Facebook is watching you, but so are those Loyalty programs. But there is no scandal with those...

The pummelling of Facebook continues with the latest being the "Memo"; this time Vanity Fair. BBC also takes them apart here. The Atlantic seems obsessed with the shallow PR-angle with its usual sophistry it is usually churns. Contrast them to the Financial Times musing that wonders how well Big Data is when ads never seem to quite align with what you actually want or need.

But there is an aspect of modern life that has that kind of Big Data -- loyalty card programs that keep a perfect track of how much you spend, where you spend, what you buy -- and then sends offers all based on your shopping profile.

And yet these loyalty programs somehow are excused from the Big Data Scare.

But then again, Loyalty Programs are not in direct competition with traditional media.

There are no shortage of places that keep track of you -- from the banks that know where you spend your money and where to government agencies who make you fill out forms with information that they already have on file. 

But none of them are competition to the industry. If the Facebook drubbing was sincere, we'd be looking at the big picture. 

But it's not looking for noble motives -- and that insincerity is newsworthy and worth examining...

The most unintentionally funniest article Vanity Fair ever spewed: If you think Twitter was wrong in doing all of the things that destroyed your profession, then what does that make you?

Vanity Fair lectures Twitter with this silly article:

“JUST AN ASS-BACKWARD TECH COMPANY”: HOW TWITTER LOST THE INTERNET WAR

It is a knee-slapper and a howler for one big reason: they are taking Twitter to task for behaving like journalists.

What felled journalism is what is felling social media, and if you have been reading my web site for any stretch of time, you know I have been pointing all of this out for quite some time.

Journalism, citizen journalism, social media -- they are all doing the same things -- the same things that destroyed journalism.

It would be nice for traditional press to take their own lecturing as they look themselves in the mirror -- because they lost the Internet war first with their own obtuse ways.

The Decline and Fall of the Journalistic Patriarchal Model. It is time for a change.

Once upon a time the patriarchal model of journalism was seen as the ideal. It was easy to assume it because the titans of that industry held all of the cards. When you are the gate-keeper, you set the rules of engagement. It was a simple and simplistic model that seemed to work -- even without the science or the experimentation. You showcased a lot of visionary Great Men -- in the days where men were Great Men:

bc6d0240-8e01-0132-4401-0ebc4eccb42f
bc6d0240-8e01-0132-4401-0ebc4eccb42f

And the women were disposable eye candy prancing in public in their underpants:

Vanity-Fair-Hollywood-Issue-1995
Vanity-Fair-Hollywood-Issue-1995

It was all very Patriarchal.

It still is, don't kid yourself, children.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because for it to change, news producers would have to admit they were wrong.

And then they would have to overhaul everything.

They'd rather scuttle their own ship, then make changes that could possibly benefit someone else, and they'd lose some of their power.

Yes, I know they already lost it; but they keep hoping for the calvary to arrive.

Except some of that calvary got angry, outed all the boors through #MeToo, and now started a little something you may have heard of called Time's Up.

The ones you dismissed as disposable eye candy turned themselves into soldiers.

Bless them for it. Keep it up.

The reason journalism died was that it so stubbornly stuck to a single structure of script. No women visionaries.

No swaggering female Turks that are taken seriously.

No Matriarchal structure.

That was a very bad move when social media exploded on the scene.

The nurturing Matriarchal was giving everyone a chance to be heard, and then the authoritative Patriarchal became threatened by it all, and then used all of its old tricks to its utter devastation.

Journalism is antiquated. It cannot function in its current form.

We need a different structure, and a different way of doing things.

Because it is time.

Right here, and right now.

A tale of two blood-lettings: Vanity Fair and Global jettison some human cargo. One is a changing of the guard. Not the other.

Vanity Fair has a new editor, and it should surprise no one that 15 have been given their walking papers. Conde Nast's Glamour is also letting some staffers, go, but as Vanity Fair is still celebrity-focussed, don't be surprised if they replace the old guard with cheaper, younger models.screen_shot_2018-02-15_at_12.59.56_pm_-_h_2018 That's the last Graydon Carter-helmed cover, and like the others, the girls show their physical assets, while the boys do not. Will a new editor be any better? The façade will seem like it, but new boss will be the same as the old one.

But Global television is letting go 80 people across Canada, and this blood-letting is not regime change or "reshaping", as obnoxious doublespeakers like to spew. Canadian journalism collapsed, and this is no surprise to anyone who is observant to the current reality and can face it.

ui1xDkiB

The union is whining, but they should really just shut up. Their workers didn't help their profession, and they didn't help themselves by extension. The entire profession sank to the bottom of a black hole, and pretending that it didn't is counterproductive. They don't have cards to play. They should have fought tooth and nail for things to help them improve their product so they wouldn't be in this position.

