Academia needs renewal: Why the reactionaries are upset with Doug Ford.

Universities in Ontario are in a tizzy because Doug Ford is going to prevent double-dipping of pensioned professors, but this push is long overdue.

The old guard haven’t brought the shifts and innovations because they are stuck in a status quo vortex. Education has been watered down. They give PhD’s like drugs at a rave because the scam was to get snoots with bad book ideas some promise that getting a doctorate in Humanities or Social Science was some kind of hack to getting a book deal (right, and all those Harvard professors are going to get thrown in the back of the line for the upstart whose long in the tooth. Give me a break). Undergrads scam their ways to degrees through waterworks and academic dishonesty.

We have a monopoly of academic journals. Research is for sale. Fresh perspectives have been shut out because the old guard doesn’t want to admit their theories are flawed. Journalism collapsed in large part because j-schools coasted and didn’t do what they were supposed to do.

This kind of seniority wall is nothing new or just confined to academia. In art during the turn of the century in Europe, the Secessionist Movement that brought us Art Nouveau was a push against that kind of confines: news styles and innovations were kept back and no new visionary was given an opportunity to bring something fresh and bold to the table. Artists such as Gustav Klimt would have never had a chance unless the younger crowd broke those barriers the old guard put up.

Universities in Ontario are in a rut. They are obsessed with some bastardized version of political correctness that’s not actually about diversity at all: they are keeping everything in place with no new vision, meaning it’s just lip service. The patriarchal structure is choking new schools of thought, experiments, perspectives, and innovations. They are clinging on for dear life and there is no renewal, just distractions by trying to ideologically bribe students and give them an easy ride so they don’t see just how antiquated and backwards their education has become.

J-schools are the worst of the offenders. There are no schools of thought, inventions, or innovations — zero.

So why are professors allowed to jaw around there? To pull a pay check they do not deserve while getting a pension to boot?

Universities are supposed to cradles for new ideas. This is a matriarchal institution. It was never supposed to be a patriarchal one, and yet we have people who should have been pushed off the stage long ago. There should come a point where there are places for the old guard to be productive — but in another venue. You have had long enough to incubate whatever ideas you finessed and refined.

Now put those ideas back in the real world to test them.

For those who argue that the old guard may be the only ones who can teach a certain discipline, then that shows the utter failure of universities — if those departments failed to plant seeds for the next generation, then they should be closed. We have done this all the wrong way, and sometimes we need an outsider to wake us up from our slumber for us do to what we needed to do for a long time.

And universities have been asleep for too long…

So you wanna be a journalist? You must be a slave to scripts. Columbia Journalism babbles nincompoopity. Again.

Columbia Journalism Review represents everything that is wrong with journalism: bullshit narratives with no empiricism. They have a piece of garbage article that isn’t worth reading, but it’s sunny spinning rot is worth noting.

Journalism collapsed, and what is needed is a swift kick out the door.

And a replacement to rejuvenate information dissemination.

As in new methods and mandates. Empirical methods and narrative-free and propaganda-free structures that are matriarchal and epistolary. It should have been reinvented to do away with partisan garbage, demonization and deification once and for all.

Even if the reality deniers want to pretend journalism isn’t dead, the fact that has been in decline with no end in sight for decades should be enough for people to want to do something new.

So CJR is propaganda and has a vested interest in luring future j-school suckers and steal their dough.

And the only ones who would fall for such a ruse are the script followers and the cowards who do not innovate.

Whoop di do…

Memo to Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism: I read your little "report", and you knuckle-draggers still don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

The more people in journalism education spew, the more ignorant they reveal themselves to be.

And why the old guard needs to clear out.

They are perpetual bunglers.

Even if they draw a pay check from Oxford University (I took a short course on Art Nouveau from the uni last year because I am a silversmith, and it was a fabulously informative course, but art history has nothing to do with journalism).

But boy, do they not know the first thing about journalism or journalism education.

The wankers put out this farce of a bullshit report that is atrocious and ignorant on every level:

Time to step away from the ‘bright, shiny things’? Towards a sustainable model of journalism innovation in an era of perpetual change

It is ignorant garbage cobbled together by motherfucking poseurs who really aren’t very bright.

So what does the propaganda say?

Nothing real.

You don’t have to go very far to see it is an attempt for a bunch of leeches to try to keep their racket going.

They puke about “storytelling” as if that should be a part of journalism.

Assholes, if you want to do the storytelling, go write fiction.

People need facts to know about reality, not about the bodice-ripper narratives that you fart out that stink.

The report is a feint, trying pretend they are on to something, when they are prolonging the agony of pulling a big, shiny salary as the profession imploded.

You assholes — every single one — should be fired for incompetence. The fact that journalism collapsed under your watch is all that anyone needs to know.

Memo to the University of Oxford: kick those wankers out. Do not promote bullshit and draw attention to the fact that you have an embarrassingly shitty faculty run by goobers who do not know what the fucking hell they are doing.

Because they spinning yet another bullshit story as they drag you down with them…

MEMO TO THE UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS: PLEASE TELL ME THAT THIS IS A JOKE...

PLEASE.

This is some wacky exercise your j-school program thought up to get some attention?

Leeds Trinity journalism department issued the prohibition in a memo to staff, explaining that uppercase print could "scare [students] into failure." The missive about "enhancing student engagement and achievement" included a number of other dos and don'ts. 

Lecturers were advised to write to students in a friendly tone and to avoid overbearing language and negative instructions. As the Express noted, among the prohibited terms listed were "do" and "don't."

The memo, which was obtained by the newspaper, said: "Despite our best attempts to explain assessment tasks, any lack of clarity can generate anxiety and even discourage students from attempting the assessment at all."

Your j-school students cannot handle ALL CAPS, then how will they handle death threats, threat of law suits, war zones, belligerent sources and the like?

They have to brave as soldiers because that is what they are signing up for.

An intangible war to liberate truth from lies.

This is why journalism education failed. They are not strengthening or toughening up students.

They are grooming them to spew press releases.

I hope this is a joke from someone with a silly sense of humour.

Either way, no wonder journalism is no longer a thing…

The Sucker Circus: The Good Samaritan Hoax is exposed.

The middle class love their feel-good stories.

johnny-bobbitt-1.jpg

And journalists love spewing them because they are cheap and fact-free yarns that are easy to do and no questions asked.

Mark D'Amico, Kate McClure and Johnny Bobbitt were spinning a yarn: McClure ran out of gas, homeless Bobbitt gave her twenty dollars for gas, and she and her boyfriend D’Amico set up a GoFundMe page and netted over $400000.

And then the truth came out that the story was a scam.

And a very different picture emerged.

scam-1542317056-622.jpg

No one bothered to verify any of it, and when you are dealing with a crowdsourcing story, it is extremely important to verify.

It is a sucker circus out there, and the carnivalesque antics I have covered in 2005 in my first book.

This yarn had all of the markings of a typical grifter’s scam.

But journalists are not trained in spotting those feints and ruses.

And I have been fighting for the last two decades to change that.

But it won’t.

And you are left on your own if you want to donate money to shady people who know how to manipulate reporters…

The re-launching of Chaser News, Part Twenty-Five: Journalism never got out of the Stone Age. Neither did j-schools.

Journalism is still a very misogynistic industry.

The managanda from the National Post is obnoxious, and the fact that they pay women to spew self-loathing propaganda doesn’t make it okay.

The structure is still Patriarchal. The assumptions are still skewed and rigged to favour those who oppress others. You can pretend to be politically correct all you want, but if you have a system that shames people for thinking differently than you do, then you are not a free or democratic society.

And sexist it remains. We see articles on white male doctors who have breakthroughs, but I doubt you know Person #23 on the List of People Everyone should know.

Dr. Jane C. Wright.

336.jpg

You may have heard of her breakthrough treatment from the 1940s.

Chemotherapy.

That’s right, for those of you who fought against cancer and won thanks to that treatment, that’s the African-American woman who saved your life.

Yet do we talk about her at all? Do you know who we are discussing?

No.

Not at all.

The whitebread folks never do.

Women have a lot to contribute, but when they do, they are not appreciated.

And it takes years for them to be able to see their plans through.

I have been fighting that fight for over a quarter of a century.

