Canadian opinionists spew partisan narrative on Provincial usual, no one knows what they are talking about.

Opinionists in Canada are less flashy than their US counterparts, and as hard as it is to believe, less informed. Reading the babble about the Ontario election is particularly painful, because it seems as if everything is on auto-pilot.

Ho hum.

The Toronto Star, oblivious to reality as usual, has a silly piece about sexism in election campaigns. It is very whiny with a whiny headline:

Mediocre men walk their way through political campaigns. It is time to end the double standard facing women on the campaign trail

Except of all the sexism to point out, the opinionist picks one that isn't true.

That headline is essentially her hypothesis, but it's wrong, and NYU had a very surprising experiment right after November 2016.

They had two actors -- a man and a woman -- who switched roles -- the man mimicked Hillary Clinton in words and demeanour, while the woman took on Trump's role.

The point of the exercise was to prove that if women behaved like men, that everyone would jump down her throat.

Except that didn't happen.

Subjects preferred the female Trump -- and much more than the real-life male counterpart.

And they disliked the male Clinton, seeing him as smug and arrogant.

I had said in 2016 Hillary Clinton was the absolute worst pseudo-feminist candidate the Democrats could have possibly chosen. They didn't a firebrand maverick who was over-the-top. This is America, and Americans love someone who is large and in charge. If women were waiting for the moment to be crown a queen instead of a king all those decades, then, for pity's sake, show it like you mean it.


I have always said that the problem isn't that there aren't wild female eccentrics -- I am not the only one on the planet, thank you very much -- but they are deliberately silenced -- not because people wouldn't like them -- but they would love them just a little too much, and that would bruise those tyrannical male narcissists who hoard power and keep everyone else -- including other men -- back.

As I write stories with nothing but idiosyncratic women -- I have a hard time getting attention, but when people read it, I do get wonderful feedback -- so the problem isn't the the world isn't ready for a wild woman -- women just make assumptions and restrain themselves unnecessarily.

So the Toronto Star is just spewing folksy logic that isn't true. Kathleen Wynne won a majority in the last election -- and considering she is openly gay and has radical ideas that frighten Jordan Peterson -- she was given public goodwill the first time around. The Liberals had a minority and a lot of illiill with the public, and they went solidly behind Wynne's regime.

But her penchant to throw money the province doesn't have to nanny the people is wearing thin with the public. It has nothing to do with the fact she is a woman.

And the election isn't over. As I have said before, if she won another majority, I wouldn't be surprised. She is a survivor and is that way because she has a working brain and knows how to use it instead of following other people's scripts.

If Wynne loses, it will be because she earned her loss, just the way Clinton spectacularly earned her defeat. Sometimes you lose -- not because you are a woman -- but because you think you are owed because you are a woman. Get that chip off your shoulder. People do not vote in women -- they vote for the person who seems like they are willing to listen to their constituents, will fight for them, and will make things happen. Politics is not an arena for social engineering -- it is a gladiatorial fight and people want to see candidates fight tooth and nail for the right to make their lives easier -- and if you think that sounds silly, you really didn't get the memo on democracy.

Don't take it up with me because if it were up to me, we'd be governing ourselves by referendum and by electoral conscription.

Oh, and by the way, Toronto Star, Clinton had more votes than the victor. Remember that? There may be sexism, but we have come a long way, baby.

But the Globe and Mail has a different -- but equally silly take on the election:

Why is Doug Ford giving Kathleen Wynne a chance to invoke Donald Trump?

That's right! Shame on Doug Ford who obviously forgot to tape Wynne's mouth shut so she couldn't invoke Donald Trump. He should have hired a chaperone for the little lady to supervise her. Jordan Peterson warned the world how dangerous she is and everything.

Do you honestly think he could stop her or her operatives from saying it -- regardless of what he said and did?

It is a campaign, people: it is all about using dirty tricks, and then using the meta-dirty trick of accusing the other guy of negative stuff as you paint him in a negative light, like Justin Trudeau recently did.

There is so much to discuss when there is an election: platforms, current situation, problems to be solved, qualifications, track records, needs, wants -- and yet we have babble from opinionists who have no idea what to say.

We are as ill-informed as we were before. We need facts to make sensible decisions, but what we get is the same old script that is always devoid of any real data...

The war on journalism is over, and journalism lost. Time to hold that intervention.

So much sophistry going on. The CBC is wondering if there can be too much transparency in journalism because ABC released all of its transcripts.

That is hardly transparency. How they landed the interview, what parameters were set, how the questions were constructed and why would be transparency.

So no, ABC News wasn't all that transparent.

Because what ABC News did was give an hour-long informercial to Comey's book. I don't recall any real fact-gathering or verification happening there.

When I did Chaser News, I was very transparent. I disclosed everything, including why I pursued the stories I did. I didn't shill anyone's book. I interviewed people and revealed all before I did my actual stories. I discussed how the interview went, my sense of the questions I asked and the answers I got, if I thought I made any errors or omissions, and then discussed each finding as I came across it.

Then after all that, came the actual story. I didn't treat information as a spoiler or reveal. When putting the various facts together, those facts changed meaning.

And ABC didn't do any of it -- yet CBC is treating them as some sort of "trailblazers". Even Wired and 60 Minutes have given more information to their stories online than ABC did here. I did it before any of them, but in a completely different way.

The Globe and Mail had some sort of point to make in a column about how the "war on journalism is only getting worse."

No, that war was fought a long time ago, and journalism lost. That ship has sailed.

And had journalism been a little more alert, humble, flexible, and disciplined, they would not have lost. They failed to grasp this whole Internet thing. They thought they had power when what they had was public goodwill with their monopoly.

Once those rigs were gone, journalists had to quickly retool the profession to stay in the game. They kept pretending that nothing changed and they got pummelled.

And instead of facing reality, journalists began to spew propaganda full-time, making their fortunes worse. The Guardian, a once decent outlet, has now lost all common sense and seems to be having a collective meltdown, running around like chickens without heads screaming about Russian propaganda as if no other country in the world didn't partake in it, too.

Journalists want to blame someone -- Trump, Facebook, Russia, their grandmothers -- anyone they can get a hold of and shame without coming off as racist loons.

Except they are coming off worse than that. They are hysterical and panicking as they try to pretend they can still be rational.

But they are not rational. They have lost all sensibility because it is starting to dawn on them that they are done.

It's time to hold that intervention. It is not a "golden era" of journalism. It is not going to be saved for becoming a nonprofit. It is not going to be saved with government money. It is not going to be saved bashing the American president.

And it is not going to be saved blaming others for the profession's demise...