Broadcasters are also in big trouble here, thanks to Netflix and their ilk. Programming has gone turbo: spewing out a lot of little shows that are more disposable than the old guard. Once upon a time, Canadian broadcasters merely bought US programming and were profitable. While we have more Canadian-based content, people are getting their fixes on their tablets and smartphones. The era of scheduled must-see watching is gone. When you have two screens -- a computer and a television, the one with more versatility that you can take with you wins. When you held the remote control had full control, but now, you can watch whatever you want as your spouse and kids can do the same. It's a different world.

While both these blood-lettings signal different things, neither are a positive omen; it's just one is more dire than the other.

Delusion, Vanity Fair Style: James Warren, journalism is dead. This is not the "golden age" for it. Grow up.

An embattled industry is "stronger than ever" is what the headline is for James Warren's propaganda piece for Poynter/Vanity Fair. og-logo-vf

If you are wondering why journalism is dead, this article is a good answer for it.

Because you have deluded and arrogant people in the profession who think if they deny it long enough, they'll psych people out just enough to believe it.

Except it is not working in the slightest.

Never in the history of the American press did all the little minions walk lockstep to try to take down a presidential candidate.

They played the same game of psych out, telling the people that their chosen candidate had it in the bag, resistance was futile, and...

People ignored them, and the dark horse defeated the sure thing.

Once upon a time, that would have been unheard of.

That was way back in November 2016, and it has gone downhill from there.

Just how out of touch with reality is Warren's propaganda piece?

He allegedly offers "18 reasons why an embattled industry is stronger than ever."

But instead of reasons, he gives 18 people in the news industry who have not lost their jobs just yet, and a soundbite of Pollyana opinion.

Those are not reasons.

That's narcissism, and appealing to pseudo-authority.

And their desperate cheerleading cannot mask the truth.

The profession has collapsed. 

Even James Warren believes it has collapsed, because if he didn't, he could have given reasons with something called facts to back it up, not a laundry list of names of the still employed, and how they talk themselves into not screaming at that carnage.

That is as pathetic as it gets.

You still have a few propagandists left, not realizing their incessant anti-Trump slants isn't news, meaning anyone can produce the same sentiment with a DIY propaganda poster, plaster it on their social media feed, and to the public, theirs is far superior than the rambling piece found on a traditional outlet.

This isn't a golden age of journalism.

It isn't even a dark ages.

It's the end.

Journalists are so clueless about their environment, they don't even realize they are no longer a thing.

Grow up, children. You lost the war. Stop being in denial that you are the losers.

Because when you should have been fighting, you were too busy thinking you were irreplaceable.

You were wrong.

And now it's over.

Stop sunny spinning rot.

Because that's not journalism.

That's called lying.

Deal with it.

Journalism, "fact check", and other unverified concepts you cannot trust: why civilization needs a reality check.

STEM-based disciplines have standards. Doctors need a licence to practice. You have certain rigours...and even then, there are problems in those industries. Now, journalism, which is sloppy and undisciplined, has none of that.

Nothing.

Fact-checking is in the same boat.

Zero standards. No structure or methods, but people think that "fact-check" means something.

It doesn't.

Vanity Fair is musing about the limitations of "fact-checking", but in such a rambling way, that it is a meaningless piece.

But as it comes from journalists, we can expect nothing else.

We have CNN's Brian Stelter lecturing people not to, as the Globe and Mail reported, "let themselves be distracted by the fog of misinformation being spread by the Trump White House."

The trouble is journalists themselves have created a bigger fog of misinformation, not just through reporting outright lies and propaganda over the years, but through the very structures of their narratives.

This eroded public trust and has made the flow of information vulnerable. In Australia, proposals to changes the national security laws will see journalists in jail for twenty years if they report on information the government wants hidden.

But only now does someone in the dead profession question the state of journalism, in Esquire, of all places: wondering why pundits get posh positions when they know nothing -- and why once mighty newspapers are filing for bankruptcy.

You are asking this now?

I have been asking these questions for the last two decades.

We have no real journalism on this planet. None.

We have no real system of fact-checking. Period.

And deep down, we all know this to be true, but we are too scared of reality to face it.

Not everyone. Someone of us are more than ready to do something else, but as long as people in a dead profession are in denial, they are just making matters for civilization worse by the second.

Why Patriarchal news stories always miss the obvious

James Woolcott's piece on the fall of journalistic golden boy Mark Haperin in Vanity Fair is sophistry, but well-constructed sophistry. Woolcott has had more than one disclaimer in his story that he knew or worked for one of them on the #MeToo Hall of Shame, but this story is not about him questioning either whether he was blind to workplace abuse, or just apathetic if he knew. It is about Donald Trump.