Try getting j-schools to listen to a radical new approach to journalism.

I am white, but female, and the road is no easier for me.

And yet, Google sees me as a person of note.

Screen Shot 2018-11-14 at 1.03.16 PM.png

Twitter won’t give me a blue check mark, but the biggest search engine does.

And so does Bing.

Screen Shot 2018-11-14 at 2.52.32 PM.png

McMaster University recognized me with their Arch Award — and I was the first female to receive it.

Screen Shot 2018-11-14 at 3.02.02 PM.png

I am referenced in academic articles. I am referenced in serious scholarly books. I have students from Ivy League schools interview me for their own scholarly work. I give talks, as I did to one lovely book club yesterday. I gave interviews.

And yet, I am shut out. Repeatedly.

My work is sound. My research goes beyond thorough — one of the members of yesterday’s book club marvelled at me having 61 pages of references.

Nice catch: I did have 61 pages of references; almost 14% of the book contains references I used.

That is thorough research.

I was as thorough with Chaser News, just as I was that thorough as an author, journalist, and academic student.

I use references from multiple countries and multiple languages. I use references from the distant past to the present. I have used interviews, studies, legislation, transcripts, you name it.

And I am certain many of you have stumbled upon my site, and have to click on the Who Is She? page to figure out who is this fiery woman who keeps saying journalism is dead?

How would she know?

I know because I am the creator of Method Research. I know because I have no trouble doing the legwork and seeing things up close for myself.

I work tirelessly on this problem and have done so for many years. I have had comments that I should be creating programs at the university level to change journalism’s ways.

And as I have said, I have.

Read When Journalism was a Thing, and see how much I have crafted the blueprints for such a thing. Read Don’t Believe It!: How lies become news because that is a textbook for information verification for journalists.

But I am routinely ignored.

I do not stop trying.

And I am still actively working on it. Chaser as well A Dangerous Woman Story Studio figure into F.R.E.E.D. and Matriarchal Storytelling and prominently so, and both have been around for a while now.

But unfortunately, too much of the toiling could be entirely avoided and placed where it should be placed: at creating something innovative and new — not having to create the space to make it.

And don’t think I am expecting a statue, building, or huzzahs for this work.

Dr. Wright invented chemotherapy, and you all still don’t even know her name…

Journalism education was always on my mind...

This is a video from the early aughts when I was taking a development course for professors at Sheridan College where I worked at the time. This was my presentation and sample of a proposed course I have wanted to do, but j-schools always frowned on the real stuff…

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 Twenty-Eight.

When an industry or institution is incapable of admitting they have faults and flaws, you know the industry has been hijacked and corrupted by both narcissists and conmen who create a façade of perfection so no one would go snooping into their affairs.

They may pretend to criticize, but the verbal slight of hand always gives some sort of false Mary Sue excuse.

Such as The Hill’s recent spew from Jack Lule:

Hate the news? Blame TV

The entire column hinges on a single book by Neil Postman whose very flawed 1985 work Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business is, as usual, a backhanded indictment of a president the American press did not want to see elected. So how to justify it?.

The article offers this piece of sophistry:

With the advent of the telegraph and photography, in Postman’s telling, print is overtaken by new, electronic media with a different bias. Information is valued for its novelty and speed, not its usefulness. Beliefs are derived from images, not serious inquiry and discourse. Seeing, not reading, becomes the basis for believing.

That is assuming that print and radio before it offered serious inquiry and discourse, which it never actually did. The reading level for newspapers were for decades at a grade school level; so we can discount television for doing something different in terms of content. It has always been thirty miles wide, but one inch deep.

The piece rambles on, deferring to Postman without question, but it is this passage that I find the most telling:

“There is no murder so brutal, no earthquake so devastating, no political blunder so costly — for that matter, no ball score so tantalizing or weather report so threatening — that it cannot be erased from our minds by a newscaster saying, ‘Now . . . this.’”

I wrote news stories for television news, and I know this is written by someone who never had any actual experience as a journalist.

The amount of scrubbing and sanitizing journalists do is absolutely shocking. I made those shot lists by watching the feeds at three o’clock in the morning, and those images were vile, brutal, and very, very graphic.

What made the news was not anywhere near the level of depravity. It is sanitized to an extreme, and I ought to know as I saw the footage daily: I saw religious ceremonies where worshippers stomped over the dead bodies of fellow worshipers who fell down — and far from being peaceful and helping their fellow believer, just stampeded over them. I saw governments forcibly removed homeless people out of their shelters with chilling violence. I saw corpses of young women who were raped, tortured, murdered, and left in shallow graves where even the skull betrayed the horror of the last few second of life. All those images burned into my mind and are vivid.

And this fact completely undermines Postman’s hypothesis.

If every facet of life is sugarcoated by television because the reality is far worse, then television is not actually providing any sort of spectacle. They are downplaying reality, not making it sound worse, but better than it really is.

So Postman didn’t know what he was talking about. He made uneducated guesses and completely missed the mark, as scholars are notorious to do as they dance around a topic, and never delve into the heart by walking in it themselves.

The ramblefest ends with a contrived observation:

Did decades of television news bring us to our current, degraded public discourse? Did television news take the world apart so that we cannot piece it together again?

We have generations of Americans who have accepted the lesson that news does not matter and, bitterly, it was a lesson taught by news itself. 

No, bad journalism did that. Journalism that never showcased reality. Journalism that was never empirical. Journalism that never operationalized its most basic terms, and hence could never get a pulse on anything.

And as a professor, Lule should already know this, but doesn’t.

So we have professors, journalists, and hybrids who don’t actually have a basic comprehension of their own profession. They are as oblivious now as they were since day one. The lack of self-awareness is a real cause for concern, and explains why journalism became a dysfunctional and dishonest mess.

The alternative can never be so sloppy or have a laissez-faire attitude toward the very stuff of its core. You have to see reality for what it is — not some spin to serve your selfish purposes, but reality.

Journalism never saw its own reality, and it is the reason it never saw its own collapse coming. It is always someone else’s fault because journalists are blameless and faultless.

Not a chance.

It is about vigilance. A profession without original thought and vigilance will always be dependent on tricks, stunts, and scripts to fake it.

And once fakery corrupts the industry, its product becomes divorced from reality, and can never truly connect to anyone.

There is nothing inherent about television to make it vulnerable to those games. There is nothing inherent about print, radio, or the Internet, either.

The only fault is the news producers.

No one else…

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

Journalism has been behaving as the arrogant and slacker egomaniac student who thought he could coast and pass…

And then, suddenly, realized he was failing miserably to the point of being thrown out of school.

Thinking that trying to seem hard-working, but being completely unaware of what they actually means and entails, tries to fake it within the last month of school, trying to save his backside.

Except it isn’t enough to counter the failures with the faux attempts, and gets kicked to the academic curb.

The quality of investigative pieces lately are so corrupted with spin, propaganda, and distorted tidbits of facts that the pieces are essentially garbage.

What is passed for investigative work these days is airing of petty and egocentric grievances from whiny and self-entitled individuals who never think they are to blame for anything, and demand that benevolent They should do all of the work flawlessly.

That’s not journalism. That is enabling the passive deluded who look all sad and pouty for the cameras as if that made their whining legitimate.

Or media outlets use big fonts with empty phrases such as “A Globe Spotlight Report”, signalling that there some sort of real effort by the press to dig deep, with embarrassingly contrived results.

The Boston Globe recently had such nincompoopity:

Inside our secret courts

Criminal charges often disappear without a trace. There are few rules and fewer records. In these private hearings, who you are — and who you know — may be just as important as right and wrong.

Sounds serious, except the headline doesn’t quite align with the actual goods.

First, and the biggest red flag that this piece is junk journalism is that the first paragraph starts with an anecdote, which is colour, or to put in more bluntly, filler.

It is a one-sided complaint, and as such, is not all that unless you investigate it from every angle before making a decree what actually went wrong.

But I found this passage hysterical:

But justice would elude her. The case would go into the darkest corner of the Massachusetts criminal justice system, where closed-door hearings are often held in private offices without public notice, where the outcome is up to the discretion of a single court official who may not have a law degree, and where thousands of substantiated criminal cases go to die every year.

