A day late and a dollar short...online "news" outlets think a union will save a dead profession.

I

II

Vox and BuzzFeed think getting unionized will change their fortunes. Unions are antiquated and haven’t kept up with their strategies. Journalism is still dead.

Unions cannot avenge this death. It was self-inflicted.

And their structure is ill-equipped to handle changes. The entire profession walked lockstep…and nothing. That’s not just a US problem, but a Canadian and UK one as well.

Easy, bandaid solutions have been unsuccessful for the profession in the past, and their current self-righteous narrative isn’t getting them anywhere, either.

If their own owners lobby groups have struck out, their little unions aren’t going to far any better…

Memo to Vox: You lack basic knowledge to try to explain things to people.

Vox is pure garbage, and this article is just another piece of trash for the rubbish pile.

Screen Shot 2019-05-15 at 2.10.58 PM.png

Vox isn’t an actual news outlet: it babbles about the Big Bang Theory and Game of Thrones as if they were newsworthy and significant.

Vox doesn’t get reality, particularly the US trade war against China. It cannot explain something obvious because it has no clue and no means to do so.

There is nothing loopy about the US going after China. China has been busy buying up natural resources around the world. It is the World’s Factory. It buys other nations’ debt. It is aiming for an economic monopoly, and has been doing so unchecked for a very long time.

The US is preventing that dominance, and is working on weakening China, which isn’t as hard as it sounds. The US gets the rigs of capitalism. China gets a lot of things, but not enough to beat the US at this game. They may bluster, but they are in a far weaker position than they should be. The US can make serious damage to them economically and politically. Trump doesn’t think like a typical American, making him a very hard mark to read.

And he is willing to fight as far as it can go. Canada is going to get royally screwed. This is a country that banked on being a whisperer of sorts to the US, and a backdoor way of diplomacy with them, but then Trump accused Canada of being smooth, and cut off that path. Trump brought his North American neighbours to heel. For all of Canada’s tantrums and chest-thumping how they were going to “buy Canadian”, it was all talk because Canada doesn’t have very much native products to purchase.

Now that the small potatoes are out of the way, the big job is up ahead. In this game of Go, Trump struck first with a single arrest in Canada. China hit hard at Canada, giving Trump a blueprint into how to break them to specifications.

Project Syndicate is also puking knee-slapping Leftist propaganda, trying to pretend there is no economic growth in the US, but there is and it’s real. Unemployment is low. Everything has been methodical and precise. The US usually doesn’t have someone in the White House who gets the game, and Trump gets it. The Left are jealous and are stewing because vote-shaming doesn’t work. It’s the reason they are blind to what has been swirling over the last two years. The epic magic act is about to begin and they are off the rails thanks to their own hubris.

There is no mystery here, and certainly no madness. The game is beyond what Vox can comprehend, and it is not a place to look for actual news, anyway…

Unreadable Narrator: Just get to the point, New Yorker.

The New Yorker has a rambling piece on how author Dan Mallory is full of it. Bottom line: if someone is a liar, they aren’t all that interesting or warrant that much colour and filler.

That we have fiction authors bullshit about their lives is hardly anything new.

When you go for melodramatic bullshit stories, you are going to get hosed for eternity. The end.

Spinning yarns gets you lucrative contracts, and Mallory knows the game well.

He also knows that you can spin a story to deflect the accusations, and go on.

Vox, a publication for morons addicted to sophistry, loved the New Yorker puke-a-thon,

The greatest thriller I have read this year is not a book. It’s a new article in the New Yorker by Ian Parker about the editor and author Dan Mallory, and it is filled with so many twists and turns, such scheming and brazen lies, that it eclipses fiction. It definitely eclipses Mallory’s 2018 novel The Woman in the Window — written under the pen name A.J. Finn — which is a competent but paint-by-numbers thriller that is substantially less interesting than Mallory’s real-life story appears to be.

Honestly, if that is the “greatest” anything you have read so far in 2019, you are sheltered idiot. Go get some real life experience.

This isn’t a story to build up: this is a story to tear down. A man gets ahead in a lucrative career by conning people at work. Just the facts. Figure out how it happened and where the breakdowns are.