CBC has gender pay disparity? You don't say, Globe and Mail! Canadian journalism was always a misogynistic mess. And still is.

The Globe and Mail is tattling on the CBC for its penchant for paying the boys more than the girls. No kidding.

For all the blustering and moral masturbating from legacy media for their various pseudo-Leftish decrees, it was and still is highly prejudicial against women, and pay is just one factor.

Sexual harassment is another factor.

But there are more factors: women do not get treated very seriously. I can speak of my own personal experiences, for instance. I would pitch very serious stories, and just be shooed away, as if gang warfare was some silly thing to get hysterical over. Art crimes in Canada are also a serious problem, but I could not get that published in any Canadian media outlet.

Then there was about the political ramifications of street graffiti, cult recruitment at various university campuses, sentencing disparities between convicted male and female prisoners, and how social media was going to make journalism obsolete.

Those were all rejected -- and there were others, as well.

I had the ability, the sources, the evidence, you name it, but every time I pitched something, particularly to a male Canadian editor, it wasn't just shot down -- but always with some sort of jab that I was wildly exaggerating.

And then the problem would explode in the future, and then my concerns were proven to be spot on.

If I were a male, that would have never been an issue. If you don't take hard news pitches from a female journalist seriously, you will not be paying her as much as you pay your male reporters. I once had an editor who did a profile on me be absolutely baffled that I didn't have a higher profile, given my credentials and accomplishments. He didn't get that it was pure sexism that had held me back in my career -- and I still managed to do a lot of important work despite it.

And nothing has changed in the business, except it has been destroyed -- but that toxic mindset is still firmly in place...


Is journalism racist? It's sexist. And racist. Look how MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes is being treated. How many -isms do we put up with before we concede that we need an alternative to it?

Robert Fife from the Globe and Mail got called out for thinking the Canadian government shouldn't study "systemic racism" because "kids of all ethnic backgrounds are hanging around with each other." Okay!

One MP, Celina Caesar-Chavannes, did not like his remarks and retorted that his remarks made her question his "ability to investigate stories of the Canadian experience without bias."

For her observations, Canadian Right-wing commentators branded her a racist as well as "seeing racism everywhere", with her supporters countering the charge.

Now, I am a Caucasian female, but I can tell you that I have also studied media coverage for a couple of decades, and can see very clearly not only a sexist bent, but also a racist one. Not all sins are by commission. It is also by omission.

I don't see hard news stories specifically addressing youth or immigrant unemployment as it relates to those subgroups, for instance. I don't see stories about how black women who have been victimized fare in the court system, let alone what has been going on to First Nations women.

And should a reporter do such a story, it will not become a beat, nor will it speak directly to those people who feel the impact of the issue directly. There is a whiff of Those People. 

It's still Us. Journalism is supposed to address Us. We need to know about things, but the soul of a story should focus on the subset of Us first, but then radiate so the rest of Us can understand the issue, person, event, or problem.

But journalism keep screwing it up. They never do relevant stories. If they target Those People Way Over There, it is some advertorial feel good Yayness! dreck that doesn't actually give pertinent information that can be used to as a map.

So while it is fine that we have people who have accomplished great things, it doesn't provide anything of value if you are an immigrant who runs a store, and suddenly, the neighbourhood thugs start shaking you down for "protection money." Is this just happening to you? The entire neighbourhood? Or just because you are an immigrant?

Good journalism should be a form of Spread of Activation: make a connection with a certain subset, and then let the rest of Us understand the issue. It should always be You-focussed, and serious, not some silly cheering giving out little paper crowns to people.

People need facts. They need to know if they are falling behind. They need to know if they are safe. They need to know if there is a solution, and if there none, there has to be a way to let people know why not.

We pour billions of dollars into healthcare. We have no shortage of civil servants making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year -- how many patients were cured under their care?

Not given drugs to make them go away with an illness to nurse, but actually cured, as in, they can leave alive and healthier than they were going in and do not have to keep going back.

Every person who isn't cured is a system's failure.

And the same holds true for homelessness. Every person who is homeless is a city's failure. 

Let's not forget about the crime rate. How many people were robbed, beaten, raped, abducted, or murdered today? Every person not saved and every criminal not held accountable is a justice system's failure.

No spinning it so people making an upper class wage can keep a status quo rigged in their favour without them ever having to produce anything of value.

Every news report should be how many people were failed today? How many people have fallen under the cracks or behind? How many people were held back? How many people wandered away too far for too long and nothing was resolved in a timely manner?

How many university students graduated without being able to land a decent job? What is the institution's failure rate?

The success rate is advertising.

The failure rate is news.

Journalism has become propaganda -- always spinning things to happy news, and that is the precise reason it is racist and sexist.

Because to acknowledge failure means we are inclusive in our coverage: and we know very well how many groups are in over their heads through no fault of their own. Because they have been failed, and then made to feel like failures, and they run and hide in shame.

The patronizing efforts of doing a happy piece here and there is the equivalent of a doctor giving a happy pill so the patient is left sick, but just goes away thinking something substantial was accomplished. It is nothing but a sham.

Racism can be completely eradicated. Sexism, too. If you do not like news about failure, then start thinking in terms of how to create a higher success rate, aiming for not just 100%, but 1000%, so no one will be facing that edge.

So the Honourable Caesar-Chavannes doesn't need me to tell her that she is right. I will not patronize her in any way.

But those masquerading as journalists do need to be told that by someone who had studied them for years because she was in their ranks, and so, I am saying it.

We live in an oppressively sexist and racist world. Journalism helps perpetrate that sexism and racism with how they see the world, and how they cover news.

Let's get our act together, people. It's time to start assessing our society's failure rates and begin to plan from there...

The Globe and Mail's spinning of the Internet continues.

The name of reporting beats can tell you a lot about how the profession of journalism sees the world, and when one of your reporters covers "Media and Marketing", you know whatever the newspaper knows, it isn't journalism. Media is the vessel. Marketing is content that often exploits the vessel to promote a third party, but not always. These are two different spheres. You can cover media, or marketing, but putting them together is like having an Internet and Cats reporter because cats happen to be on the Internet.

Journalism very often wants to mimic academia with titles denoting precision specialty, but it's not actually the case. It is an unreasonable facsimile of it.

But that's the fault of editors and publishers who create bogus titles for reporters to carry.