You mean, like journalists have always done and still keep doing?

No public notice, where the outcome is up to the discretion of a single editor who does not actually have empirical training or got the job through nepotism, where hundreds of real stories die every year?

You mean just like journalism.

A journalism education is not an actual education. It doesn’t teach students how to actually research in the way that the profession had to train students to research or analyze data.

So here is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, and if the reporters themselves are passing judgement on their label of “secret court”, implying that it is an evil entity, and journalists have a profession that mimics this evil entity in every way, shape, and form, then how can we trust this article?

Or anything else they spew for that matter?

You can’t.

That is the reason the alternative must have much more rigorous and empirically-tested training than the current model.

Th point isn’t to lull the middle class into thinking they can crib shallow snippets and fake it, nor allow them the delusion that they actually know what is going on just because they have an uninformed opinion on it.

The point is to expose reality so that everyone actually fully understands what they actually know — and don’t know.

Journalism became the security blanket that cultivated arrogance and temper tantrums as a hack for righteous rage.

The alternative is the map that brings humility and understanding.

And there is a lot of arrogance and ignorance on the Troll Scroll.

42667533_1797115640387345_6091835016822652928_n.png

Yes, as the US military highlights the education, job training, and travel you can get as you “find your future in the army”, they never made it a secret, either. That marketing is not aimed at the wealthy or middle class, Sherlock, as considering both those better-to-dos threw hissy fits at the draft, the army had one venue left open to them.

The sheltered middle class believing they uncovered a secret truth when they were merely blind and ignorant of it until it suited their own purposes is not an actual accomplishment.

But they merely mimic how journalists conducted themselves when they used to be a thing.

And people of the Troll Scroll should remember that.

If people are followers, then the alternative mustn’t indulge that antiquated and geezerish way of reacting to the world.

But a more thorough and measured way that explores the actual nature and essence of truth, reality, perception, and interpretation instead…

Bad logic taints a Washington Post story...yet again.

The Washington Post’s delirium continues with an article about how there is a spike in admissions to j-school, which is absolutely meaningless because there is no corresponding surge in jobs or outlets.

The pay stinks, but the student debt will be high. The job security is nonexistent, but that is not the core of the problem.

There was also a surge in students applying to j-schools after the Watergate-based movie All the President’s Men.

Those kinds of students were the wrong kind of students — the ones who got taken in by Hollywood and the glam-factor. It was the film that set the profession horribly wrong, as I have stated here before.

This breed is no better. They are not innovators. They are not the ones who can save a dead profession. You can also major in Latin and Philosophy, but that isn’t going to get you gainfully employed.

You are now attracting ideologues and propagandists-in-training who react and want to make decrees from a standpoint of hate and irrationality, and not reason and facts.

Watergate the movie planted the corrupt seed in the profession, and it should always been a documentary. It would not have been glamorous, but if you are in journalism for the glamor, you have no business being in journalism.

And if you are in a profession to tell the little people how to think and what to do, you are needed in that profession even less.

It is not a rejuvenation. It wasn’t when you had people make long-term serious life decisions based on a fictionalized movie and not based on months of research and soul-searching.

4.JPG

You cannot do the same thing and expect a different outcome, but if you do something worse and expect something better, your logic is nonexistent and don’t expect the world to tune in to your hatred when they prefer the stench of their own on their Facebook feeds…

Starting over in a Post-Journalism World, Part Sixteen.

Journalism has always been about settling childish scores with people. It has been a form of schoolyard bullying for a long time.

Vendetta is not journalism. Propaganda is not journalism.

And right now, we are in an Age of Propaganda.

But this is one of fantasy play where people are playing make pretend. They pretend to be informed. They pretend they are heroes. They pretend that they are preachers with a flock.

With both parts being uninformed and misinformed, meaning perceptions are divorced from reality.

Journalism imploded because of it because now the plebs are their own broadcasters.

But the most peculiar thing is journalists were released among the commoners, and began to use the same thinking patterns. Social media corrupted them both.

People are people, after all.

And keeping up appearances is what people living in an Age of Propaganda do best.

Take the Daily Beast, for instance with this delusional spewing how Trump made journalism schools “great again.”

Don’t lie to the little people.

Have j-schools become more empirical?

No.

Have they found ways to boost the audience for outlets?

No.

Are media outlets still cutting, selling, and closing.

Yes.

Are j-school students do anything differently?

No.

Are j-school students making any radical changes or making demands from their educators other than to inflate their grades?

No.

Have those educators acknowledged the shortcomings of their educational methods and made revolutionary shifts?

No.

Have their created any new medium?

No.

Have they done anything other than do what they have done for decades: take the money of naive students, put them in debts, and then they cannot find a job in their chosen field after graduation?

No.

So the Daily Beast is the Daily Deluded or the Daily Liar.

It doesn’t matter what they spew, if they are grasping at straws, they have nothing of value to report. It is all spin to tell the middle class how to think.

Not facts.

The alternative resists the urge to draw people diagrams.

This is what happen. These are the facts. How this event, person, or issue is impacting your life is dependent on where you are in your life.

It is not about self-adoration, as the Beast’s pathetic attempt at propaganda does.

It is about looking at the bottom line.

Because appearances are mirages and lies.

Reality and truth do not abide by perceptions or appearances.

What works for the rich works against the poor.

What is rigged for the elite means they are weaker than they first appear, or else, there would be no rigs.

It is about more than informing an audience, but humbling them.

You do not know everything, nor should you pretend to make yourself appear intelligent or informed.

Every day, new facts come.

It is a never-ending process, and your fairytales have confined your thinking as it exploits fear.

An alternative spells it out, and liberates thought.

Because never had we so many words flashed before us — and never was the world as devoid of information as it is now…

Memo to The Atlantic: Just because you still have j-school students, doesn't mean they have the ability to save a dead profession. They are the Rote.

As I have commented numerous times here and in my book, journalism schools have not done one real or substantial thing to save journalism, and continue to teach using the same flawed theories and models with suckers and pigeons lining up to give money to what is essentially an academic scam. I have even used articles written by j-school students to show just how dysfunctional this segment of journalism is. The one place you would expect revolution and change is sputtering along in the same jalopy down the same garden path.

The Atlantic is doing what journalism always did: see a few people cluster together, and then decree it a trend. Their article about young Rotes enrolling in j-schools is a classic case of being shallow and not seeing the big picture.

Rotes are young people who memorize, mimic, and model with no creative input or output. They bring nothing to the table, but are conniving enough to think if they just march the way other people march, they will fly under the radar and get somewhere on someone else's ingenuity and hard work. They follow scripts have have no reasonable understanding of reality. They look for a paved path and march lockstep dutifully, believing that just because they have made a decree, that reality is going to bend to their fantasy and will.

It is no different than #NeverAgain. They do all the same things previous activists have done: blindly shill a side without looking at the facts that refute their own decrees. You have youth violence. You have kids murder other kids with guns.

But if you take away the guns, the problem doesn't solve itself.

So do you just want people not to have traditional guns? They can make 3D guns or eve make their own metal guns. They get smuggled guns or use a knife, a bomb, or even poison.

So why do we have youth activists go for the easy and lazy solution?

Because they are following their parents's scripts.

Doing the same thing, expecting a different outcome.

It would be more impressive if they called for action to see why their generation is murderous. It would be refreshing if they wanted to explore facts to find out whether the movies and games they consume are trashing their psyches -- and if not all of them are getting riled up by consumption of those media -- which ones are at risk, and what are the game plans?

That would show a proactive youth, but it is not. It is not even an active youth.

But a passive one going through the motions as a middle-aged spouse in a loveless marriage and a dead-end job.

So you have a cluster of followers go to j-school, and willingly submit to garbage education to get worthless degrees in a dead profession.

Whoop di do.

Most people who get a j-school degree never get to work in journalism, and of those who do, almost all of them have pay so horrid, they have to get jobs in other fields.

Why?

Because the education was always horrifically flawed, and did nothing to rejuvenate the profession.

Youth are not blameless and their blind fantasy is mistaken for idealism and optimism. It's not.