Surprise! It is not really about Mark Haperin at all.

But the opportunity to begin a serious piece is missed right from the beginning of the article:

Reputations aren’t what they used to be. The bigger they are, the faster they fall. Reputations that lurched upright for decades, showered with a confetti of newspaper clippings, festooned with honorary degrees, and fortified with genuine accomplishments, can be brought down today with an inglorious crash in a frenzy of social-media fury, like Frankenstein’s monster given the old village stomp.

Woolcott does not question why this is at all, because if he had, it would speak ill of his profession. The accolades are paper crowns used to elevate people and create a pecking order. These predators used those awards as a shield to be above reproach as they went on terrorizing the competition to make certain he had all the power for himself.

If the accolades are a sham -- and, that the people who got them were tyrants, then those accolades meant nothing, and that's why their fall from grace happened as fast as they did: those little crowns mean nothing all along. It was what frightened and desperate people gave to these men in order to appease them, hoping that would calm those beasts.

It's called enabling.

And Mark Halperin was enabled by his fellow journalists in spades.

He was touted as a brilliant reporter. He got the book deals, A-list assignments, and even had a book in a development deal with HBO.

All the while perving the women in the workplace.

And that was who was fawned over by his colleagues as a Great Man.

That means the journalistic assessment of this man was flawed right from the get-go.

This is not a minor oversight. This is not some one-off.

At the point in the piece, a reader with critical thinking skills is going to start asking hard questions: Well, Mr. Woolcott, considering you are a journalist who writes for an A-list magazine about the media, and you never brought this topic up until it became posh, why didn't you ever see this and brought it out into the open?

It is not as if Woolcott hasn't written interesting pieces, or made interesting observations (his interview in the documentary OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism made it into my book, for instance, as well as Al Franken's, who was interviewed because of his feud with Bill O'Reilly), but in all this time not making a very critical observation at all gives readers something else to ponder.

Or, as gestalt psychologists would have framed it: the whole does not equal the sum of its parts.

But at this point of the article, he is through with the obligatory  mentioning of Halperin, and then goes to trounce on Trump as is now standard in any article that needs a misdirection to deflect criticism on why journalism is the biggest enabler of predatory behaviour.

He could have used a few more copy inches discussing the absolute failure of journalism to expose their own much, much sooner. He could have discussed why his employers let him do things that would land an ordinary man in jail. He could have even questioned his own publication who had a heavy hand in propelling almost all of these horrible deadweight into mainstream consciousness.

He doesn't.

Woolcott may have a way with words, but he always sticks those words into a Patriarchal Structure: it is linear, and always focused on a narrative, not on facts. It is about manipulating and rigging a narrative to force a reader to come to a particular conclusion. The writer provides the blinders for the reader; so that they do not see the other paths that will take them to a different conclusion.

That journalism took too much from literature, and nothing from science has always been a disturbing failure of the profession. It is the reason why predators such as Halperin got as far as he did, misusing the job to terrorize women. His lens of reality would always be skewed: he could just his bosses and the little people what they wanted to hear as he mocked them subversively, all along getting away with the things his poorer ilk paid for with a criminal record.

But journalists made it possible for him to get away with it.

How irrelevant has the media become?

Vanity Fair is probably the strongest of the magazines left in terms of having A-list people hamming it up on their covers, but not even all the media coverage over Tina Brown's book has given it any sales lift. og-logo-vf

No one is buying the book. It almost seems like more people in the news media wrote about it than actually went out and bought a copy.

This is an unmitigated disaster for the press. I almost did not even mention this debacle, but it goes to show how irrelevant the press has become to modern life.

Tina Brown had to struggle in a sexist profession her entire adult life. She was a transforming figure in the magazine industry...and now, nothing.

She cannot bring a corpse back to life, even with her wit and shrewdness.

 

Al Franken for Democrat Dummies

Roy Moore must be absolutely thrilled. 2cb63c03f04a497ceded32e979009fc7_b

He must think that Al Franken is his godsend.

And he would be right on the money.

Moore has nothing to worry about now.

The moment the Left defended Al Franken, they let Moore off the hook, and anything they say about sexual harassment now, is absolutely meaningless.

It is all talk. Anyone who complains about Moore, will be effectively shut out and shut down.

Because if it is okay for some to be forgiven for sexual harassment, then everyone else will be forgiven, too.

Because women made excuses for Franken, they lost the battle and the war.

Some aging relics got pushed out, but the new boors now take their positions, and it will be the same old story, except they will see how the old guard got caught, and now know precisely how to circumvent detection for the next half century or so.

And as women's rights have been eroding since the 90s, the trajectory will continue in the US.