There is no “thriller” here. What you have is deceit.

This is the precise why journalists constantly get conned: they honestly believe sophistry, color, and babbling make a good story.

You are building up destructive people, making them sound more interesting than they are, and that makes you no less deceptive than the subject you are rambling about.

Please shut up, and try you article again…

Memo to Vox: "no-platforming" doesn't work because no one is reading your bullshit, either.

Vox is a moron’s publication that is filled with sophistry, and mostly just motherfuckery.

They don’t get reality. They are Reality Deniers, Left-wing Edition, Subsection, Millennial Ass-Kissers.

They are gleeful that professional troll Milo Yiannopoulos is broke, and speculate the reason is that “no-platforming” (i.e., collective demand for censorship) is to blame.

No, it isn’t. That is an illusion.

Imagine you not having cancer, and then someone gives you a pill, and says you are now cancer-free.

Did the pill cure you?

That’s bullshit: you were never sick to begin with.

That is the delusion these Reality Deniers cannot face is one: they are bitching and kvetching on the Troll Scroll, banning people who no one was ever actually reading.

What people like Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos did was court media attention by being obnoxious trolls and assholes. The press, who are lazy and have no idea what this “news” thing is, gave them loads of publicity, never noticing their own ratings and circulations plummet.

Then these hucksters, who have all sorts of carny tricks to seem as if they have social media followers, get one of the now Sister Five to pay them big bucks for a book deal. They get paid as pundits — and that’s how they make their money.

It is hype, aided and abetted by journalists.

Then these grifters push their luck and keep going for the gutter, trying to keep in the spotlight, and they push one step too far, frighten a jittery press who all run away because they are looking for a safe and sure thing with zero effort, trolls on Twitter rant like idiots, and then the scheme collapses.

The outlets who paid thinking they had some sort of find or get, stop footing the bills, and the house of cards collapses.

But the numbers aren’t really there to ever justify the lavish attention.

Not even the hate watchers.

Everything is inflated. No-platforming doesn’t work because there is no real platform to begin with.

It’s a sham.

You have people play up to the press, buy fake followers, and put on a dog and pony show, and then they are somehow “celebrities” or controversial newsmakers.

And Vox ought to know it is all a shell-game considering they aren’t a very popular publication.

I have a small, but stable readership here. I had a much bigger one a decade ago with Chaser News, but even back then, I could see the writing on the wall. You don’t have much to work with given the climate and the me-focused population who would rather look at their own social media feed than get genuinely informed.

And now they are even boring themselves as they are also abandoning their own outlets.

I don’t try to drum up business for myself. I spend nothing on advertising. I post links on Tumblr and Twitter automatically, but the bulk of my audience come from searching for something on a search engine, stumbling on me, looking at the “Who is She?” section, and then sticking around.

And to these people, thank you. Thank you for being your own thinkers and making your own decision to stay.

That’s the audience I want: the ones who think for themselves, and arrive here absolutely on their own volition.

Tomorrow, some trolls may target me and have Twitter and Tumblr censor me.

It will not make a dent because I don’t “work” those sites.

This is my base of operations, and I am in a good place with that.

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:

“EVERYONE’S FOR SALE”: A GENERATION OF DIGITAL-MEDIA DARLINGS PREPARES FOR A FRIGID WINTER

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…

The re-launching of Chaser News, Part Thirty-Four: If you are babbling about "truth sandwiches", you really don't know truth.

Western civilization is one that infantilizes adults.

It is the reason why those over-thinking and over-educated sheltered souls keep missing the mark.

We have a linguistics professors actually going on record, thinking that he is more cunning than Donald Trump, and babbling and spewing about truth sandwiches.

Are you serious?

Do you honestly think this is some high school debate?

Memo to George Lakeoff: this isn’t your classroom, this is real life, and you obviously have lived a very sheltered life.

So, let me give you a little lesson in reality.

People will marry ugly slobs who will eventually steal their money, isolate them from their family, and when they get what they want, off them.