Optimists seek to transform, create, invent, and innovate. The ones in j-school haven't been doing that -- they honestly think that their partisan and propagandistic demands mean they have morals and being biased and with an agenda will force journalism to resurrect themselves and they will have better luck converting people to their skewed and self-serving demands than their fledging blogs and tweets.

You do not see demands for alternatives in journalism from this group. Ask hard questions, and watch the tantrums fly with snide and snippy remarks as they decree they are on top of a nonexistent moral pecking order than those who point out the obvious flaws in their theories.

You would think you had a generation see the collapse of journalism, and then want change in the profession. That would be the case if the motive wasn't primarily driven by an ego and a need to manipulate and meddle.

Older generations who destroyed journalism have a lot to answer for and should be forced to do so.

But younger generation who follow in the same footsteps also need to be held accountable for enabling rot. They may not have experience or a fully developed brain -- but they do have eyes and the ability to compare and contrast to see the reality of a situation.

J-school students who go into those programs have already proven to be incapable journalists: if they cannot see the reality of the situation and go in all the same with no plan to create something functional than the dead model, then how can they possibly be expected to resurrect a dead profession?

They can't.

If you had a generation have the courage and the morals to demand the alternative because they saw what an outmoded model of journalism did to societies, it would be glorious and a breath of fresh air. It would be a true revolution and a sign for progress and improvement.

This isn't it. This is a group of investors sinking their money in Enron stocks just as the company was exposed to being a fraud just because older people got rich in it a few years ago.

It is the same logic and lunacy. Nothing more.

Memo to University Affairs: J-schools failed. Your article can't put a sunny spin on academic incompetance.

Canadian journalists cannot deal with reality.

It doesn't matter if they write or broadcast, or if they work for trades or mainstream publications, reality is something they do not know how to cover because they do not know how to see it.

It is why the profession of journalism collapsed and did as badly in Canada as it did.

Take this rambling article in University Affairs about how journalism schools are struggling:

Journalism programs struggle to adapt to changing times

As news media navigate a time of unparalleled disruption, training the next generation of journalists has never been more of a challenge.

They have more than struggled: they have utterly failed.

But no Canadian journalism story can function without trying to put a positive spin on failure or tragedy. It is cowardly and deceptive, but that's the Canadian journalism way.

The article tries desperately to find the silver lining in tornado clouds the destroyed an entire profession -- nor does it bother to consider how j-schools contributed to journalism's collapse. They never made the changes in structure. It never took the Internet's liberation from gate-keepers into consideration.

It never brought discipline into the profession. It never conducted studies to help it along. What is being cheered on in the piece is mere window-dressing, and the hypothesis that bashing Trump is going to save journalism is, quite frankly, ignorant.

Ca0dvMVXEAAxK2Y.jpg

Ask the New York Daily News how well that strategy worked for them.

No one in Canadian journalism has the ovaries to admit that the calvary have better things to do than rescue a group of bumbling villains from themselves. University Affairs should get rid of those rose-coloured glasses and deal with reality because their ignorance of the depth of seriousness is shocking...

When Journalism was a Thing, Part Two.

Journalists have no special training in logic or psychology, and their lack of a basic foundation shows.

  1. They believe that just because they are speaking to someone through a translator, that the translator has no vested interest in shading what is being told to the source or the journalist.
  2. They believe that just because there is window-dressing of alleged "diversity", that now there can be no accusations of racism or sexism, even if nothing has actually structurally changed, and the output remains the same.
  3. They believe that if someone who holds a belief is wrong, that designated "opposite" belief must be true by default, even if both parties have mistaken assumptions of the concept.
  4. They believe if three sources confirm a fact, it must be right by default, even if all three sources have the same underlying tainted original source who gives them their information.
  5. They believe they do not have to take in someone's mental health into their equations unless it is to dismiss what this person tells them. It must be all or none.
  6. They do not believe that they have to account for their own biases and filters when reporting.
  7. They do believe that logical fallacies can taint the information they receive or that their own logical fallacies can corrupt a product.
  8. They believe there is such a thing as a pecking order.
  9. They believe canned events, photo ops, and press releases are legitimate sources of news.

The educational system of journalism never took these dilemmas into any of their equations. The profession did the same.

You would think for a profession whose mandate was to disseminate information, they would be fanatical, innovative, empirical, and driven to use psychology, creative science, and logic to its fullest extent.

I know I did when I worked in the profession. I did all sorts of wild, but academically-based things, and yet uninspiring and confining methods were preferred by the profession, and now they have made themselves redundant in a world that has an opinion glut.

My book chronicles how this happened -- and more importantly, how an alternative model bypasses all of those old and useless sins.

Journalism never had the courage or the foresight to ask itself hard questions, and now they are paying the price.

But for the rest of us who see the problems, we do not have to pay the same price when there are alternative ways of disseminating information to a world that is suffering because it is starved for facts as it is being smothered by yet another opinion...

 

Education is about turning over the rules to show how easily they break. It is not about making students memorizing rules.

Journalism education failed the profession because it failed its students.

q3-1-2.jpg

It never developed or advanced. It was always about teaching The Craft.

And that means teaching rules.

Which gives students the idea that they will Win At Life if only they remember those rules and blindly follow them, as if they got in on some big secret.

We never question or test rules as part of the progression of learning.

What does 1+1=?

A bigger one, of course.

We turn over the most basic of rules, and suddenly, we can see that 1+1=∞ as well.

As does every other equation. Infinitely big, small, or infinite void.

That is to say, that blindly answering "2" means you memorized a rule.

But if we turn over what other possibilities are out there and test them, we open up new worlds as we expand our knowledge.

The static rule-memorizers parrot "2", and think they are actually smart.

Their minds constrict as they confine themselves and follow the rules, never testing them -- and always trying to force other people into parroting the same rules.

Journalism taught students rules. It never taught them the art and science of turning over rules.

And when the world began to change, it could not keep up because the rules told them that they were gate-keepers, and the sole guardians of democracy.

The Internet turned over those rules and they all shattered. The rule wasn't true.

But journalism was supposed to be the profession that could cover unexpected catastrophes and shocking turns without skipping a beat, meaning if there was any profession that should have rule-turning at its core to create an industry of people who could think creatively on their feet, that was it.

F.R.E.E.D. is all about testing and turning rules until they break.

We talk about exceptions that test the rules, but if the rule is not a rule, then it is not an exception, either. 

It is an impossible situation, meaning an exception is as illusionary as a rule.

What we call an "exception" is a hidden path that takes us to an alternate destination. What we call a "rule" is the well-worn established path everyone takes and assumes is the only way to get there.

Uncover the secret path -- or build a new one, and you no longer have an exception -- just a different route that can take us to a different place.

J-school education could have been a mind-blowing experience that challenged young minds in ways that no one thought was possible.

It just stuck by the rules.

But F.R.E.E.D. is about turning over rules. It's educational system is completely different because it shows differences between illusions and reality, for instance.

Rules are illusions. The more we test them, the more we learn, and more we learn, the better prepared we are to create better ways.

We can be confident of our destinies in reality because we can become equipped to navigate through it.

We can leave the bickering, meddling, and decrees behind when we know that we have the time and space to create the tools we need for a better life.

If journalism took that healthy and humble approach, it would be thriving right now.

It didn't.

By choice, of course.

It preferred a pecking order based on rules, and when those rules were turned over, an entire profession got shattered.

Let's not make the same mistakes again...

Why journalism cannot correct itself: Their ideological corruption consumed the core. Sorry, Whole Story you just can't get it right.

When I wrote Don't Believe It!: How lies become news way back in 2005, I had advocated that journalism should have been reinvented as an offshoot of psychology to become applied psychology. I showed how journalism's lack of knowledge in human behaviour made them vulnerable to lies, hoaxes, propaganda, and the like.

dbi.jpg

When I went to j-school in 1995, I was first student the program accepted who had a psych degree, and I was told that no student ever applied with one, either.

I was their first.

In 2003, I also wrote a commentary in my alma mater's magazine about how journalism and psychology went hand-in-hand.

commentary.jpg

And before I forget, I had given a speech before that about how the psychology helped the journalism -- the psych faculty at my alma matter asked to reprint my entire speech for their website, and, in turn, one editor of a psychology text asked to reprint part of that in their textbook.

psych at work.jpg

So let us get that fact out of the way.

