The Chaser Dilemma, Part Four: The Internet's dirty little secret is that it is in decline. But it is still surpassing print.

Pew has a study that says that social media surpasses newspapers as the more common source for people to get their news (with television still seen as dominant).

But Pew does not define what it means by “news” because we have had many news stories break on people’s Facebook or Twitter posts, which is a form of citizen journalism.

And what a journalist sees as “news”, and what a regular citizen sees as “news” are very often two different beasts; so this study is not a good one, and one not worth using to prove anything.

People have been using social media for their primary source for a long time, and it has supplanted traditional news because what people see as news often is looked down upon by professionals.

And that can’t be ignored.

But something else can’t be ignored: that Internet-only outfits, such as Vox and BuzzFeed are not doing well, with Variety predicting mergers.

So if social media is becoming a dominant force, but one that is in decline, it poses some very interesting questions.

For me, too.

Because if social media is not the future, then where does a new media outlet plan to go?

That’s my question right now. I can start here, but it is not going to be the place where I land.

And it is a very interesting quandary I think about…


Apple tries its Texture hornswoggle again, but this time, publishers aren't biting.

When legacy media ruled the communications routes, they screwed over content providers by paying them a pittance with very little compensation.

CanWest wanted writers, for instance, to sign away their moral rights, for instance.

And now Apple is trying to turn those media outlets into content providers to do to them what they did to writers, photographers and artists long ago.

Publishers spot the con a mile away because they know all about pulling that one.

Texture will not revive a dead profession. Apple is merely seeking more content to exploit and is running out of stuff. All it will do is allow Apple to exploit publications who will then take it out on their content providers, such as writers and photographers. It is a bad deal through and through, and it won’t bring any revival to the industry.

When tablets came on the scene less than a decade ago, publishers thought the calvary had arrived, but all it proved was the content had problems that couldn’t be solved with technology. Now the legacy media see that Apple isn’t a god, they aren’t looking to the company to save them…

The "Harvey Weinstein" Strategy: Everyone is lying! Really? A vast politically-correct conspiracy?

The “All Victims Are Lying!” defence is a really bad one, but Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer is using that gambit.

It is a desperate one that hinges on a mindset that is no longer in mainstream play.

And this is not the first time in history that it was a defence that backfired.

I will be writing about such a case soon enough for Chaser. Suffice to say the case I will be writing about was well-known, and in the decades since, not a single witness recanted or was challenged in her testimony. The balance of power of grossly unequal then as it is now — even more so — but in the end, the jury sided with the dispossessed females who took the stand.

The smearing of victims before the trial is mostly likely meant to taint the jury pool and set a narrative rigged to favour Weinstein, but these days, it is more likely to condemn him than give him a “get out of jail free” card…

Canada losing more liberties in the Trumpian Game of Go.

Once upon a time, it was good enough for a strategist to know chess and cruise to victory.

Trump changed those rules, and the Left, who are rule-memorizers, hate him for it. Just as you put together the finishing touches of your Script The Guarantees The Game Is Rigged To Your Advantage, he blusters in, reads the script, calls it fake news, and tears up the playbook.

Canada likes to follow the script. It is easy to shame people and make them feel stupid if they veer off a stupid, dumb ass script.

So now that the script is gone and the game of chess is now the game of Go, Canada keep losing liberties.

Two Canadians have literally lost them now.

The National Post is not computing what is going on. They think Canada getting involved in a US-China spat was a good thing because China isn’t following the rules.

That’s not the point.

The point was that Canada was forced to make an arrest by the US, meaning it is a vassal state, and the action guaranteed that China would interpret it as a conspiracy between Canada and the US, and retaliate as hard as they can.

If we have a scorecard going, the US has hit Canada with tariffs, citing “national security.” Saudi Arabia has cancelled all sorts of things because of a Tweet. Now China has started its own campaign against Canada.

And Canada is not used to having three powerful nations look at us with contempt. We are in uncharted waters, and completely unprepared.

Because the federal regime are script-followers, not actual thinkers with genuine intelligence.

The press here doesn’t get it: they are so used to currying favour with the government that they do not see what’s up the road ahead.

Big hint: it is a swirling storm of stones surrounding us, removing our liberties one by one until we have no place to turn…

No more free labour? US Copyright ruling an interesting twist to a very old problem in the profession.

A US judge has decided that Esquire was wrong in running a social media picture of the US President “crashing” a wedding without compensating the one who snapped the pictures.

If it were a middle class person who had his picture appropriated would be thrilled that they got a modicum of notoriety.

But the picture-taker was a veep for a bank, and saw right through it, and sued successfully.

I cannot say I disagree with the ruling because outlets make money on content-providers whom they have always exploited for ideas, pictures, information, and articles. Unpaid interns have gotten exploited, and many writers do not get paid for their work.

In this case, this a form a scraping: ripping something from social media and then repackaging it as a news story. It is cheap and easy filler.