No non-existent, ABC Afterschool Special “truth sandwich” will convince them of anything. They have their fairy princess narrative, people who are not in love with the scum bucket will be painted as jealous, and they will be ignored.

And do not instruct the moronic press with lessons because they are as corrupt as the president.

And that’s why people do not believe them, either.

It’s all just a line in the sand, and when you have a linear divide, people will see their superiority, and then that’s it.

Psychologist Brett Silverstein showed that creating two random groups was all it took.

So save your lectures for your captive audience of students.

But don’t buy your own hype.

Trump is more cunning than you, and more cunning than journalists.

And anyone who talks about truth sandwiches with a straight face is asking for a knuckle sandwich instead.

I will not be treating adults as children.

Come February, the dynamics of this web site will change.

I have been busy lately, and among other things, I have three weeks to go on my course, and a move to make.

I will be writing a book for a US publisher as well; so things are picking up here, but I promised a few things, and they will be coming.

I never talked down to people — not back then, not now.

And I don’t defer to authority, either.

If some people thought they didn’t like what I had to say before, they have not seen anything yet…

The Politics of Noise: It's all bullshit. We have an empty noise that burns, and nothing but bullshit to show for it.

Long gone are the days of Bayard Rustin, who is Person #22 on the List of People Everyone Should Know.

He was a strategist during the Civill Rights Movement, and he was an African-American who was also gay, and never hid it.

He was a pacifist, however, a rare quality in strategists. He didn’t beat up on people, particularly those who pummelled him during demonstrations. He’d talk to them, and do something that made the person walk away, knowing full well they were the cowards who took their deficiencies out on the superior person.

His politics was the one of Sound, and what he said had meaning:

We need in every bay and community a group of angelic troublemakers.

But his message got lost along the way, as Sound is no longer what people make.

But Noise.

We have women pretend to be “activists” and make false accusations, and then say they did it as a “tactic.”

And then those little propagandists at Vox try to spin it by blaring in a headline that “It’s not one of the ones you’ve heard of.”

You mean, it is not one of the ones you paraded to the little people as if that mattered? That she made the accusation through official channels is what counts, not whether the slumbering middle class or dead media knew about it because neither group knows much about anything.

They know how to make Noise.

Not Sound.

And Noise killed journalism.

The New York Post thinks it gets it by asking for the President and the press to tone it down.

You can tone down the noise all you want, it is still bullshit.

We have “Ontario Proud” claiming they defeated the Ontario Liberals in the last election.

No, you didn’t.

The brag is Noise.

The voters who hedged their bets on the NDP fucked up enough votes to allow the suburbs and rural areas to make their votes count.

It was Orange Noise that sunk the Grits.

The federal Grits are equally deluded and think their Noise got them elected, and now want to pass a law to prevent other Noise from fucking them the way they fucked the previous Tory regime.

It had nothing to do with that Noise machine.

Trudeau promised free money for pushing out babies and legalizing pot.

Society allows connivers to think they have power and control and give them distracting tasks to scheme and plot as the world spins on the way it wishes to spin.

You cannot claim to be the force of a zeitgeist or ortgeist.

We have the brain dead knuckle-draggers at the Toronto Star wondering if there is some sort of Left-wing populism coming to Canada.

There is no other kind of politics in Canada but populism - Left or Right.

It is a byproduct of an ignorant news media and middle class.

Fill people’s hearts and minds with Sound, and they find solutions.

Fill it with Noise, and they do nothing but create problems.

And we are in an Age of Propaganda where it is all Noise, all of the time.

Noise is bullshit. It is trying to dismiss everything that does not align with your interpretation of reality. Vox is sophistry garbage that has discredited the Left along with the other propagandist and partisan Noise.

You have empty noise that burns and destroys. You have morons who think they are informed and political, and do not realize they are Victorian puritanical religious zealots who just mindlessly parrot whatever Noise sounds good.

Babbling, spewing, and rage puking. That is what happened to the Left along the way. They abandoned reality and truth for the sake of power, money, and bragging rights, and the more extremist they are, they more greedy and corrupt they become.

Left, Right, they have no difference in structure. They use the same rigged games.

And the same Noise.