And now that we have established that Alexandra Kitty has been publicly advocating the fusion of both psychology and journalism for over twenty years, let me also establish that when I had insisted on this fusion to both j-schools and the industry, I was ignored and rudely dismissed.

I was not dismissed by people in the Psychology field. I was not dismissed by other academics.

So it is not as if I had a bad or silly idea. I had an innovative and original idea that was accepted by others, but not the very people who needed to hear it.

The Whole Story is a web site that is just another pseudo-journalistic sophistry machine that thinks doublespeak can cover up the blatant sophistry:

Our mission is to spread the practice of solutions journalism: rigorous reporting about how people are responding to social problems.

Except it is the same old garbage repackaged with some differently-worded babble.

"Solutions journalism" is as Orwellian as one can get. Journalism is not about feeding "solutions" to people. It is about giving people facts so they can make use of those facts to find or make their own solutions -- if they wish.

Because you cannot assume you actually know what everyone's solutions will work for them.

The Big Brother vibe here is not pretty. It is patronizing and presumptuous. Even the name The Whole Story is a misleading form of authoritarian doublespeak: it makes a grand assumption that they can give a "whole story." Nice try. This is a very patriarchal mindset.

Patriarchal is all about the One. The Whole Story: we will spoon-feed it to you, children, and you need not bother to look any more than what this site presents to you.

It is a vile assumption that only goes downhill from there.

But there is one article that is particularly instructive on how journalists are trying to exploit the Age of Propaganda. The very title itself says it all:

Complicating the Narratives

What if journalists covered controversial issues differently — based on how humans actually behave when they are polarized and suspicious?

So right off the bat, we see a very deliberate skewing that is instructive and is trying to rig a board.

"How humans actually behave when they are polarized and suspicious?"

Wow.

That is a very distorted and loaded assumption, which is doublespeak for "how can we persuade people who voted for Trump to think the way we want them to think so we can go back to lording over people the way we thought we did in our glory days?"

It goes back to the same obsessive journalistic tantrum of November 2016: journalists were going to swagger in, tell the little people to vote for Clinton, and they would listen. All of them. Every single one.

Everything spewed from US journalism since that election has a single mandate of getting back at the man who proved that journalism is no longer a thing. It is the reason the profession has zero credibility now.

To immediately classify people as "suspicious and paranoid" means you believe these people are mentally unbalanced

That is one hell of an assumption to blare as a headline.

It would be akin to calling a woman who was tortured and raped "suspicious and paranoid" whenever people tried to blame her for being tortured and raped because they do not want to imagine a world where anyone can be harmed out of the blue.

Right in the headline we know this is not an article to inform. It is pure propaganda that cannot even hide what it is, but thinks it has mastered the facade of neutrality.

It is no different than asking a man when did he stop beating his wife.

The article gets more manipulative with its base assumptions from there.

The very long and rambling piece begins with discussing a 60 Minutes piece that interviewed people who supported Trump and Clinton, and the writer of the article thought it was boring:

What went wrong? How could one of the most successful, relatable interviewers in American history create such uninspired television?

Uninspired? What? No Kardashians? No pundits making things "pop"? Perhaps some CGI or car chases?

Do we understand that the point of informative disciplines is not to entertain, but simply inform?

And reflect reality.

Journalism has lost its credibility, and hence, lost its power. To discuss an interview as being "uninspired" misses the mark. A corpse has uninspired behaviour -- it just lies there rotting away.

So what went wrong?

An entire profession imploded but are still too arrogant and oblivious to see it because they are still chasing after trivialities looking for inspired.

It is reminds me of house hunters to pass on a solid house that has dated wallpaper and buy the rotting bricks that has chrome appliances.

But the sophistry and backwards thinking has just begun:

As politicians have become more polarized, we have increasingly allowed ourselves to be used by demagogues on both sides of the aisle, amplifying their insults instead of exposing their motivations. 

This is "people are brainless sheep" theory that journalists believed. Politicians pander. They are not visionaries or original thinkers because if they were, they would be too novel and unfamiliar and people will not go for something untested. They are like the therapists who merely repeat what the crowds express is their primary concerns.

If people have no jobs, they are going to look for someone who promises to spark jobs. It is why politicians bribe voters with their own money: people name their price and the politician who can read the zeitgeist and ortgeist can win.

Because that is precisely why Hillary Clinton lost. She tried to (a) vote shame people into choosing her, (b) had a platform that did not speak to what certain critical voting blocs made absolutely clear they needed and wanted, and (c) then decided to insult those people who were screaming for political attention as deplorables.

If you are dependent on the goodwill of the masses to get a position of power, then you cannot risk belittling them. Clinton made the same structural assumption as the author of the drivel did, and she lost an election that should have been an easy coup for her.

Clinton's own incompetency prevented a victory. The Left should have seen it coming. Journalists should have seen it coming. Clinton keeps making the sae mistakes, but expects a different outcome.

And now people who put their money on the losing side are angry that a Sure Thing wasn't a sure thing.

There is no polarization. The people who are pretending to "resist" and be "woke" are slumbering dutifully in their own delusional fantasies because that is their own rote habit. Most of the world would celebrate if they had the same freedoms, opportunities, and prosperity as the Left is enjoying right now. There is nothing to "resist": you have a country with countless organizations, lobby groups, PR firms, social media, laws, special programs, and elections that can help people steer their politicians in the direction they choose, and they are behaving as if they are living in some destitute Third World dictatorship that has no human rights, elections, or even running water.

And who are these "resistors"?

Wealthy Hollywood actors whose careers have faded.

Rich people ranting in limos is not a "resistance."

And we have Millennials having, not any "woke" impulse, they have gotten old before their time. When you have advertisers pushing kids to grow up early, they still go through the same cycles of life, only sooner, and yet it is a youth-focussed society. Add the inflated expectations of being able to be rich and famous through social media that never materialize, and burning out youth with endless lessons and camps that focus on arts for fame, you have people with broken fantasies throwing in the towel at the age where they should be still clawing.

If you ever watched the third season of The Killing, the minor character of Twitch best reflects what happened to those twentysomethings. 

They are now having an artificially-induced premature mid-life crisis, and this champagne socialism phase is merely the same rants their parents are having about social security.

This isn't the beginnings of a social revolution, let alone a precursor to civil war.

This a rare time in history where the Left are the old burned out reactionary youth swapping places with the older Right who were using social media for different purposes. One wanted to use it for themselves to make themselves famous with a me-focussed message; the other used it to disseminate a more you-focussed message.

And journalists hedged their bets wrong, and are now trying to incite a generation who are limping their way into rocking chairs left open by older generations who got off their duffs and went to the voting stations. Youth are grousing about the government the way well-heeled retirees living it up in Florida did during brunch quaffing mimosas and downing key lime pie.

This is not a question of "polarization." This is mere societal growing pains and confusion that is happening because humans have to still adjust to the liberation of communications, otherwise known as the Internet.

Journalism is trying to exploit a mirage because they never had to actually actively think or observe their surroundings. They are banking on a write-off generation who indulge in life-sink activities on their smartphones and then honestly wonder why their lives aren't fulfilling.

This isn't a question of politics. This is a question of gullibly believing a bill of goods you are sold to pacify you in order not to ask hard questions.

Had journalism bothered to ask hard questions, we wouldn't be seeing the rapid aging and deterioration of a lost generation: they would know what was out there, and what they could realistically achieve given their talents, environment, skills, education, and attitude, and what would be a healthy timeline to have to earn their place in the world. They have now aged to be older than their own parents.

And when you age before your, anyone older than you who has an eternally youthful and ambitious disposition is painful to endure.

Those "Indigo" children are imploding, not exploding. Socialistic tendencies is not a sign of rebellion, but a sign of defeat and exhaustion, and if you have youth who are exhausted this early and when they have opportunities, supports, and comforts no other generation of the history of mankind ever had, that means they are a write-off, and it will be up to those older and younger to pick up their slack, and neither side will be able to relate to them.

We always had two groups in society: the ones who push forward, and those who retreat. That's not politics; that's the cycle of life. The only difference is the young and old have switched places, and with new generations growing up, they will not behave in the same manner because they will have the middle generation of their morality tale of what not to do.