The Globe and Mail 's article about Google is as deceptive and skewed as one can get. It gets the propagandistic narrative into full gear from the get-go:

With all the hoax headlines, election meddling, clickbait and conspiracy theories, the internet is starting to look more like a misinformation superhighway – and that's a problem for the digital giants who make billions of dollars a year off that ecosystem and are now facing pressure over its misuse.
This week, Google Inc. announced a US$300-million investment in a slate of programs to come to the aid of news publishers – an industry that's struggling partly because companies such as Google and Facebook control the majority of digital advertising revenues.

Yes, of course, it is all social media's fault, as if journalists didn't partake is countless hoaxes, election meddling, and conspiracy theories themselves. As the author of three books on journalism, I know its irresponsible and arrogant side.

When an editorial endorses any candidate, they seek to meddle in the election's outcome, wanting their votes to count more than just one per person. I always found the practice to be supercilious and outside the mandate of the profession.

And let's not forget how hard newsman Mike Duffy lobbied prime ministers to give a senate appointment.

So right off the bat, we have an article carefully crafted to focus the blame of the Internet for all this "misinformation", while carefully dodging the fact that traditional news outlets were doing this and more all along. The author of this manipulative tripe fails to mention how news outlets crib from press releases, which may explain why they sullied the name of a murdered First Nations teenager with a headline; perhaps if she was a rich white girl whose parents had a PR firm dictating the headlines the Globe used, they would have never made that mistake.

What we have is a discredited industry shaking a finger at the industry who humbled them by taking away their advertising revenue because they did it better than the legacy outlets. There was nothing stopping the profession from doing that themselves -- once upon a time, their owners had a far more resources to make those investments than did the pioneers of social media. They could have bought and integrated that model within their own products, and then not meddle, but they never could do it right. AOL Time Warner Turner. News Corp. and MySpace. The old guard just could never get their act together and never listened.

The subject of this interview is the head of Google News, and it is instructive to read

in that it is not just banal and devoid of actual information, but it also illustrates how two rival media skirting around the actual issue: that neither side has ever done its due diligence or ever became qualified to verify information. The pull quote used the headline "Google is not the oracle of absolute truth" isn't damning: it has been the truth about new media and old media alike, and reminds me of this meme:


The Internet is under threat precisely the old relics in charge want people to come running back to them for more manipulation. The problem is their credibility had been destroyed -- and then made more galling with their uppity attitude. That kind of oblivious hubris-filled attitude stopped Hillary Clinton from becoming president because not everyone wants a self-absorbed and manipulative blowhard to tell them what to do.

It is a fight between warlords -- the old guard and the new guard. That is why there is so much fear-mongering in the news coverage -- media power has now sunk to a critical low, not bouncing back, and now it is all about survival. The problem is the old guard do not understand street fighting because they were never poor or forced to think in terms of making it through another day on their own wits alone.

The new guard had an easy ride until now because the old guard kept thinking the kids would tire of their selfies and coming crawling back to the powerbroker. It didn't happen, the rate of deterioration accelerated, and now it is a fight for survival with the old guard smearing the new with every story they churn.

The Internet will have a new battle, but whatever their fortunes, the traditional media isn't strong or cunning enough to reclaim what was lost two decades ago...

#DeleteFacebook? And pretend the others aren't invading privacy? Why panicking on cue won't change anything.

Facebook is using dead trees to say they are very, very, very sorry. Dead trees media is pouncing all over it, those jealous kiddies with the Globe and Mail going full force with the fear-mongering calling it a "threat to democracy" and it achieving a ominous new narrative.

Seriously stupid.

Let's review the last decade of social media, you know, the one where people were repeatedly warned about privacy issues, and could see that algorithms and cookies meant all your information would be store by third parties who made you agree to Terms of Service that stated that pictures and documents you stored would become their property.

And now, all of a sudden, people finally got around to reading the memo?

The memo written by vested interests who have always thought they had a right to know everything and were constantly in court looking to lift bans and have access to your information for their profit -- not public service.

And it was never just Facebook. No, sorry, offended people. It is all of them, from your hardware to your software to your social media.

It was okay until someone started to engage in warfare, scare-mongering specifically.

Now people want to delete Facebook?

Really? Do you scare that easily?

It is like the spouse whose mate always cheats out in public, and the warnings are ignored until the day the person decides this is a bad thing and then throws a fit.

It was never the cheating the was the deal-breaker. That was the price of having a relationship, but then something else happened to cause the explosion.

In this case, people are not getting rich and famous providing content on social media.

It was never about the privacy. Facebook had done much worse, and it didn't cause the sort of temper tantrum we are seeing now.

The press tried to get people angry back in 2016, but there wasn't the anger. One newspaper headline read:

After reading this, you'll probably NEVER trust Facebook again

Yeah, but then where could you plaster your latest airbrushed selfie?

This would not have even been as bad had Mark Zuckerberg not wait five days to respond. That left a vacuum, and crisis management is all about getting ahead of a scandal.

You don't wait five days, and then use the Same Day Apology to combat it.

That was a tactical error, and as I have said before, I am surprised they never anticipated a scandal and struck back within the hour.

The other tech companies are trying to deflect attention away from their own sketchy deeds by distancing themselves from Facebook.

It won't be hard to shift the narrative for Facebook. It is not that hard to do as the reaction is too artificial to begin with. Whenever I hear the temper tantrum, I point out the person's current toy, and ask a few questions about how well do they know how they are being tracked by their own trinket.

Because I am not playing in this childish game. Facebook's silence is the only reason people are talking about it at all instead of wondering about the bigger privacy invasions that are going on as we speak...

The Anti-Facebook propaganda campaign keeps on going: Self-interest is not news, Globe and Mail kiddies.

Serial plagiarist Margaret Went is walking lockstep with the anti-Facebook diatribes. Dou Saunders is marching to the same tune, too.

For all those people whose privacy was invaded by the press, and those invaded by the government, these cases do not count.

Edward Snowdon's warnings about government meddling have been for nothing. Nothing has changed, but the government is not the news media's competition. Facebook is.

Should anyone delete their Facebook account? Are you taking quizzes, and revealing your innermost thoughts?

Or are you taking pictures of your restaurant meals so that your siblings can be jealous of you?

Propaganda brings both fear and paranoia, creating helpless and outraged victims.

And there is no reason for that fear. Why would anyone delete Facebook when you can make demands of the company instead?

The problem is people always expect They to fix things and clean up messes, and there is no such group. People are disconnected, and then others take advantage. You have a powerful tool -- you do not give it up because you didn't make demands -- you can have conditions and then you have a product that suits your needs more.

Journalists would love nothing more than people to relinquish their power and their freedoms and come crawling back to them. Their sins are far worse than Facebook's, and they have a vested interest in misrepresenting the reality of the situation.

