canned event, making it sound very scary:

They could’ve ended it there and gone off to draft legislation. That’s all anyone really needs to know. The guy who invented Facebook was not safe from Facebook.

If he is cavalier with his personal information, that should be a big clue how worthless personal data actually is. But the headline was a tizzy, wondering about this "We" will be "fixing Facebook."

Who is this "we"? Facebook is a publicly traded company, there is no "we".

Users cannot fix it, and neither can journalists, who managed to mess up their own profession beyond repair, and now you are referring to some nebulous we? Are you serious?

But the journalistic jealousy translate into a lot of melodramatic propaganda:

In the end, to watch Zuckerberg testify for two days was to worry about how America will cope with the future. This was a 21st-century tech giant facing 20th-century oversight. If lawmakers don’t know what to make of Facebook 14 years after it was invented, how will they deal with the social-tech issues of tomorrow?

How will they legislate space travel or artificial intelligence? What will the government do when private companies have the ability to read minds and robots are demanding voting rights? How will the government become proactive when it’s now struggling to be reactive, when it can barely get anything done with an atmosphere of partisan rancour?

You can’t serve citizens if you’re too busy bickering with one another.

And you can’t fix something if you don’t know how it’s broken.

If lawmakers are clueless, then that is a big clue that they are antiquated to reality, and perhaps it is about time we question whether or not their meddling would do any good.

Why is every solution somehow involve an authority figure making decrees and nannying the populace?

Can we perhaps expand our repertoire to involve doing something real, and not some meaningless and ineffective slacktivist symbolism that is meant to morally masturbate in public just to get a little fleeting attention?

But what fear-mongering from people who also don't know how it is broken and have yet to fix their own messes.

It seems the robber barons of Big Tech are going down the exact same route, arrogantly assuming their medium will give them power just because they are superior and special.

No AI or mind-reading technology will prevent them from destruction.

They are playing by the journalist's own handbook -- and those once all-mighty twits were powerful.

And now they are inert, despite all of the tools and rigs they had.

So there is no worrying about Facebook.

They have merely managed to devalue personal information to the point of becoming dirt cheap.

There are real things to worry about and need our fixing -- but this little game isn't one of them...