In other words, where journalists see "polarization", what they actually see is a cycle of life. They are the ones who are trying to create polarization. Politicians pander. The public makes their demands based on their wants and needs.

It is journalists who try to present it as something binary and patriarchal, making this observation from the article a dubious one:

Long before the 2016 election, the mainstream news media lost the trust of the public, creating an opening for misinformation and propaganda. 

Creating an opening for misinformation and propaganda? Darling, the press were the creators of misinformation and propaganda.

Don't Believe It! proved that hypothesis over a decade ago.

But their verbal sleight of hand to make it sound as if journalists were some sort of victims doesn't play in the real world.

Which makes the next quote instructive:

“Conflict is important. It’s what moves a democracy forward,” says journalist Jeremy Hay, co-founder of Spaceship Media, which helps media outlets engage divided communities. “But as long as journalism is content to let conflict sit like that, journalism is abdicating the power it has to help people find a way through that conflict.”

That is an interesting assumption that journalists do not stir up conflict or have vested interests in presenting reality as conflict-based. Wars are sparked by journalistic propaganda. Many wars could have been prevented if the press presented facts than sensational brawls.

And then the arrogance explodes:

But what else can we do with conflict, besides letting it sit? We’re not advocates, and we shouldn’t be in the business of making people feel better. Our mission is not a diplomatic one.

If there is conflict, you should present the facts of it. You are not a social engineer. That's it. The mandate was always to present facts. 

Not pick sides, editorialize, or misinterpret reality.

The article is not to inform, however. It is a sell, and an indirect sell, and usually the indirect sell has a purpose: to try to persuade people into a bad deal. If the sell was a positive one for the audience, then just spit it out.

And the sell of the article comes like this:

To find out, I spent the past three months interviewing people who know conflict intimately and have developed creative ways of navigating it. I met psychologists, mediators, lawyers, rabbis and other people who know how to disrupt toxic narratives and get people to reveal deeper truths. They do it every day — with livid spouses, feuding business partners, spiteful neighbors. They have learned how to get people to open up to new ideas, rather than closing down in judgment and indignation.

Yes, speaking to patriarchal authorities who have had a very bad history of brokering lop-sided deals. For anyone who had to go up against authorities with any of those professionals, you know going in that those people are not going to step on the toes of institutions where they have to keep having business to do with them long after your problem is resolved by decree.

So, in other words, here is a reporter trying to advocate for a pro-authority status quo.

Let's go back to the good old days, kids, where journalists had clout, told the Great Unwashed what to do, and they would do it without question, regardless of what a bad deal it was to them.

It is an indirect approach for a reason.

It is not impressive to speak with Establishment-enablers for months. 

That is appealing to authority.

What journalists have always been doing.

And here is an article pretending to do something different than other ones.

But the author must love the way she writes:

I’m embarrassed to admit this, but I’ve been a journalist for over 20 years, writing books and articles for Time, the Atlantic, the Wall Street Journal and all kinds of places, and I did not know these lessons. After spending more than 50 hours in training for various forms of dispute resolution, I realized that I’ve overestimated my ability to quickly understand what drives now people to do what they do. I have overvalued reasoning in myself and others and undervalued pride, fear and the need to belong. I’ve been operating like an economist, in other words — an economist from the 1960s.

Memo to Amanda Ripley: you obviously did not learn a single thing in those fifty-plus hours. Not one. You are doing the same thinking you did before, and the same thinking that destroyed journalism.

Then she pulls the same studies way too many writers use as a hack:

For decades, economists assumed that human beings were reasonable actors, operating in a rational world. When people made mistakes in free markets, rational behavior would, it was assumed, generally prevail. Then, in the 1970s, psychologists like Daniel Kahneman began to challenge those assumptions. Their experiments showed that humans are subject to all manner of biases and illusions.

Kahneman and Tversky were two psychologists who conducted flawed, but not entirely useless studies. Their work on heuristics was my first psych essay I wrote as a first year undergrad so that I wouldn't have to be a guinea pig in a grad student's experiment. When a writer wants to sound as if they know something, they break out those names, without questioning the studies. It is just a given to parrot them, especially out of context.

A hack or a shortcut, in other words. Just throw those names out there and you can believe you sound as if you did research and cannot be questioned. Don't kid yourself.

And notice that the author states that to believe that humans are rational is a wrong-headed thing, opening the door to the assumption that people need a better-quality of person to guide them.

Nothing new, but the author seems to be trying to find a way to repackage the old with a new spin by comparing the flawed assumption of economics (who never quite see when a crash is coming) with the dead profession of journalism:

Journalism has yet to undergo this awakening. We like to think of ourselves as objective seekers of truth. Which is why most of us have simply doubled down in recent years, continuing to do more of the same kind of journalism, despite mounting evidence that we are not having the impact we once had. We continue to collect facts and capture quotes as if we are operating in a linear world.

You are not having the same impact because the Internet broke down your gates. If an isolated town has but a single restaurant, everyone will go there, no matter what slop is being served. Open a dozen more who a superior menu and choices, and the old dive goes out of business. The End.

But the sophistry takes a chilling turn:

If we want our best work to have consequences, we have to be heard. “Anyone who values truth,” social psychologist Jonathan Haidt wrote in The Righteous Mind, “should stop worshipping reason.”

Social psychology is fraught with problems, which I will not go into here, but this is a clear advocation of social engineering journalism. We should stop giving facts because they are boring. We have irrational audiences who aren't listening to us, and we should stop using reason in our work, as if we ever did. 

You want to be a politician without having to run for office. You want to make decrees. that people have to obey. This is as close to being a manifesto advocating propaganda as you can get.

And it gets worse:

We need to find ways to help our audiences leave their foxholes and consider new ideas. So we have a responsibility to use all the tools we can find — including the lessons of psychology.

Hello, Ms Ripley! Why are you assuming that just because people do not believe what you believe that they live in a foxhole? How arrogant are you? How unfeeling?

Who are you to tell them what to believe? Shame on you.

#MeToo was a rebellion by women being told they live in a foxhole just because they did not want to be sexually harassed.

And if you are hoping to use psychology to help manipulate the little people, it doesn't work that way.

And the writer's penchant to quote other people as if someone else's words would bolster a shoddy argument, let me counter-quote from those fabulous punk Swedes the Hives form their song Dead Quote Olympics:

 It doesn't mean it's good 'cause you found it at the library

The article goes at length to appeal to authority and commit one confirmation bias after another. The hypothesis of this manifesto is flawed and self-serving, and everything that follows does nothing to prop it up:

The lesson for journalists (or anyone) working amidst intractable conflict: complicate the narrative. First, complexity leads to a fuller, more accurate story. Secondly, it boosts the odds that your work will matter — particularly if it is about a polarizing issue. When people encounter complexity, they become more curious and less closed off to new information. They listen, in other words.

There are many ways to complicate the narrative, as described in detail under the six strategies below. But the main idea is to feature nuance, contradiction and ambiguity wherever you can find it. 

No, the lesson is get rid of the narrative. Complexity is mere illusion and a fortress people build to deflect attention away so they will not have to change their behaviour. Nuances are grains used as a misdirection so a person gets dragged in deeper into the rabbit hole and create an illusion that a situation is more difficult than it is, and that there are bigger differences between groups than there actually is.

Just as the author of this drivel is doing with reckless abandon.

This is an ineffectual propagandist's manual on trying to manipulate people, based on a fairy princess narrative. Find out what people are thinking in order to exploit it to push an agenda. There is babble about breaking narratives, and yet the writer of this piece wants everyone else to break a narrative, save for those in her own dead profession. It is a truly chilling and mystifying piece as it is infuriating.

But it all goes back to sticking it to Donald Trump for showing the world journalism has become a sham.

Experimental psychology has many benefits, but only if it is used properly in its structure and core mandate. Ripley wants it to be some magic wand to Make Journalism Great Again.

It is a self-serving piece meant to play the same toxic games, but present it as being more enlightened: maybe if we have some psych, we can manipulate people into obeying us again.

The ship has sailed, and it couldn't speed away fast enough.