I am not buying the snake oil they are selling -- I use Facebook just like any other tool -- a saw can be handy, but you don't misuse it to trim your nails.

Besides, your personal information is not all that valuable -- so don't get worked up over nothing, especially if you don't get engaged in your world...

A truly stunning editorial in the Globe and Mail: if you don't think Donald Trump can still play the press, you aren't paying attention.

Donald Trump called Canada "smooth": a blunt way of accusing the nation of being liars and manipulators. At first, Canadians were slow to react because they have been infantilized for so long, they always think someone is saying something cheery and nice about them because they are So Very Nice.

And then, it dawned on them, that maybe, just maybe, Trump had just told the world that they are the Bad Guys.

At first, they made fun of it, trying to explain away things. And then came the feint of crippling tariffs that got their attention. It was an age old ploy to make them receptacle to  making big concessions, but then the Indian Prime Minister also made a comment on an unrelated matter that the Canadian regime were not being honest about a Very Big Gaffe on Justin Trudeau's ill-fated trip to that nation.

It didn't matter. In a matter of a couple days, the narrative was set, thanks in large part to Trump who understands that it is the first message that counts.

Now here is a stunning editorial in the Globe and Mail "Justin Trudeau, from saviour to liability" that goes along with Trump's narrative (emphasis added):

Political parties live and die by their leaders. For Justin Trudeau and the Liberals, this was supposed to be good news.
After his party died a pair of dismal deaths under hapless leaders in back-to-back elections, Mr. Trudeau arrived on the scene as a potential saviour.
Amazingly, that’s just what he was. The young pretender had energy, charm and a sound strategy of pulling the Liberals left. (Plus, that name.) In his first election at the helm, he romped to a majority government.

This is a radical change from the previously carefully cultivated and accepted narrative about the Prime Minister of being savvy and cool. Now comes out the criticisms that perfectly align with Trump's watershed Smooth Canadian diatribe:

Take Mr. Trudeau’s dramatic pledge to make the 2015 election the last conducted under first-past-the-post voting rules. The Liberals have abandoned (read: broken) that promise – a betrayal of younger, leftist voters and a stain on the government.
But making the promise was a mistake to begin with. It was never in keeping with Liberal interests or values, and it seems unlikely the Liberals had any intention of keeping it. To claim otherwise was cynical, yes, but also misguided.

Again, his word is in doubt, on the big things, but also the little things:

There have also been less serious slip-ups, like the bad joke about chastising a woman for using the word “mankind,” and repeatedly and falsely describing Science Minister Kirsty Duncan as a Nobel Prize winner. (She, along with hundreds of scientists, contributed to a climate change panel that won the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore in 2007.)

While the Globe does put a sunny spin on things, distancing Trudeau form the rest of the government, and comparing him favourably to Trump, the point is that, in fact, Trump's word is more credible than Trudeau's in this context. Trudeau deliberately makes promises he cannot keep. All of his problems stem from not being entirely honest...and he got into power, because of his charm.

In other words, he is a smooth operator.

The Globe agrees with the US President, even if they pretend not to agree with him. He has now shone a different light on Trudeau, and now it has been accepted as the new narrative.

For all their howling and huffing and puffing, the press follows whatever Trump tells them to follow. He still controls the zombies, even if they resent the man who pulls their strings.

Trudeau is being isolated as part of national damage control. Should anything else humiliate the country, he'll been the sacrificial lamb. The Globe's narrative that the party is better than its leader cannot wash: they elected him to be their leader, meaning it was their choice, and he is the mere face of the collective. Their judgement would be in equal question, but it is easier to target the leader than go after an entire party, meaning if anyone is not to be trusted, it is just that one Canadian, and the rest were just hapless victims of his smoothness. Perhaps we were also taken in by all that smoothness, too.

It is truly stunning to see such brazen spinning out in the open. If Trudeau thought he was savvy enough to manipulate the press by perpetually appeasing them, he was sorely mistaken. Trump can be despised, but he is still in full control of that undead creature once known as journalism.

But while it is obvious, it is still breathtaking to see it in play at that scale.


Marci Ien's very bad day: When narratives go wrong.

CTV's Marci Ien's column in the Globe and Mail "The double standard of driving while black – in Canada" has caused a storm -- but not in the way it was intended. She recounted being stopped while driving because of her race. But the Toronto Police used social media --- Twitter -- to dispute her account, revealing both the video and audio records did not align with her version of event, according to Staff Supt. Mario Di Tommaso:

I have viewed the video footage of your vehicle stop. You were stopped because of your driving behaviour. You failed to stop at a stop sign. It was dark. Your race was not visible on the video and only became apparent when you stepped out of the vehicle in your drive way.

The police chief invited her to watch and listen to what the police had on the incident. They have not released either to the public, but they method of dispute is very uncommon. Once upon a time, a newspaper column's veracity would not unfold in public in this way. The police completely bypassed traditional media, and all but dared Ien to file an official complaint.

This is not the typical "he said, she said" battle. You have one individual making accusations in the traditional media, while the police using social media to launch a counterattack because the latter is far more effective than the former.

It is an interesting turn at a time when journalism's clout has been lost, but the Internet's is still the simplest method to counter a journalist's claim quickly to change the terms of debate.

Passivity, journalism style: Do not look at the facts, just tell people to embrace the status quo and suck it up...and then beg the government to bail out your industry. Well played, Globe and Mail.

The Globe and Mail has bee on the Fear and Pity bandwagon for quite some time, instructing the government to bail out newspapers because they cannot afford to run their papers anymore. But what does one of their columnists do?

Tell Millennials to stop complaining about the new mortgage rules, they cannot afford houses, so just suck it up.

There is absolutely no questioning of reality here: Canadians got poorer last year, with a sizeable chunk of people who no longer see themselves as middle class, and this is a country who has a family of four on $20,000 a year who think they are middle class, particularly in Hamilton, where the housing prices went out of whack last year, but with people unable to pay for basic utilities.

People rent rooms, sell their assets on Kijiji, divest of their family's jewelry, drive for Uber, and rely on the "sharing" economy to make ends sort of meet.

That is a crisis. That is something that needs to addressed. If Millennials -- who are mightily educated with graduate degrees, are struggling with affording a house, then we should be active in seeing what is going on here. We have people who are precariously employed in this country. We have people trying all sorts of things to make a decent living -- not an extravagant one, but a decent one.

And you have an obtuse ditz dismissing an entire generation with a suck it up attitude?

Journalism was a profession that perpetually stuck its collective nose in the air, trying to seem worldly and well-to-do, and now they have been decimated.

Yet they still just want people to go along with any and all rot.