Rustin was always ignored. He was always a footnote because he rejected Noise for Sound.

He was ignored then as he is now, but when Noise burns, it hides all the truths as it blinds us to reality — and the reality is that we have no information to guide us anymore…

Petty Media Fights.

I love this silly and petty meltdown piece from Vox.

The little journalists run after two authorities at a press conference, a canned event. A CNN journalist tries to ask the US President a question, but the president calls CNN "fake news", decides to ignore the question and answers one from a Fox News reporter.

Cue in mass temper tantrum because the Fox News kid asked it and "did not stand up" for the CNN kid, with all sorts of reporters in shock and Morally Outraged because reporters are supposed to stand up for one another, and CNN had done it for Fox and blah blah blah.

Oh, shut up.

First of all, a press conference is the epitome of "Fake News." It is a canned event. Authority herds the little sheep into a room, reads from a prepared script, press gives free publicity, authority may allow questions to be asked before they are deflected or bridged, and then everyone in the room reports on the same canned event where they all get the same facts.

It's like getting food from the same tainted vat. That is not news, and that we still have reporters play the same game in 2018 is really vile.

Shame on you all for going to report at a press conference. That's what Authorities are doling out to the public.

So now that journalism is no longer a thing, the lot of you all stoop to having a slap fight amongst yourselves is just silly.

No wonder the president has no respect for journalism. No one with a working brain does.

Why are you there, anyway? What is the actual point?

To say you were in the same room as two world leaders? To spew some packaged babble to the little people and think you are actually doing something?

You're not doing anything but being children who are getting cranky to the point your parents can't take you to nice places without throwing a hissy fit in public...

 

Why is journalism dead? Because they truly have no guidance or sense to resurrect themselves.

I

It is an Age of Propaganda where you have journalists becoming paupers relying on their various regimes to financially support them. The Guardian got all happy because New Jersey will throw some pennies to prevent journalists from facing the consequences of their own ineptitude. ($5 million for an entire state's print media? That won't do anything but make the taxpayers of the state five million dollars poorer).

The moralizing spin that newspapers are important for "civic health" is rubbish. Journalism is a business and not a public service.

And the Internet has taken over what journalism did when they controlled the flow of information. The idea obviously stems from a bygone era -- and when you think in the past, you have no future because you have no idea about the state of your present reality.

Worse still, why are you forcing taxpayers to pay for a product that -- if they wanted to support -- could do it directly?

And why throw money in a black hole -- you are just encouraging the same bad behaviour that brought a profession to its ruin?

What will change? Nothing because you cannot throw money at a problem and expect a miracle.

You need fundamental changes -- and it is easier to start fresh with a game plan and expertise going in, than part with taxpayers's money on a lost cause.

And with strings attached, those paupers are not going to reporting on anything that will threaten their sugar-daddies.

Start fresh. Have a plan. Get expertise.

And see the reality of the situation.

If journalism was functioning, it wouldn't have died. It was sick for a real, and it got sicker because people in it never thought they had any flaws.

But reality and journalism have been on the outs for a long time now.

II

The stupidity does not end there.

Vox, the partisan online site that drowns itself in sophistry, has this oblivious review:

Journalism has a trust problem. The podcast In the Dark proposes a compellling solution.

The terrific series, examining flaws in the criminal justice system, stands up for old-fashioned reporting.

Todd VanDerWerff's puerile ramblings begin with the same perpetually oblivious and profound lack of industry self-awareness:

In an era when the media isn’t trusted by huge swathes of people and when the president himself cries “fake news” at every opportunity about stories he doesn’t like or finds inconvenient, I’m fascinated by how different outlets are trying to navigate the shoals of reader distrust and confusion.

It could not possibly be because journalists did many things to undermine their own credibility.

And of course, arrogance as the next utterance proves:

I frequently find myself wondering if many publications are written less for their readers than for other journalists. They rely heavily on a certain amount of savvy not just with the subjects journalists cover, but with the mechanics of journalism itself.

Of course, journalists are too smart for the dumb rubes they are forced to rely on for their living.