That is the reason journalism cannot correct itself: the core has been corrupted beyond repair. You don't eat rotten meat and expect to get anything of nutritional value: you are lucky if you don't die of food poisoning.

Once upon a time, you had idealists in journalism. You had beautiful souls who understood it was about facts and risked their lives to get them to people. They pushed and pushed.

You had Nellie Bly go undercover in the worst possible places to find the truth. You had Daniel Pearl who died digging for the truth. You had reporters who had no trouble with this concept.

If you had those people in a more empirical structure, their work would have been more powerful. We would be in a very different place, and Alexandra Kitty would have been happily writing a book called Why Journalism is a Beautiful Thing.

The problem stemmed from the lack of evolution in the industry, and then it became overrun with people who decided journalism was their castle and they crowned themselves kings and queens, issuing edicts to those little peons and plebs.

Journalism used to be a thing, but it's not anymore. It is articles like that one that is infuriating as it is ugly.

It is because of that horrific thinking that journalism has nothing left to give: it is diseased beyond curing.

You want to inform a public?

You need a clean slate. You need a new mandate, focus, method, structure, and goals so that it is not infected by the same corrupting arrogance and expectations of a profession that destroyed itself.

And still doesn't know it cannot be saved...

Concordia University oblivious to reality: Launches "Investigative Journalism" program doing the same things that helped destroy the profession.

Journalism is a cheap faculty to put up to take money from students who become unemployable after graduation as the industry collasped, but from the looks of it, they are doing the same thing in a climate where journalism has proven to be antiquated to a modern world.

How oblivious are they?

Just take a look at their silly press release complete with my translation:

Headed by Patti Sonntag, former managing editor of the New York Times’s News Services Division, (an unemployed news producer who worked in a legacy, old school outlet)... 

the institute will be headquartered in Concordia’s Department of Journalism and will attempt to foster investigative journalism and alleviate “news poverty” in certain regions of the country caused by the loss of advertising revenue for local and regional media. ("attempt" means "do not expect anything from us", while "news poverty" means "places that have abandoned a product that no longer spoke to them as they now have social media to replace the arrogant old guard." Worse, this is forcing taxpayers to fund a dead profession, an even more vile idea than having unpaid interns, they are using more than just free labour journalism students -- they have to pay the university in the bargain. How immoral -- and using the same fatal errors that destroyed the profession in the first place).

Media partners in the project include Global News, The National Observer and the Toronto Star, while academic partners include Carleton University, Humber College, Mount Royal University, Ryerson University, University of King’s College, University of Regina and University of British Columbia. (translates to "All the organizations that were so dense as to allow their profession to collapse are now meddling to help further decimate a dead corpse).

Pathetic? Absolutely. Worthless degree? You bet. Money grab without an ounce of innovation? Oh, yes. Arrogant, tone deaf, and oblivious to reality?

What do you expect? All the players who pontificated until there was no more platform to do so, are at it again...expect nothing from these morons -- they only know how to ape actions for comedic effect, not bring true innovation with an alternative to a dead profession...

Why journalism education was no help to the profession.

A few years ago, Ryerson University put out a very oblivious report on the state of journalism education. It is very hard to imagine j-schools having the nerve to publish a bloated and pretentious document without offering one important observation.

The presentations were done in 2014. This dreck was published in 2015.

And how well has Ryerson rehabilitated the profession?

Spoiler alert: it got worse; so let's get that out of the way.

It is a knee-slapper of a title:

Toward 2020: New Directions in Journalism Education

Don't buy the title: they offer no new direction in journalism education.

I read through this mess, and to say the authors have no clue why journalism collapsed, educators' role in it, and how to start again.

The amount of sophistry and doublespeak is shameful as journalism is not about bloated jargon that says nothing.

As usual, they are obsessed with digital media as if that will be some sort of saviour for the profession, never considering that even in 2014, Big Tech could not resurrect journalism. Journalism imploded in this medium because it exposed a weakness that other media didn't.

Here is an instructive passage:

Social media are now the primary carriers of breaking news. Online news sites, blogs, and social media are far more often willing to publicly shame elites than legacy media. The locations of opinion and debate have moved to digital media. All of this has reduced the need for and influence of news organizations.

That isn't quite true -- or the entire picture. Journalists are more than happy to shame people -- social media is unfiltered and unverified, and debate and opinion have always been filler. Had the profession had more discipline and more focus, they could have easily kept up with the times and been viable.

There is another truism:

Journalism isn’t an art, nor is it a science.

By willful choice to neglect the profession. It is a profession that chose to be feral and uneducated. You cannot leave children in the woods with no supervision, and then say children are animals -- not if they are raised by parents and educated, they're not.

There are more excuse than reasons, passing the buck by claiming j-school were co=opted by industry, which is ridiculous. Industry wasn't all that keen on education for decades, and you do not need a j-school education to get into journalism.

When I started as a journalist, I had a psych degree. I got my Masters in journalism after I got my newspaper column.

But then there is this passage:

Higher education isn’t about ensuring employment. It is about shaping and sharpening students’ abilities to think and about giving them skills they can use in a variety of activities in future years. It is about helping them understand the past, how people and societies work, what forces affect the human condition, how to deal with the inevitable changes they will encounter in their lives, and how to find their own paths to success.

No, higher education shakes down its alumni for donations; so you better believe it is all about ensuring employment. You want benefactors, those benefactors have to be educated to gain full-time employment, not incur debt and then get a minimum wage job after graduation.

Otherwise, you are stealing money under false pretences.

And the contention that "journalism programs will never move forward by hiring middle-aged and senior journalists" is mystifying: age counts for experience in the field -- but more important than being ageist is finding journalists who see the problems -- and have a plan to be innovative visionaries. So far, young journalists have been as useless and passive as their older counterparts. We have no mavericks or visionaries teaching right now, regardless of age. 

And that's the sophistry spewed on the first essay.

It goes downhill from there.

One paper babbles about using a "A Foucauldian Foray into How Power Operates When Journalists and Public Relations Officers Meet" -- a philosophical interpretation, not a hello! empirical one with actual data and facts.

Many papers are a literal laundry list of stringing whatever popular buzzwords were popular in 2014.

None bothered to conduct studies or provide primary sources and research -- and that tells you everything you need to know why j-schools were miserable failures.

STEM-based disciplines had no such problems (they have other problems, but you can get a career going after graduating), but journalism never bothered to do any of it.

It was a useless exercise, and why I am not surprised that journalism isn't a thing anymore -- neither are j-schools...

The origins of understanding what journalism always needed: Part Two.

When I decided to write an exposé on the problems of journalism, I knew that I wouldn't be gaining employment in the field after that. The industry holds vicious grudges, but the original intention of the book was not to be a consumer's guide to the ways of journalism, but to be a textbook for journalism students so they would know if someone was scamming them in order to manipulate press coverage.

But publishers rejected this perspective: no matter how many case studies were in my proposal and sample chapters, it was always the same: The problem couldn't be that bad. The End.

Really? Didn't you see the long list of real-life and verified examples? It is akin to a doctor showing a patient scans and test results of a cancerous tumour and the patient shrugs it off and say, "The problem couldn't be that bad. The End."

Why couldn't it be that bad? Why not? The results are staring you in the face. I had no reason to lie or exaggerate, and, in fact, I didn't use all the examples I had. These weren't minor errors and hoaxes: people went to war and died because of propaganda that was proven to be an outright lie. Innocent people were condemned for things they didn't do. People lost their life savings and jobs on scams that bankrupted entire towns.

So here I was with a proposal that was dismissed because of the assumption that things couldn't be that bad when, hello!, the publisher looked at all the examples, saw it was that bad but then rejected it because reality went against an accepted, but unverified narrative.

The news was full of lies and errors -- and there were reasons for it. I didn't just list hoaxes, lies, scams, and propaganda: I showed how they were disseminated to the public in the first place. There were real breakdowns and vulnerabilities that made spreading fake news through legitimate media outlets very simple. Children could and did game the system.

And the biggest weakness was that you had a profession that was convinced of their own infallibility despite evidence to the contrary staring them right in the face.

It was that bad. All I did was gather, research, and verify cases of lies making news and then list them on a proposal. It was right there in black and white, and I had enough to write a book clocking at 416 pages -- and could have written volumes more if I wrote about every case study that I had in my possession.