They are unteachable. They never learn, or wise up to the very environment they made a promise to cover.

And their ignorance isn't helping this country's fortunes, either.

The Implosion of Patrick Brown. Offence is a terrible defence, especially when you are outgunned and outnumbered.

This column from the Globe and Mail echoes sentiments I have expressed before here, here, and here: namely that Brown has infantalized himself, revealing himself to be me-centred, has few allies in a party that was all too happy to throw him under and bus, and that while he is attacking his accusers, he is all too silent on the other problems dogging him. In the old days, a coup d'état would usually end in the dethroned leader conveniently being dispatched gorily, but this is Canada 2018, and we don't roll that way, but at a price. In a nannied society, we see the little brats for who they are really when someone takes away the paper crown and the cools toys.

Brown is behaving like an ill-behaved child in a toy store once he realizes mommy isn't going to buy him anything because they are there to buy someone else a birthday present. He once had a bland and innocuous way about him, but now the his explosive temper is coupled with excuses and finger-pointing, he is turning out to be someone very different than what he once pretended to be.

And he is showing the worst qualities a leader could possibly possess: he did not see the storm coming. He had no loyalty among the ranks with some of the most powerful members of both the federal and provincial levels distance themselves from him. He is making excuses. He obviously has never had crisis management training -- something every good leader has in emergencies, and there is always a possibility for an emergency.

He reminds me of Hillary Clinton not preparing a concession speech in the even that she lost. The fact that she didn't entertain a Plan B showed how poorly prepared she was as a leader. You don't make concession speeches because you think you are going to lose: you make them because if you are a capable leader, you have to entertain multiple scenarios because by mere randomness alone, something can come from left field. You may not be able to anticipate what bizarro thing is going to sucker punch you, but you have to be aware that you may not be able to succeed. You still need an exit strategy.

Brown's tactical errors say a lot about him. He, like Clinton, never had a vision or a plan to justify wanting the position.

But now that his stealth advantage has been lost and he now damaged goods, how he plans to win back a seat without his usual bag of tricks will be very instructive for those looking at what was transpiring during his tenure. They can compare and contrast to find out how he won the last time, and what it took, squaring it with what he is doing now.

He has been shrill and coming off as a peculiar mash-up of Mickey Mouse, Goofy, and Donald Duck. The high pitch voice, the sheltered bumbling, and the explosive temper all give off a piteous cartoonish way about him. He is not in charge. He is not shrewd. He acts entitled, and in Canadian politics, a leader does not throw temper tantrums, strut with a paper crown in public, and can never suggest that the system is flawed in any way shape, or form (Justin Trudeau's comments about the jury system has broken a spell with the public for that very reason, but that's another story).

Especially not if you were in charge. Any rot that hits you means it's your fault.

And worst of all, Brown as suddenly found the one thing to defend with his every grain of his being: himself.

If you are going to be a leader in this country, you better have something else you have a passion for, and when you don't, you will not be winning any popularity contests.

Especially if your main defence is an offence. Brown is attacking the women who accused him of being slimy. He is absolutely silent on the "rot" that has been turning up in the party, and his strategy is not one that any adept leader would stoop to using.

He is behaving like a rank amateur, making it increasingly difficult for the press here to defend someone who is not abiding by the unspoken code, and with an entire political party who do abide by it, he is alienating a base who have three luxury names they can support instead. Brown is outgunned, outnumbered, and most of all outclassed. No one wants an excitable gnat at their dinner party. He is making Doug Ford look downright stately now, doing him a huge favour. Christine Elliott and Caroline Mulroney are smart, diligent, have class, and most of all, dignity. It is the reason Elliott lost to Brown once, but now can easily enter the race once more.

Because she carefully thought about her Plan B, and proves who was the better leader for the party the last time.

I would be surprised if Mulroney doesn't win this contest. Compare her to Brown and she wins in that competition. So does Elliott, and Ford.

Brown was always a poor fit. He went for a position out of his league and it showed. Glaringly.

He is imploding as we speak. If the allegations weren't true, he had better options to confront them, but the narrative has long ago drifted away from sexual harassment to the other little problem.

The one that got the party faithful's attention and focus. As usual, he has his guard down where it counts the most, and the knock out punch is coming. This election is the Tories' to lose, and if they lose it, it will be an ugly mood -- and Brown has provided them with a perfect punching bag to take their wrath on.


Doublespeaking the Pink Gulag: When journalism can't figure out how to deal with women, they pull out the bridge table for them. How the Globe and Mail's Amplify newsletter is the same old story, with content to prove it.

When confronted with reality that women are people, too, journalism cannot actually handle it. They cannot place women in the hard news weave completely: there has to be a way to isolated the threat while pretending to be inclusive. It is the same when you are a child who is invited to a dinner party with your parents. You know you are going to be seated away from the hub of the real table. You will be sold a bill of goods that there is a "young people's" table, and then you are stuck on a wobbly bridge table off in the corner while the adults can easily ignore you.

If you are forced to go to the same house as an adult, it doesn't actually change. You are still move away from the adults, even if you are in your twenties. You may have a graduate degree and hold a white collar job, you are pushed away. You start complaining, there may be some shift, but the same troublesome group gets thrown at the bottom of the table.

I remember being the recipient of this kind of tradition, and one year, I decided to sit with the rest of my family near the top. The hostess had a fit.

I was 28.

The oldest "young person" was in their early 30s.

The other guests smirked, and said they could finally have a conversation with me, and ask me all about my job as a journalist, and politely protested when the hostess wanted me back down at the end of the table.

I had stories, after all.

But that same thinking permeates through journalism. There is the head table, and now there are all these women clamouring about something, and the Globe has a series of other "newsletters" -- so why not whip out another bridge table, call it "Amplify" to sound cool, and then stick all of that sophistry and opinion in a Pink Gulag near the end of the laundry list, and pretend you are inclusive and enlightened.

Nice try.

This isn't hard news. This is opinion, and such, is going to be the kind of things that fit into a patriarchal structure of thought.

This piece in particular stands out to me:

Amplify: As women stand divided on #MeToo, it isn’t age or ideology. It’s misplaced pain

First of all, this subject matter is not even news.

It makes it sound as if there are some divide in #MeToo, and that this is a problem.

This is typical Star Trek thinking where an entire planet of aliens all think and behave alike.

Women were never united on #MeToo. Ever. It is the same way that not all Christians walk lockstep with each other -- you have Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Anglican, Catholic, Evangelical, Baptist, and a slew of other kinds of Christianity.

The provincial Conservatives in Ontario have different preferences on the kind of leader they want -- no one is ever going to get 100% of the vote.

