Memo to Poynter: Just how many journalists have to be fired before your profession faces reality?


Gannett is slashing jobs and Poynter is whining about it. When all those people in the Rust Belt lost their jobs, journalists didn’t make a big deal out of it, just labelled them as idiots and fascists for voting for the presidential candidate who was the only one with a job platform.

Now that journalists are being discarded like used toilet paper, they act as if they were wronged in some horrible way and it is a national tragedy.

The press are acting as if a political cartoonist losing his job was akin to him being murdered.


Not even close.

You have journalists who keep doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome.

Wrong answer, kids!

Rats and pigeons being trained to modify their behaviour pick up faster than you are…

Journalism's Propaganda Madness: Reinventing your profession will do more than lazily rely on self-adoration and fear-mongering.

Agitprop is nothing new and now that journalism died, those trying to pretend that it is still a noble profession are relying on propaganda to try to convince the little people that they need the press.

The latest propaganda documentary The Fourth Estate is as narcissistic as it is manipulative. It is your abusive ex-spouse warning you that your brainless self is in danger if you do not come crawling back to them.

It reminds me of another silly propaganda film Reefer Madness where stupid teens smoked pot until the absolute worst happened to them.


Except The Fourth Estate has replaced weed with Donald Trump.

But it is the same sort of over-the-top and oh-so-very-serious propaganda that is easier to churn out than actually doing real research and real work.

Journalists keep telling people how important they are...and yet, they have never had the discipline or the motivation to actually improve their product. People in STEM-based fields have made strides over the years because they work on innovation and that's why so much of what those fields had even ten years ago has no resemblance to what it has now.

That is called progress. That is how you make yourself indispensable. 

Journalism never bothered. Now that they self-destructed, they male agitprop trying to scare people into buying their useless products.

Journalists never learned to push and to lobby -- just whine. 

The National Post whines that Canadian police are no longer making it a habit of releasing names of murder victims -- why journalists are still dependent on police to dole out information in 2018 isn't even pondered. Had journalists understood the nature of their jobs ad what is at stake when you merely parrot whatever the celebrity publicist tells you, they would have lobbied hard to ensure that information cannot be kept under wraps by anyone.

And this is especially precious since in Canada, a lot of unemployed journalists successfully run for public office, and do absolutely nothing to address the obstacles that harm their former profession and push for laws to solve those problems.

So enough of the tantrum-throwing propaganda. You cannot be oblivious to reality, and then lament when that reality smacks you down and wipe the floor with you. Get over it...

New York Times enables bad solutions. Another school shooting. And another stupid op-ed piece not grounded in reality.

Another American school shooting, with a body count.

The New York Times, a manipulative rag that revels in sophistry and the confirmation bias, has this piece of propaganda again harping on gun control -- but suggesting that the Left can trick opponents by framing their demands with a "public health" narrative.

Why does the news media consistently proffer the ineffective "solution" of removing guns from people with homicidal tendencies?

Because the real cause would go against their simplistic narrative.

You can take away guns, but guns are not imbued with magical spells to cause people to become violent. It is not as if you remove guns that you remove the problem.

You take away the guns, people can use cars to kill people. They can make bombs to kill people. They can poison people. They can stab people. They can find other ways to harm people on a mass scale, as Canada and the UK can attest to these days.

They can buy illegal guns. They can make their own guns.

Grow up.

But if you say you have violent youth, then the net widens -- we can compare and contrast school killers -- and, for starters, we can look at their upbringing -- and should some of those children have progressive and permissive parents -- that will break the spell that the Left have all the correct answers and should be in charge of everyone's minds.

For whatever reason, ideological intolerance creates rigid and puritanical binary thinkers, regardless of ideological leanings. It is all or none, when nothing could be further from the truth.

America has a serious violence problem. They have a violent youth. The easy and simple answer of gun control does not address the actual problem of why you have youth who actually and wholeheartedly believe the answer to their problems is to commit murder.

Why do you have teenaged murderers and the grown ups have been incapable of facing that reality, willing to be inconvenienced, admit their failings as individuals and collectives, and find and implement the solution without bickering or establishing false pecking orders as they morally masturbate in public while strutting around with paper crowns?

If you do not want another school shooting, forget the guns. Start focussing on the mindset of violence and the environments that foster that destructive thinking.

The killings will only increase until that first hurdle is reached. Shut up about guns.

It is the violence that is killing teenagers.

They are feasting on each other. They are not connected to each other. They are hating each other.


That's question number one, and nothing will change until we begin to look at the hate.

When journalists don't get the business of journalism.

Once upon a time, I was a journalist writing about the business of journalism, and it was one of the most educational experiences in my life.

I learned there was a real difference between companies who made profits based on the strength and demand of their products, and those who could make a profit on feasting off the body of a shaky property.

Newspapers were no longer in the former category by the time I was on the scene. They were losing advertising revenue and readers way back in the late 1990s, and it was a very obvious.

But what was also equally obvious to me was how may of these parent companies operated: they squeezed assets and parsed definitions of what defined certain successes.

For one, the definition of paid circulation changed: from those who actually bought a newspaper, either at the stand or through circulation, to those giveaways they shoved in diners, universities, and laundry mats.

Technically, those were counted as being "sold" for one cent, and that was good enough.

Of course, it was a ridiculous notion. People who buy a newspaper are different than those who are just sitting around and reading free material out of boredom -- and with the latter -- most of those newspapers remained unread -- but would be consideration as part of the circulation numbers.

But that's just the definition parsing.

There is also the asset squeezing that is absolutely contingent on having a property that has nowhere to go but down.

Asset squeezing could still be considered "profitable", but it is akin to someone hard up for cash with little job prospects, so they sell their gold, kick people out of the house to keep costs down, hold garage sales, and then sell off the car and the house.

You can say technically, money is coming in, except it is a short-term smash and grab way of doing it. You are not bringing in any new source of income -- you are just jettisoning cargo as you sell piece by piece until there is nothing left to sell.

And that is precisely what you are seeing now in journalism.

You have asset-squeezers selling off real estate and other assets, while letting journalists go. There is no "profit." It is not as if these companies would be as profitable if they didn't fire their staff. Their corporate strategy is cutting and squeezing until it has gone as far as it can go -- then they either sell the shell to a lower-tier bottom feeding asset-squeezer -- or they close up the property because there is nothing left to squeeze.

That is what we are seeing now, but journalists are throwing fits, as they did in this Philadelphia Inquirer article, absolutely convinced that they should keep their jobs because these overlords are getting rich.

This is utter nonsense. The kind of owners who now are in possession of these properties are asset squeezers because newspapers are dead.

This is the reality of the situation. No one is going to invest in a property that is obsolete.

It didn't have to be this way, however. Had the industry kept up with the times and understood the mandate and focus had to shift, there wouldn't be this problem.

The "dissent" is misplaced. Journalists needed to dissent -- but should have rebelled against their refusal of seeing reality and making the necessary changes to stay relevant.

But when people like me sounded the alarm, we were ignored. It was very distressing watching the destruction of the profession -- because it would have been fairly simple to rejig the focus and get ahead of the future.

It didn't happen -- and we are still seeing denial. It won't change the outcome. It can't.

But that's what happens when you forget to observe the nuances to understand what is happening around you -- and why...