Memo to Todd VanDerWerff: you do realize some of those audiences you alienated have graduate degrees, have white collar jobs, and are doctors, professors, researchers, lawyers, engineers, judges, psychologists, authors, teachers, accountants, pilots, and other educated professionals who are not stupid?

You obvious lack the savvy you have fooled yourself into thinking you have. Get over yourself.

It gets worse:

In my chosen field of entertainment journalism, there are certainly publications where the intended audience is incredibly savvy about these things. A piece I write about the economics of the television industry will have to cover more of the nuts-and-bolts basics than one in, say, Variety, because the presumed audience of Variety is made up predominantly of people already in that industry, whereas my presumed audience probably doesn’t spend a lot of time thinking about who’s going to get the streaming rights to Killing Eve.

First, "entertainment journalism" is not hard news. It is soft news. And Variety is a trade publication, which has a completely different mandate than general outlets. I wrote for both.

Second, your job in both cases is to speak to your audiences and inform them, not down to them. There is no excuse not to do it.

I had no trouble taking an audience's experiences into my equations. How hard is it to tell the people that certain diseases have no cures? Or that a law will cost taxpayers's more money? Or that a country has no laws against a certain danger?

Where is this nonsense coming from?

I laughed at this part:

This is one of the reasons the podcast In the Dark works so well. Each season tackles a new unsolved crime as a window into problems with the American justice system. The show’s reporters are invested not just in presenting their findings to the audience, but in showing the audience all of the work that went into them — sometimes quite literally.

You mean how I did Chaser News way back in 2007?

You mean like that? Except in this case, there seems to be a lot of filler unimportant ambient sound effects that have no purpose except to pretend that people are doing work and want applause for it.

No real facts.

There is some serious disconnect from reality here because this is nothing but cheerleading advertising for a journalism product, making it rank propaganda.

And none of it would remotely have saved journalism. The structure of the podcast is no different than anyone else.

To the author of this fluff piece, the solution is to go back in time when we have technology that makes that obsolete.

Just how credulous is Vox?

Credulous enough to have no clue who this journalism thing was supposed to work.

III

Perhaps the worst opinion piece I have ever read on the matter is Nelanthi Hewa's drivel from The Hamilton Spectator with this oblivious headline:

The search for truth in journalism must also consider humanity

As consumers, our eyes are incredibly valuable. Maybe it’s important to know when to close them.

Are you actually serious?

The beginning of the article is absolutely shocking in its tone deafness to reality:

"You're exploiting me," she said. "You're trying to dig something out of me." She didn't hang up. Instead, there were the sounds of the key in her office door, her loud, shaky breathing. 

I whispered an apology and ended the call.

I had been a journalism student at Western University for less than a year, but I was already used to feeling nervous as I planned my questions before an interview, or feeling elated during one when I heard the perfect quote. I was wholly unused to feeling ashamed for doing exactly what I was taught.

Do you actually understand what journalism is supposed to be about?

No, obviously. No, there is no humanity in willfully shutting your eyes.

Memo to Nelanthi Hewa: when you are a chronicler of reality, many people will become angry at you. You are not there to get a pat on the head. That is a highly unethical and immoral expectation. (This is no different than this misguided article suggesting that previous published allegations should be off limits unless a victim signs off on it, regardless of the consequences. Reality rarely is a comfortable experience, and those who comes from the snowflake school of life make things worse by suggesting that people should be weakened. You publish something, you have it on the public record. The end, and it is about time that the Victorian notion of victim's being weakling children be put to rest.)

People throw up the Moral Outrage facade in a bid to hide unflattering things from a public. People do not want the neighbours to know, for instance, that mommy and daddy may have, you know, let the uncle molest the kids and did nothing about it.

And should that kid's screams for help go ignored and that same kid takes his or her own life because of it -- do you really think mommy and daddy are going to answer honestly to a reporter who will destroy their image of being a good mommy and daddy?

No. They will get angry that someone cracked their code. They are going to be enraged to discover they are not the most cunning liars on the planet who can fool all seven-point-four billion of us.

I have dealt with people who pulled that stunt -- yelling at me, insulting my intelligence, you name it. It didn't make them in the right because every one had something they wanted hidden -- something the rest of the world needed to hear.