Americans didn't all vote for Donald Trump. Not all Democrats wanted Hillary Clinton and were devastated their pick Bernie Sanders didn't win the primaries.

So right off the bat, the premise of this article has a deep immaturity and a lack of foresight.

#MeToo was an American movement that began -- not with the poor or dispossessed women cowering in shelters -- but wealthy white women in the communications industry.

This may very well be one of the first social movements that came from a white collar segment.

There is nothing wrong with its pedigree, and, in fact, this is absolutely significant -- if women who have broken glass ceilings are reporting back that there are serious problems that high up -- everyone should be paying close attention.

It means if women are in positions of power, something has been seriously rigged that prevents them from fully exercising their power. It goes far deeper than changing laws because so many of those obstacles have been cleared, and yet, there is very little change or progress.

That is real news. That not all women subscribe to #MeToo is not.

So if you do not understand innate diversity, the rest of your premise falls apart, and #MeToo has nothing to do with this so-called "misplaced pain."

No, the pain is not misplaced. A certain demographic of women have witnessed things other women have not. They are reporting back, and their pain is real, legitimate, and hits it right on target.

This is typical of how Canadian journalists operate: strategic obedience to authority. You must appease that authority as you make excuses for their behaviour. In this case, it is demeaning those in #MeToo, hinting they are mistaken, silly, over-reacting, and perhaps a little hysterical. This is a stereotypical view of women: do not take what they say seriously because it can hurt the feelings of a man-child in power.

The fact that this article is in the Pink Gulag should surprise no one: it is there to reassure the big boys that they do not have to really make changes.

The Globe doesn't get it, and it lacks the intellectual dept to ever get it. It is all about spin to keep the overlords happy.

And that's not what #MeToo was ever about: it is about waging war with misogynistic rigs to tear them down.

Not this apologetic, rambling mess.

How bad is Canadian journalism's logic? Just read their narrative weaselling in the Age of #MeToo.

Journalism has been marred by sophistry for a very long time, but in Canada, it has always been an embarrassingly out of control mess. They never question whatever an authority figure decrees, often because their moms and dads are employed in that sector. But they can get away with it because so much of the news is fluff.

And then every once in a while, comes an event that reveals just how damaged the thinking happens to be.

If Canadian journalists understood their jobs, they wouldn't be frazzled: they would go and dig for facts. No spin, no hype, no narrative, no hedging your bets on whose side needs your rigging.

So there is a shift in narratives coming from the US. #MeToo has long since evolved from just a hashtag.

But it was born in the USA, and Canada is not America. Our journalists are not of the same rugged and combative ilk as their colleagues from the South. The American narrative is entrenched in the Hero's Odyssey/Journey, and, by the very nature of it, there is a goal, a transformation, and the embracing for an outcome where there is a positive change.

The environment must be different at the end than it was at the beginning. The hero wrests control from the Establishment, and makes the protagonistic voice heard.

It is the Patriarchal structure, and though I fight for Matriarchal structures (it doesn't it is a polar opposite in every way, and there are no goals, rebellions, or positive changes), that structure is at the heart of #MeToo. It is a movement with its sights firmly set at toppling the oppressive assumptions and strategies of those in power.

(Side note: This is fascinating and though Hillary Clinton's presidential loss was one of the precursors to this movement, it should be noted that Clinton's undergraduate thesis on Saul Alinsky argued that Alinsky was wrong in his belief that the dispossessed should make change by opposing a ruling regime. She argued that change could be done by working within the regime. She did that and lost spectacularly. The movement is now challenging those structures from the outside through mainly social media. As I have always believed, you have to go right into the eye of the storm to see the nucleus, but if you don't want to be swallowed up, you have to seemingly retreat and them pull yourself to make changes. There is no playing it safe from inside -- or outside).

But when you have journalists who (a) see nothing wrong with an Establishment, (b) always defer to an Establishment and look up to them for a job and/or guidance, and (c) constantly beg the Establishment to give them free money, they are not heroes, and they have no use for an odyssey or journey.

So #MeToo is not in tune with the broken mindset of the Canadian news media. It is a threat.

So when #MeToo hit one of their own, it was panic time here.

Now, when Steve Paikin got #MeToo'ed by someone the Canadian media previously exploited as a punchline and a freak, it was absolutely horrifying. They decreed he was beyond reproach, and Sarah Thomson was just silly.

Never mind that the woman has been a successful businesswoman in a number of different ventures.

But you wouldn't know that from the press coverage. You wouldn't know she is a self-made entrepreneur with an enviable track record in various industries. We are talking millions of dollars here.

So we have to question why an eccentric woman who made it in business is being so disrespectfully treated by the press. If she was a man, she'd be a legend and an icon. If she were American, Cameron Diaz would have already portrayed her in a big screen biopic.

But she is a Canadian woman, and that means she is to be distrusted and looked down on by the press, who have no problem with men like Don Cherry who unrepentantly have freak flags flying sky high and shill any company who'll have him.

Steve Paikin works for TVO -- which is a television station run by the Ontario government.

Now the Canadian press has one of their own in the #MeToo crosshairs.

This is a tricky spot.

So what do you do?

Try to knock down and discredit the woman, but since research is, like, so hard, you have to resort to making silly arguments to defend him.

So you have the Globe and Mail's Margaret Went trying to compare what happened to Patrick Brown to Steve Paikin, and wondering why the cases are different.

They are different because the press did not like Brown. He didn't have the Obama touch of schmoozing and joking around with reporters. If he hired a few former journalists to his team, he wouldn't have to step down.

Steve Paikin, on the other hand, is one of their own. He gets the benefit of the doubt.

If there are facts, find them. Report what you found -- and didn't find.

Then we have one CBC commentary trying to play detective, talking the the Paikin accusations "don't fit a pattern"?

What does that even mean? There is no pattern to fit. Life is not about set scripts. You dig. You research. You find people and talk to them. Bruce McArthur fit a pattern of an average man, and it meant nothing. Patterns emerge by investigating, not eyeballing whatever snippets the press decide to cover.

Because it is the media that looks for anecdotes that fit their narrative. It is not reality itself.

And it is the kind of back-pedalling arguments that expose the flaws of the Canadian news media.

They do not make cogent arguments based on facts. They make excuses. If you think your colleague has been wronged, give us the facts, please.

But you're not doing that. You could easily do that without having to wait on an authority figure to do it for you.

You are sitting around and not presenting facts as you use various forms of personal attacks to discredit an accuser.


Why is doing your job so difficult for you?