But I was careful to use only the cases where the offending media outlet conceded it disseminated a lie; so there would be no question of wrongdoing: all the parties agreed on the statement of facts. It was akin to creating a list of a criminal's guilty pleas, while leaving the convictions by trial out of the equation.

If I included those cases, it would have been even worse than "that bad."

And yet, I knocked on doors of various publishers only to be dismissed as some sort of hysterical exaggerator.

And then I sent my proposal to one agent who didn't dismiss me. She wanted to take on the project, but was vetoed by her boss. However, she made a suggestion to me to switch the focus of the book from being a guide for journalists to being a consumer's guide to verifying the news. I re-jigged the book to give lessons in how news was put together in the first place, and then used my case studies to back up my hypothesis.

That's when my fortunes rapidly changed, and the Disinformation Company took my book and published it without any editorial meddling whatsoever. There was no whining that things weren't that bad.

The book became Don't Believe It! How lies become news, and I honestly thought that would be my last foray into that world. No media outlet would take me on after that, I absolutely knew because you are not suppose to say in public that journalism is anything else but perfect.

I had just wrapped up writing the book, and was teaching at Sheridan College at the time. There was an academic conference that day called Make It So -- it was the day where professors were giving lectures to other professors, and I had not only signed up to take a workshop, I was also giving one about this new-fangled thing called a "web log" and how it had great potential for professors to use this blog thing to communicate to students in their classes. I was teaching creative writing students using the one blogging platform AOL provided at the time, and the results were fabulous. These days, blogs are standard in all academic institutions. Back then, I had people in the workshop ask me what was a blog and how do you use it.

It was during a break when my publisher called me on my cellphone with a shock request: Disinfo had a deal with the director of an upcoming documentary about the partisan and deceptive ways of the Fox News Channel, and would I like to write the companion book?

I thought Don't Believe It! was my swan song, but OutFoxed would be my encore. I happily agreed, knowing that this book would absolutely ensure my career as a journalist would be over because this book would target people who really, really, really held grudges. I wasn't naive.

The late Roger Ailes was powerful, and he had a mean streak. I wrote an entire chapter on him and how he operated.

Having two media criticism books come out exactly on month after each other sent a very clear message: the true state of journalism was truly that bad. It had vulnerabilities as Don't Believe It! proved, and it could be corrupted by partisan feints as OutFoxed proved.

Needless to say, I did not get any more gigs as a journalist, even though I never had trouble before the publication of those two books.

But I wasn't through with journalism yet. I ventured out on my own with Chaser News. I did other things, writing another book that was published by bluechrome, but that book was a fiction anthology. I taught art at Niagara College and the Dundas Valley School of Art. I even started A Dangerous Woman Story Studio where I wrote fiction stories.

But even with A Dangerous Woman, the nonfiction started to creep back in. It was eight years after the publication of my first two books, and in 2005, it was hard to imagine that the fortunes of journalism could be worse, but it wasn't just a rickety relic always teetering, but somehow it could still chug along: it collapsed.

Journalism imploded. By 2016, the narrative of "fake news" was taking shape, with the silent assumption that "real news" was truly real and "fake news" meant some sort of forgery or knock-off of the real thing.

But that was a lie, too. Stephen Glass wrote fake news for national news magazines. Jayson Blair wrote fake news for the New York Times. Here I had two books showing that journalism wasn't a real diamond while the others were just a cheap glass version: the so-called diamond was made of glass, too.

There was a reason why my initial idea for Don't Believe It! was always rejected, and it went back to motive: if journalism was truly about the mundane task of finding facts and giving them to the public, then a book showing future journalists how to find real facts would have been welcome. You would want j-school students to be proficient in spotting lies from truth -- not just for the noble reasons, but to ensure the product is never tainted or corrupted. You would expect those academic institutions to welcome such a book and devise courses in information verification as standard practice.

So to reject any overture hints that journalism's motives aren't all the noble or sincere. Why isn't such a book standard? In fact, had journalism done its job, I would have never suggested it because there would have been many such books on the market with one that would be the classic gold standard. There would be no reason for me to pursue that venture because it wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.

So how can we have denials that things weren't that bad, but then never have that genre of book for j-school students at all?

You can imagine having doctors come out of medical school, but have no training in differentiating sickness from health, or false positives from real positives because misdiagnoses isn't that bad.

This is how primitive journalism was and still is in 2018.

I felt like Ignaz Semmelweis -- the poor doctor going out of his mind telling his fellow doctors to disinfect their hands before delivering babies because their corpses they were handling would bring infection and death to mothers and infants -- and instead of just disinfecting their hands, they threw the messenger into an asylum where he died -- until years later when others finally clued in that the mortality rates during child labour actually plummeted when the stupid doctors disinfected their hands.

I started researching the state of journalism once again -- seeing that the profession had neglected itself to death, and that things were much worse in 2016 than they ever were in 2005.

Things were really so bad that they got to be the worst.

And then I proposed another book, which Zer0 Books accepted and When Journalism was a Thing will be out this July.

Unlike my first two books, this one chronicles journalism the way a coroner explains how and why a patient died.

It was through my work as a book author that I gained a deeper understanding what journalism always needed: it needed to pay attention to their own faults, not just other people's shortcomings.

Journalism is a profession that completely ignored its own rot. It always dismissed its own foibles and weaknesses, and then had the nerve to whine about "chilling effects" when outside players such as corporations and governments meddled and stymied their work.

What about the chilling effect of journalists who report lies as news because they were never formally trained to do so in j-school?

Or the chilling effect of ignoring people who take the time to research, analyze, and figure out the vulnerabilities of the profession, and then publish those results?

Journalism is dead, and that's that. When you refuse to take a curable if potentially fatal diagnosis seriously, dismiss what the hysterical female doctor tells you, and then pretend you are healthy as you continue with your unhealthy ways, there is no other outcome.

If you are convinced that you are both infallible and invulnerable and that any warning is a lie because things aren't that bad, you are not going to make a single change because it is all about your ego, and making changes would be a de facto admission that you were wrong and less than perfect.

Like Don't Believe It!, my initial intent with When Journalism was a Thing was to show how the profession could resurrect itself, but the more research I did, the more I realized that could not actually happen. The motives for the profession were too tainted and corrupted.

But I didn't need an outsider to tell me that this time. Zer0 Books were also the kind of publisher that gave me full control of my book and didn't meddle with my vision. 

I had a revelation that journalism would rather die than change. I didn't write my first two books to put a nail in the profession's proverbial coffin: I wrote it so it could get healthy again.

I worked as a journalist and covered the business of journalism: I wasn't some armchair busybody. I knew what I was talking about and could see the problems.

Because my motives were solid, and not about my ego. It wasn't about anything else but ensuring reality and truth were presented to the public.

But it wasn't the same for the profession. It liked making decrees, spewing opinion, and even being social engineers who rigged results of certain events by skewing their coverage. Journalists were no longer the soldiers who liberated truth from lies: they fell for the enemy of lies and switched sides along the way.

And just as I knew my journalism career would be buried after the publication of my first two books, I knew there was no saving journalism.

But journalism doesn't have a monopoly on journalism.

You can replace the journalism. It is not a sink or swim scenario where journalism is the only hope to inform a public. Nor is that the only model of informing people.

You have choices.

And that's when I started actively working on F.R.E.E.D. with that idea in mind: there are better ways of fact-gathering. There are better ways to train fact-gatherers and information-hunters. You are not beholden to stick with a dead model because they think they are irreplaceable.

So when my books is finally released, I will not be talking about journalism anymore.

I will, on the other hand, be working and discussing F.R.E.E.D.

As usual, it is a one woman army paving the path.

As usual, I will be ignored or slagged as some hysterical woman who always makes it sound as if things are that bad.

As usual, my operating budget will be zero.

As usual, there will be a million distractions.

As usual, there will be those who will try to surreptitiously use my ideas without acknowledgement, thinking they understand enough of what they crib that they can save themselves by muddling with other people's work. 

It doesn't matter. There is a positive alternative, and I am focussing my energies on a new life, not a dead corpse.

And so, it begins...