I once interviewed someone who kept things hidden during the interview, and as I tried to verify each fact I was told, something funny happened: things didn't add up. Every fact did not add up. I went back to check old yearbooks. I discovered a timeline I was presented did not add up. This was supposed to be a minor point in what I was researching -- a throwaway point.

When I found out that there was a deviation and managed to fill in the gap myself, I discovered why it was: because in that gap there was hidden information that put the story in a completely different light.

It was unflattering information, but it went a long way to explaining the story, and how a very bad event got to that level over a decade later.

There is zero humanity in keeping your eyes shut. 

Only people who want to corrupt the information stream with lies and get pats on the head go for that garbage.

When you do that job right, people think you are rude. They yell at you. They threaten to sue you, hurt you, and even kill you. I have gotten all of that when I worked as a journalist. I had executives call me stupid. I have people try to imply their morals trumped mine.

And you know what?

Every single person had something to hide.

On the other hand, I interviewed people in jail who broke the law. Those people got caught, discovered their lies were paper thin, and they outsmarted themselves.

They had lots of time to sit and think as they had to face the fact that they got broken by life.

Those interviews were always more honest.

For the exception of one, they all gave me a brutal assessment of reality. Every feint and ruse betrayed them, and the funny thing was, every fact they relayed to me was both embarrassing for them, but always checked out under the toughest scrutiny.

If a journalist had done their job earlier on, those same people would be throwing fits, playing the Moral Card, pulling every stunt in the book to hide the truth from being made public.

But those journalists could have gotten that emotional thrashing, printed the truth, and prevented many of those people from ending up in jail, separated from their children, losing their careers, and their freedoms.

And there would be people reading those facts who, for the first time in their sheltered lives, would be exposed to something that refuted their life theory that they could get away with very bad things, and give them an alternative.

Humanity is not shutting your eyes. People already do that.

If you are a true humanist, you expose the ugliest of truths by asking the cruelest of questions.

Because angels are demons to the wicked.

This is written by someone who obviously has no idea how this whole journalist thing is supposed to work.

To answer the question you posed:

As I turned to peers and professors for advice, I started to wonder: is journalism exploitative?

Yes, it has been exploitative. And do you know why?

1. It had people pretend to look for facts when they relied on press releases for information.

2. It deified and demonized people to suit their narrative ends without ever actually interviewing everyone they needed or asking the hard questions of those who had something to gain by spinning reality.

3. It let inconsistencies go without pressing people who yelled at them.

4. You had gullible rubes who fell for feints of interviewees who pulled the Morality Card instead of wonder why is this person getting uncomfortable with the questions.

And journalism -- the dead profession -- still thinks it can figure out without any expertise how to save itself?

Not a chance.

Not a chance when you have tripe like this:

We're told that the job of a journalist is to seek the truth. While that search is often glamorized as demanding tough questions of people in power, it also involves asking people with very little power — even over themselves — to reveal ugly, painful parts of their lives. 

Even people who have "very little power" can exploit that power and leverage it to shelter themselves from being forced to answer for their unethical ways. Do not kid yourself.

It is these kinds of cowardices that destroyed journalism. It is not about getting accolades and applause. People prefer comforting lies that will destroy them over the disturbing truths that will compel them to admit wrongdoing, force active thinking, and then make big and small changes to improve the situation.

It is an Age of Propaganda where people are trying to find hacks and easy outs, but still expect to build a solid foundation.

But this is why journalism cannot resurrect itself: it has no idea how badly they messed up. It has no clue what went wrong, and then listen to those who have no expertise or research tell them what they want to hear.

It is a vile mindset that got corrupted by the rot of its own death.

Journalism has no idea what it is doing and how it could have corrected itself. None. It doesn't look for critical voices because as the Spec column cheerily suggests, we should all not ask tough questions and shut our eyes to reality.

No expertise. No research. Just beg for money and make no changes as you spew garbage, and then wonder why your fortunes stink...

Goodbye journalism. Hello F.R.E.E.D.

What a vile and dirty week for the dead profession of journalism.