Of course, the right thing would have been if the outlet paid for the rights. We wouldn’t be having this discussion, but media outlets have had this dynamic with the public for years because once upon a time they held all of the communications cards and could screw people over any way they wished.

Social media still does the same thing, but now traditional outlets are facing worse consequences for the practice they started. Content providers have always been on the bottom-rung, making the least money, but this ruling is a step toward making things a little more equitable…

It is a Sucker Circus out there. It is a show where morons get duped with sophisticated versions of Pull My Finger.

Donald Trump has to be credited for duping the Left into becoming the pigeons in his reality show called Trump’s Sucker Circus. It is easy to see if you are a Radical Centrist because you need a balanced focus to see this optical illusion extravaganza.


You either have a balanced vision and can see the illusion, or you don’t, and you keep seeing muck and get pissed off.

It depends on how many birds are on your antenna.

So here is what has been happening on the Sucker Circus:

Stormy Daniels, the vixen who was supposed to take down Trump along with her lawyer, are in deep shit: she’s got to pay Trump $293,000.

Remember that in the original version of events, she was given $130,000 to keep her porn drudge mouth shut.

For Trump, that is a net gain of $163,000.

Now there is a clever way to make a profit from hush money!

That’s a pretty good investment.

Oh, and her media whore lawyer got arrested.

I mean, come on!

And despite every dirty trick the news media, billionaires, and Democrats pull, his approval ratings do not go down.

Oh, and notice the second the Democrats took the House, the economy is suddenly not doing so good.

Wow, I wonder if those two things are connected?

Apparently, Brett Kavanaugh is messing with the minds of the Left by not doing what they said he was going to do.

The idiots at Vox make bad guesses because they are idiots.

The ruling isn’t out of fear, kids. He already has the job. He can mindfuck all he wants, and if he wanted to be vote for it, he could have done it easily.

This is now a water torture technique.

But Trump is the master of the reality show, and he got Pelosi and Schumer to pull his finger on television.

They didn’t see it coming, and threw diva fits, and now they lost their dignity, as Schumer said:

Let’s debate — let’s debate in private, okay. Let’s debate in private.

Didn’t you know you were going to be on Trump’s Sucker Circus? Once you’re on it, there is no turning back.

But it is not just US politicians pulling vulgar short fingers.

Canada and China are part of the act. They are contestants on the Sucker Circus, too, and these two burgeoning allies have been turned against each other. Canada will forgive anything, but that’s not the party who got pissed off.

The vassal state of Canada was a faithful lapdog and arrested a fabulously wealthy Chinese citizen, and boy, did China get pissed real bad.

They accused Canada of being in cahoots with the US.

Which works for Trump perfectly. Canadian companies are now in a scrape because of it.

And China is retaliating in other frightening ways.

The goodwill that took decades to build has been decimated, and Trudeau’s plans to find those magical “loopholes” to save Canada from US tariffs isn’t going to his plan.

But they are going according to Trump’s plan.

Even France is a pouty contestant in Trump’s Sucker Circus, telling Trump to stop acting like a big meany to them on the Twitter.

All while they are having protests, shootings, and all-round anarchy.

Just a couple of weeks ago, Macron got all snooty to Trump.

And now he sits in dog shit.

I mean, who could have predicted the goings on in this epic soap opera?

And we haven’t even started yet.

The show is pure carny. It is completely off the accepted Middle Class “let’s play it safe” script.

When the dust settles, the playbook for strategists will be completely rewritten.

The complexities and nuances of this game are completely lost on the brain dead press.

And it is a pity. This presidency is truly instructive, and original.

No other presidency was a show, but this is the first one, but the trick is to have the right mindset to watch it…

The Chaser Dilemma, Part Three: A little F.R.E.E.D. would have gone a long way. But there is always another path if you choose to take another step.

Chaser News had an ongoing story about this missing woman on the right who turned up at a rally, but no one at the rally seemed to know the truth about her.


I found out a lot about her that other people missed. Someone who was supposedly out of her life knew a critical, but hidden detail (hidden from even me) that could only be known if the person had contact with her after the night she vanished.

There were sightings of her, once at a bookstore. I interviewed that person, the photographer of that fateful picture, her mother and brother, former classmates, people who had been at the rally, and a former boyfriend.

It was a slow, long-form piece, but when your operating budget is next to zero, you can go so far.

Nevertheless I got much further ahead than one would expect of someone who was doing a full-time investigation on her own dime.

But even so, I should have realized that the traditional methods of journalism were too clunky. Of course it is very expensive to do it: I am going about it in an inefficient way.

I will pick up this story again once I get to the F.R.E.E.D. part of Chaser.

And let’s see if we can’t resolve this one this time…

Who is Canada's Journalist of the Year? Rodney Stafford.

Canada had no shortage of scandals, but one of the big ones was that child murderers can get transferred to healing lodges and medium security prisons in less than a decade of their sentences.

You have people who lure, kidnap, rape, torture, terrorize and murder little girls, and then play the system and get to go to easier jails.