So why is it a big deal that there are too many apologists for Franken?

There are many reasons that I have outlined earlier, but the Left's hypocrisy has cost them as being credible guardians of feminist and women's issues.

They imply that only Franken can save women. It is a patronizing and misogynistic assumption, but it is the narrative the Left willingly chose on their own, proving their system is as rigged as the Right's.

And as we have not seen a single American woman start a political party to address this, there is no longer a single credible American woman who can rightly call herself a feminist.

The women retreated, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory all on their own.

You are on the cusp of winning a key battle, and then you what? Start treating a duplicitous hostile force as a victim as you dismiss a sister-in-arms whose life was forever impeded by the episode?

There is not a single American woman competent and capable enough to take on the mantle here?

The defeat is a subversive one that will make more damage than most people realize.

The problem stemmed from ignorance of war strategy by American feminists.

They justified the actions of Franken, which was not just a tactical error, but has brought them defeat.

Harvey Weinstein will beat the rap just as easily as Bill Cosby.

Once you roar a battle cry, there is no going back. Once you wage a war, you do not end the battle until the goal is achieved.

You will face obstacles. You will suffer losses, but most importantly of all, you will discover double agents and traitors to your cause, but you have to face the reality of these truths all the same.

But Franken's actions on that fateful abusive siege on Leeann Tweeden were far more diabolical than most of Franken's apologists realize.

They were coworkers, but also sharing a stage. Tweeden is comely, and to the mostly male troops, she would be the one to get the most attention.

She would be the belle of the ball by default.

I don't think someone like Franken would stand being upstaged by a radiating beauty...and so, there would be numerous ways to usurp her, and throw her off balance as he is not a particularly brilliant or original performer.

And there are ways to make someone lose their focus.

All the things he did would do precisely that to Tweeden.

How many women have been thrown off balance that way and had their careers derailed as they lost confidence and became afraid?

And I wonder how many of those women are coming to the defence of a man who did to them the same as the men who forever sabotaged their careers and lives?

But there is another side to it, and it is the side I saw when I was working as a journalist.

In 2002, I wrote an article for Elle Canada about women who broke the law to please a boyfriend. All of the women I interviewed ended up in prison with lengthy terms...while the man walked and walked out of their lives never to be seen or heard from again.

Every one of these women would be what I call street smart and savvy, yet every single one fell for the same basic ruse that hinged on gratitude, and assuming a kind gesture had no ulterior motive for it.

The boyfriend in question "saved" her -- from an abusive relationship to financial ruin. Every woman was grateful for the kindness and attention.

And every one volunteered to help their boyfriend do something illegal, even taking the rap for doing something he did and masterminded.

But it was not the man who got caught.

It was the woman who protected the man by not giving him up to police.

With no one else to prosecute, these women got two decades or more in the slammer.

And the boyfriend took off to parts unknown, leaving her to rot all by herself.

It was a rude awakening: not only was she tricked into keeping quiet, the man was not even grateful. He wasn't because he cultivated her to behave on cue the exact way he needed her to in order to do what he wanted, but not get caught.

He pulled her out of an abusive relationship or financial hardship to have a pawn who would do his dirty work, take the fall, and defend him in public.

It keeps happening. Charlie Manson made a career out of it. He may have been labelled a "murderer", but technically, he did not do the actual killing. He was the mastermind, not the minion slaughtering innocents.

But to his groupies, he was absolutely without flaw. I once had a conversation with a female professor who was very protective of him, telling me that he was just "a lost little boy."

She had the Ph.D. and he didn't even have a high school diploma, but he played her to the point that she had become irrational in her defence of him.

Many women have no clue when they have been asked to jump up on a hamster wheel. They honestly believe they are shrewd, savvy, and even the smartest person in the room who can never be played.

But women have been played. They get played with chilling ease.

By allowing one man to be protected from his own calculated sexist feint, they have now made a path for other men to do the same. All a man has to do is pay them a few false compliments, say he supports abortion rights, and she will always come to his defence, even if he treats women like trash who are beneath him.

Instead of making a path where all women can liberate themselves and depend on no one to hold their fate in their hands, those same women squandered a chance by giving it to someone who would throw them to the wolves if it were expedient for him to do so.

Worst of all, the Roy Moores reap the benefits of the Al Frankens.

No woman will benefit.

Don't start a campaign unless you are willing to fight the war to the bitter end, or pull your punches. You are playing for keeps.

And to the American Left who are wondering why Donald Trump won and Hillary Clinton lost, you now know your answer.

You arrived, but then failed to deliver -- and that is an unforgivable sin.

Very rarely, will you ever be given a second chance.

You squandered it on a man who humiliates women when he thinks no one is looking. Now deal with it, poseurs.