Time magazine plasters its covers with a little distressed child they exploited for propaganda purposes, only it was revealed she wasn't separated from her mother.

Pick the child who fits the bill, Time. How hard could it be?

CBC cancels their little show On the Money because they don't have the money to fund it.

Vox just discovers that misogyny is still rampant in journalism, as "serious" male reporters who cover Important Political Stories completely ignore women who address them on Twitter.

Tell me something I don't already know, fellas. When I hear from a Serious Male Journalist, he fires a terse email to me with some complaint or directive on how I should think or write on my website.

But apparently we need a "study" to prove something anyone can eyeball all by themselves.

The New York Times is charging $300 dollars for a plain t-shirt babbling about truth, as if the Times would know about that.

It comes off as a silly culture-jamming hoax a la Joey Skaggs, but then again, becoming grifters to make a cheap buck is real possibility for those hucksters, too. To say with a serious face that you are "fighting fake news" with an overpriced rag to fund your other overpriced rag shows just how misaligned with the Truth the Times has always been.

Then Columbia Journalism Review is whining because the Washington Post won't write about the big bad warehouses of their parent company Amazon, but want their overlord to "share the wealth" and sink money into their scuttle ship.

But the worst came from the Village Voice with the writer who broke the Brandon Teena murder all those years ago trying to backtrack because she originally reported the reason the late Teena "became" transgender (not my implication) was that he was sexually abused -- but, what's this? -- because this is not the accepted narrative, somehow it was wrong to frame it this way, using the excuse that because the author was self-identifies as a "cis queer" individual, that somehow placed blinders on the simple act of gathering facts.

No excuse, cis or otherwise: you either found verified facts that flat-out showed that Teena identified as transgender because of sexual abuse -- and in that case, activist narratives are obviously not all-encompassing and hence must be bravely challenged because no one is above being called out on the carpet for PR-driven stereotyping -- or the author just drew the conclusion herself to put forth some sort of fantasy narrative to spin a yarn -- and if that is the case, she is guilty of something far worse than guessing the motives of someone wrong -- but of putting narrative above truth.

If you made it up for the sake of a riveting yarn, then your entire story was deceptive and dishonest. You didn't do your homework and you peddled lies instead of finding facts, hiding the lack of research with colour. That is still cowardice.

And if you had people who would be in a position to know tell you an inconvenient fact, then that has to be presented as it is, even if you have special-interest groups howl because it doesn't fit their own narratives because they think all in their group think alike and walk lockstep. We often lump different groups into one big one because we want TORTEE, when the truth is these factions are very different, even being at odds, and one is being sacrificed for the sake of the larger group who forces a harmful misinterpretation on that smaller group.

If we had facts and let go of the narratives, we would actually be in a position to know, but here we go, as usual -- a journalist babbling a narrative of virtue-signalling, while the rape and murder victim, whose life was nothing but heartache and oppression -- winds up as the footnote. People won awards and made careers on the back of Brandon Teena. He deserved better than that. Enough of the self-serving do-overs. Someone was molested with no justice, discarded, and then was abused again with no one to save him before getting slaughtered.

How many times was this one young person abused with impunity? How many others are out there still being ignored because we have reporters more obsessed with how they came off in retrospect than with normalized torture?

That's what happens when a profession is rotten to the core.

They implode, and then try to destroy every beautiful thing in the world, trying to kill truth with lies, bravery with cowardice, and love with hate -- all while pretending to do the opposite.

It has become sick.

And I have chronicled this sickness for most of my adult life.

Journalism used to be a thing. It used to be a good thing and a useful thing. It used to be a strong thing.

My book explains why it is no longer a thing.

In the book.

I have more to say about other things on this web site, but Project Chapter Three is coming when the time is right, but suffice to say, while I will promote my latest book, I am saying goodbye and good riddance to journalism. 

And I am saying hello to F.R.E.E.D.

It will be fun. It will be silly. It will be exciting, positive, unpredictable, eccentric, enigmatic, and wild.

But it will be tackle serious topics, but not in the traditional sense.

Stay tuned!

xoxo,

Alexandra.