Why the Globe and Mail's headline of the murder trial of Tina Fontaine is worse than you think. Why empirical journalism is needed now.

I have talked about the headline here, and the Globe and Mail's excuse here. Tina Fontaine was a kid, and the Globe's wicked headline against her needs revisiting.

As someone who worked as a Language Studies professor, I had to teach grammar, and the sentence’s construction itself indicts the Globe, who is in the business of constructing sentences. The justification that the accused did that to the victim is nowhere implied in the sentence.

In fact, he makes no appearance anywhere in that sentence. Not in the subject, not in the object, and not in the verb. It about the victim from the perspective of the toxicologist. If someone never heard of the case saw the headline, there is no possible way to infer that excuse from the headline. From the headline alone, you wouldn’t even know the article was in reference to a murder trial. That’s quite a feat.

I am certain if a linguist or psychologist ran an experiment and gave one group of subjects the first headline and another group the second, the ones who read the original headline would have a far more negative view of the victim than the latter.

It’s not just the content of the headline that’s loaded: it’s the structure itself, and a headline isn’t just a sentence: it tells you how to interpret the rest of the article. This was a bad article made worse by the public editor.

The fact that we have no experimental journalists conducting empirical studies to prevent this kind of victim-bashing from happening tells you how irresponsible that profession is.

Change is needed now. We have allowed unqualified and untrained individuals destroy a profession, and they are not going to admit the extent of their incompetency, and the damage they have caused over the years. Some actually believe their professional destruction is "proof" of a "golden age" of journalism, even if they haven't actually done anything to warrant that arrogant title.

If any one headline is a wake up call, the Globe's is it.

Memo to the Globe and Mail: Your treatment of a murdered child was vile. And you still don't get it. Shame on you.

A fifteen-year-old girl is murdered. A child.

And what does the Globe and Mail do?

Write a victim-shaming headline.

I do not care about toxicology reports. I care that a little girl was killed.

Tortured, terrorized, and discarded like a piece of garbage.

She had value as a human being, and she was in clutches of someone who didn't see it.

Instead of feeling sorrow for a child whose last moments of her short life were horrifying, the Globe focusses on her state -- not the state of the fifty-five-year-old adult male who is on trial for her needless death.

The public was upset because there are people who have not just morals, but logic and common sense.

But the public editor gave this vile response instead:

The story and headline on the testimony read harshly to some when written about a young woman who died tragically and especially to those family members and those in the community still mourning her death. At the same time, it showed her as a vulnerable person. Part of a criminal trial involves a defense and questions raised that may seem unfair to the victim and that is part of an open court system.

No, Ms Stead, it didn't read harshly: it was a psychopathic headline. That headline was not about her vulnerability. It was about finding mud to throw at the memory of a dead child.

And considering the pages of the Globe are not doing the same to the man accused of harming her, we know the Globe has a serious problem with comprehending reality.

And most reporters covering trials leave a lot of information out. There was nothing in that headline that was newsworthy. A girl was murdered.

A child was confined, brutalized, and killed.

What she happened to wear on that day is irrelevant. What she said that day is irrelevant. What she consumed was irrelevant.

No one has the right to murder another human being. The end.

She was a child. That the paper's first instinct was to gossip about her and imply all sorts of things with a sick headline is mystifying to me.

Funny that the headline did not mention things that would be unflattering to the man on trial.

You owe the family an apology.

You owe all children who have been harmed, but survived, an apology.

Your apology to the victim you maligned is meaningless because she can no longer hear it.

Shame on you.

Shame on you for keeping the URL of that article intact.

You are keeping it as is because deep down, you do not see how more like her killer you are than you are to her.

My instinct is to mourn her passing, and wish that by some miracle, I could have protected a child.

Because no child should have to see her killer with her final stare. He had her final moment, her final breath, and her final thought.

The Globe is run by unfeeling and unteachable boors who still do not see how horrifically they failed their own nation.

Shame on you. Shame on you for being so cruel to a child who never did anything to harm you.

The press and victim-shaming -- and blaming: a just-world hypothesis they cannot seem to shake.

It seems the Globe and Mail's original headline

"Tina Fontaine had drugs, alcohol in system when she was killed: toxicologist."

has been changed to

Expert tells Winnipeg murder trial he could not determine cause of Tina Fontaine’s death

though the link

still carries the original victim-shaming headline.

It took the Assembly Of Manitoba Chiefs to write a letter to the Globe to do anything about it.

A fifteen-year-old is murdered. The end. As in, the end. What she wore or did does not matter. We do not give a death penalty in this country for hitmen whose body counts are in the three digits, but it's okay for some grown man to decide whether someone who isn't hurting anyone lives or dies?

Victim-blaming has always been a staple in journalism. Somehow, someway, it is always the victim's fault.

I had a wonderful sociology professor as an undergrad, and he made a point I still carry with me: he noted how the press always took to task young women who get raped at night as they were standing at a bus stop, with the implicating question what was she doing there? He said she probably was coming home to work from a night shift -- and even if she wasn't, she wasn't hurting anyone, but her rapist was...

So what was he doing there?

If the press means to imply that one of those two should be the subject of a curfew, he said the best course of action was to place men under curfew if they cannot be trusted to leave people alone at bus stops.

He was the one with destructive intentions. The woman was standing there waiting for public transit.

But the press always blames the victims. They never fail. They never ask questions; so they assume they ought to follow the predator's lead and attack the weaker person, too.

Psychologists call that defective thinking The Just-World Hypothesis. Journalism does it all the time.

The problem is that it infects the information stream, and then people do not question it, never thinking what they are actually thinking isn't just immoral, but potentially lethal.

If journalism was functional, they'd be going after predators who cause the problems. They would be wondering how a system so horrifically failed a fifteen-year-old girl repeatedly, and made her vulnerable on the last night of her life.

It is absolutely disgraceful and unhelpful.

Why isn't Canada a civilized country in 2018?

Why do we allow governments and the media to blame victims?

And how do we stop it before another fifteen-year-old dies because of it?

Journalism's paranoia and why they have lost their perspective: how can they cover reality when they are this far gone?

The Globe and Mail has decreed there is hatred for journalists, and it is only a matter of time before they are, I don't know, all rounded up and shot by some Trump supporter. CNN, too.

Meanwhile, the kids at the Washington Post are all in a tizzy because they want more money, and they are being told they are lucky to have jobs at all.

Nowhere in these pieces is there a consideration of what journalists did or didn't do to find themselves in this quagmire.

Why have they (a) enraged, and (b) alienated the public?

But when you come from a position of being perfect, you can never admit wrongdoing.

