When experts aren't all that...

The Toronto Sun pulled a column from Dr. Ken Walker (non de guerre is W. Gifford-Jones) where is seems to be sitting on the fence when it comes to vaccines…but is all for taking lots of Vitamin C.

Of course, you should be aware he peddles Vitamin C for bucks.

This is a clear conflict of interest.

The article is not precise, and as he is a retired physician, he doesn’t seem too concerned about keeping up to date.

There has been a backlash over the article regarding the sloppy science, which has even been dubbed as being propaganda.

To me, him using a newspaper column to tout a supplement he sells that should have prevented such an article from being published in the first place. He may be a doctor, but doctors can have vested interests just like everyone else…

Journalism's propaganda games continue: If you have to tell people how great you are – you aren't.

Journalism's sickness continues, and the timing could not be more interesting, given the release of my new book.

Poynter has some interesting propaganda trying to spin garbage:

200+ newspapers will write pro-journalism editorials. Will they also listen?

220+ newspapers having to sell their rancid and outdated goods.

200+ do not report anything else but self-loving advertising.

200+ newspapers are co-ordinating a self-serving public relations campaign in their product that they claim has something to do with reporting the news.

This is the industry equivalent of a mental breakdown tantrum after a failed intervention.

The beginning of this meta-propaganda is interesting:

On Thursday, more than 200 newspapers will publish editorials in a "coordinated response" to President Trump calling the press the "enemy of the people." Each publication will write its own editorial. 

You obviously are trying to deflect attention and since the facts do not back you up, you must resort to gathering together and hope if you all repeat the same message, maybe people will believe you.

I wonder how many real scandals you will not cover because you are literally wasting copy inches on nonsense.

If you wanted to be relevant, you had to work for the people. Not care about your image.

The article then makes a very biased swipe:

Right off the top, let me say that I wish the president would knock it off with the "the press is the enemy of the people" nonsense.

It is unpresidential, unproductive and untrue.

No, he is not wrong. He is absolutely right. The press failed the people, and this Day of Temper Tantrums proves it.

It is narcissistic and self-indulgent, and a misuse of the product. 

Trump knows who he is dealing with because he made a career of getting hard news attention for absolute nonsense.

Journalists are not the good guys. They are villains in a story with no heroes.

They don't get to wear white hats by any default.

How many times did they crib from press releases and not disclose this fact to the public?

How many times have they suppressed important information?

How many times did they print hoaxes, lies, and propaganda as truth?

They are an enemy to the Truth.

They have been for a very long time because real research takes effort, and you still get a byline to boost your ego even if you write about Kardashian nonsense.

But Poynter piece is so one-sided and egotistical that it defies all logic and reality:

We will protest again that we are really good for democracy, that we are vital to the nation … and the people who agree with the president won't give a damn what 200-plus newspaper editorials or a thousand editorials have to say.

Oh, aren't you clever?

What a manipulative paragraph we have here.

Journalism hasn't been good for democracy in a very long time.

Remember all of the predators that you have lionized and turned into Great Men, knowing full well that they were rapists and swindlers?

You made the likes of Kenneth Lay and Bernie Ebbers legitimate.

You shilled wars; so this "we are good for democracy" is just self--serving narrative.

And, of course, anyone who has been burned by a deceptive media in the past are just too stupid to see you as the heroes, is that it?

It is that manipulative propaganda that proves the profession is absolutely incapable of seeing reality.

The second they can create a fake pecking order where they place themselves at the top with no proof -- and discredit anyone who has a legitimate grievance proves this isn't about journalism at all.

Shame on Poynter.

But it goes on in various manipulative forms:

Scholars say that prejudice begins with reducing humans to categories. We learn prejudice by watching our authority figures, including parents and, I suppose, presidents. The authority figure convinces the followers that the categories of people they should hate cause them harm. The authority figure then hardens the hatred by repeatedly reminding the followers of the connection between the "threat" and the "category."  

Here is the writer who has just accused the president of creating prejudice by creating categories...and then does the same thing. I see, the author's categories are divine and unerring, and everyone who disagrees with him is a bigot?

Are you serious?

And appealing to authority doesn't make it right.

I love this question:

Why won't sound reasoning change the public's mind?

Why didn't sound reasoning from people who outlined journalism's problems change journalists's minds?

You haven't presented any sound reasoning. Just excuses.

Journalism has burned too many bridges. It has alienated people who now have the means of bypassing them.

Why don't they see it?

Simple: they are rote by nature, and want to go back to the days where they held all of the powers, and people were captive to them.

It is akin to an abductor who holds people hostage honestly wondering why his captives escaped and ran away from him, and offer reasoning such as this one:

We have to make it safe to change your mind.

No, you want your old power and glory back. The end. Get with the times and say goodbye to the ship that sailed away from journalism 20 years ago.

The article spews and babbles:

So the editorials Thursday will create a lot of chatter. Trump backers will call journalists whiners and journalists will counter-attack. Twitter and cable news will have a ball with it all.

And Friday morning we will be right where we were this morning. Divided.

Unless you and I are brave enough to listen to a point of view we didn't wake up with this morning, seriously consider that view and weigh it.

But notice this author makes no mention of reality or the fundamental weaknesses that brought journalism to its knees. It makes excuses for a coordinated journalistic propaganda campaign, trying to sound reasonable while being oblivious to reality.

As if journalists have never made an error or caused serious damage to the world.

And at the end, tries to sound reasonable:

Whatever you write in your editorials, are you willing to listen, too?

Journalism forgot about the listening. They have a narrative that they are flawless Mary Sue heroes, and that anyone who points out their numerous faults is too vulgar and stupid.

I spent my entire adult life researching how badly journalists were doing their jobs.

They never listened or took it seriously.

That's the reason they are no longer a thing.

And when this gambit failures, are they going to finally wake up and listen with reality at heart?

Don't kid yourself. They just want their power back to do what they did for years without consequence...