Bloomberg adds to the delusions, by saying it is high time that journalism counterattacks social media giants.

You lost the war. You have no public goodwill left to do that.

Besides, you forget that the public are all out to get you.

It seems journalism keeps waging a war with everybody.

The White House, tech companies, the public, everybody.

And they keep losing.

Because they have lost the ability to judge reality and truth.

Had they stuck to finding and presenting facts, this wouldn't be a problem.

People could make use of those facts they way they needed, without the patronizing meddling.

But that's not what happened.

There was always an arrogant tone of reporters that spoke down to news consumers, presenting more opinion and fluff over time.

It damaged the profession's credibility.

So we are left with finger pointing and vast conspiracy theories instead of news.

And it is a tragedy.

Why fooling journalists has always been child's play

The Hijab hoax is yet another black eye for journalists. CNN reported the story as fact.

So did the BBC.

And the Guardian.

Newsweek did.

The New York Times did.

The Toronto Star did.

The Globe and Mail did.

BuzzFeed did before their cleansing.

The CBC did, linking it to other hate crimes.

Oh dear, and a 11-year-old can fool the international press with ease.

No wonder people no longer believe the press.

How can such a hoax be believed by "seasoned" reporters?

In this case, the "hate crime" was part of a convenient narrative for the press in their never-ending feud with the American president.

It is the reason #MeToo took off so rapidly. It was part of connecting the dots.

Or removing liberties in a game of Go.

Except there were way too many red flags to ignore.

There are real cases of things happening, except the crimes are not palatable for the press. Here is a cute little kid who is eloquent, and the crime was PG-13 friendly.

Real-life attacks are not so clean and sanitary.

So the press rolled with it with a roar, without asking hard questions.

You ask about the surveillance footage. You walk the same path with a stopwatch, and take notes of possible witnesses and possible inconsistencies.

That was the problem from the get-go. The media didn't look at all for corroborating evidence. You talk to neighbours and teachers. You talk to the local gossips. You talk to the crossing guards and schoolmates.

You find out who is the victim. You work toward finding the culprit. Even as a journalist, you have to do the legwork. Why would this girl be a target, rather than another girl. Was it convenience, for instance, or something else?

This was a classic case of journalism by stenography. Grab a press release and roll with it.

And then other media crib the notes, amplifying the story that was never, even if it were true, been overplayed as it did, considering the number of real hate crimes that never make it into the news that were far more violent, severe, and persistent. It did not warrant that kind of coverage it got. I can see the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun making a mention of it without naming the victim to protect her identity...and ensure what was reported was, you know, true, and a couple of local stations, but that's it.

Hate crime hoaxes are a murky area: people feel uncomfortable with them, and they are on the outskirts of being a more hardcore version of a hoax: it is a form, inventional or otherwise, of propaganda, and even war propaganda.

Because it incites and takes advantage of the already established line in the sand.

This will set back a lot of real hate crimes. It will play into the hands of those who think these are not real cases. The press had the duty to pull back. They could have said there was a report of an attack, but instead of giving the girl's identity and then speculate whether it was a hate crime or not, they should have given the details of what they had -- and didn't have. Was there surveillance? Witnesses? Evidence?

That's what good journalism needed to be -- but as usual, we didn't get that at all.

And that is the reason a world of grown-ups got fooled by a child.


The self-serving justification of Margaret Atwood and why Canadian literature could never thrive.

The Globe and Mail gave a platform to non-feminist author Margaret Atwood to spew some nonsense. Anything she says should be ignored. Is she a feminist?

Who cares? She put her name on a letter defending a predator who narrowly predated the #MeToo hit list, and that told the world the truth about her.

Nothing she says or does now can atone for that: when push came to shove, she sided with an Establishment writer -- the white man with the paper crown.

That sealed her fate.

But we can take a look at her wallowy, victim-based drivel she calls novels.

Her female characters were always flighty morons who just stumble, waddle, or were just intellectual lumps.

As a teenager, I found her work to be offensive.

But as the pickings were slim, I noticed novels never had a single feminist character in general.

Where are the teenaged girls who are out to rule the world? Where were the warriors and the mavericks? The innovators and visionaries who created their own cities, corporations, art movements, religions?

Oh yeah, they didn't exist in publishing.

Literature likes their fairy princesses and airheads who twist logic to pretend they were strong, but were just appeasing ditzes.

Rubbish masquerading as female characters.

That Atwood was sanctioned by the misogynistic Establishment of the communications industries tells you everything you need to know about her "feminist" credentials.

As in, having none, and anyone who tries to argue the opposite wouldn't know a feminist if they woke up in bed next to one.

Atwood is a spin doctor: she helps entrench destructive qualities preventing women from breaking barriers, reassuring them that they are perfect. All they have to do is dabble in the occult or eat something, and everything will work itself out in the end.

They should see themselves as victims. Their filters must never reveal that they can be little rabble-rousing hellions from birth, even if mommy and daddy protest.

She is a patriarchal storyteller, not a matriarchal one.

So whatever babble she spews is meaningless.

But the Globe and Mail will give Canada's enabler a platform to placate the jittery, to tell them whatever they want to hear so they do not start thinking for themselves.

Or seeing the world as it is.

Keeping stagnate misconceptions alive killed Canadian publishing.

If the government didn't give grants, Canada would not have a single publisher. None would survive because none sell enough books to sustain themselves.

Because it always rewarded people like Atwood.

Not the true literary fighters that Canada desperately needed, but was always too scared of embracing.

Memo to David Frum: Donald Trump did not turn America into a headless giant. Journalists did.

David Frum's grasp of reality may not be all that. Blaming one man for the sins of an entire dead profession is just rich.

The Great Man theory in reverse.

One person who makes all of the difference.

No, journalists never wanted to do the hard, dirty work of finding information without the deceptive narrative.

Learn to deal with that thing called consequences.

Journalists and pundits need an intervention.

Tell their credulous lapdogs to learn to think for themselves for once in their lives.

They need to stop blaming Trump and start writing letters of apology to news consumers.

Just tell them you failed.

Just say it.

Just say you screwed up a profession to death.

It's the truth.

And reality.

Tell the little people what you really think of them.

And to stop plastering Facebook with their sad little propaganda posters.

They need to hear it.

They need to see they are not actually informed.

They can vent on Twitter for awhile.

And then see that venting is just hot air.

And they still know nothing about their surroundings.

We need an alternative to journalism.


One that does not look for scapegoats, villains, or blame.

Facts would be nice.

Scientific methods would be even better.

There are no monsters, just people.

And if journalists ever did their jobs, they would inform the public of that fact.

So they could grow up and deal with it...