Who was the persistent journalist who exposed this practice not once, but twice?

Rodney Stafford.

The father of the late Tori Stafford whose killers got breaks.

He used Facebook to the break his stories.

It wasn’t the CBC or the Globe and Mail or the National Post or the Toronto Star.

It was a grieved and wronged father using social media.

He had to be his own investigative journalist to get something resembling justice.

He should have been Time’s Person of the Year for his persistence and never-ending battles against a system that tried dodges and feints to hide that information from him, because they knew it was horrific.

Those who draw pay checks from the government through taxpayers’ money — including Mr. Stafford’s — ran interference on behalf of his child’s murderers.

Think about that.

And that all of those connivers were no match for her father who was looking for truth and justice.

So it is an easy call as to who is the most dogged and intrepid reporter in Canada in 2018…

The World's Most Dangerous Woman Presents: The Time "Person of the Year" Experiment.

The narcissists over at Time magazine decreed journalists to be Person of the Year.

Thinking they were being sneaky about it, the narrative has them as righteous crusaders who are soldiers.

Uh-huh. Tell it to the PR firms who have you as their well-trained lapdogs.

Whitney Houston would have been proud of Time.

Destroy your own profession until you have to fire scores of your employees and shut down your properties as your online clicks waste away, even if you are bashing Trump as your only trick.

But let’s give ourselves a paper crown! Yay!

And let’s exploit ourselves to do it.

Madonna would be proud of you all as well.

What exactly did the journalists accomplish this year?

Nada, but let’s take a look of how their decree comes off in a little experiment here.

I am going to decree People Exactly Like Alexandra Kitty to be “Person of the Year” in 2018, too!

Let’s see how that also comes off, shall we?

Of course, I am not calling myself Person of the Year.

Because that would make me sound too full of myself and be way too obvious.

Just everyone who is exactly like Alexandra Kitty; so it is totally objective and unbiased, which makes it real news.


The World Most Dangerous Woman Presents

Person of the Year!

People Who Are Exactly Like Alexandra Kitty


People exactly like Alexandra Kitty are exceptionally intelligent, stunningly gorgeous, brave, and modest, as if no one else was ever intelligent, gorgeous, brave, and modest. It is not as if other people didn’t risk their lives for things they believe in, it’s just people exactly like Alexandra Kitty have, and that’s what matters.

Soldiers, police officers, firefighters, mothers, fathers may give up a lot of comforts, but it is people exactly like Alexandra Kitty who do with a certain je ne sais quoi.

Sure, there are people like Altavious Powell, who risked his life to save his neighbour from a burning house all while wearing an arm cast that he used to break open a window,


But can he play the theremin like people who are exactly like Alexandra Kitty?

I’m guessing not.

And the problems of people who are not exactly like Alexandra Kitty are not as newsworthy.

Like the woman in Ottawa who was rescued by police as she was a victim of human trafficking.

Because who cares about the serious human trafficking problem in Canada when there are people exactly like Alexandra Kitty living in Canada?

I mean, come on, people exactly like Alexandra Kitty deserve all of the attention, anyway.

And don’t just take my word for it.

Dushica Puharic, who is not only Person #25 on the List of People Everyone Should Know (more on that in a later post), is the mother of someone Exactly Like Alexandra Kitty, and has this completely unbiased and objective genuine quote, “People Exactly like Alexandra Kitty are great because they have great mothers.”


That is a crushing argument in favour of giving all of your attention to people exactly like Alexandra Kitty.

It is great to be someone who is Exactly Like Alexandra Kitty because you have impeccable taste in Swedish punk and blue costumed bug-themed comic book superheroes created by Steve Ditko. That is the reason you should buy every book ever authored by People Who Are Exactly Like Alexandra Kitty, and several copies of each, even if you have no intention of reading them because they are not relevant to your life.

How’s that?

I was going to write more snark, but then I lost interest in the whole thing…

Journalism's Propagandistic Self-Love Out of Control: Time magazine names its kind Person of the Year.

Journalism’s narcissism and self-adoring propaganda is out of control again.

Time magazine’s Person of the Year? Journalists. I guess this is their last push for legitimacy.

Their full frontal propaganda campaign call themselves Guardians on the War on Truth.

Yes, they are a bunch of egotistical liars.


Is this unethical? Yes.

Is this advertising for the profession? You betcha.

Is it propaganda? Boy, is it ever.

Is this a conflict of interest? Absolutely.

My books and this web site have chronicled the countless lies, distortions, and out and out propaganda the profession spews.

And this is nothing different.

Time’s circulation has been going downhill for years. They lost their relevancy and clout, and now they are conniving enough to try to shore up their fortunes as they try once again to stick it to the object of their hateful obsession.

All because a single man won a presidency without their blessing.

I will not be surprised to see Time magazine fold in a couple of years. This truly is a desperate last push to go back in time, so to speak to the days where they dictated the thoughts of the masses.

These covers are obnoxious, but as I said, it is the final push of a decaying industry that would have been strong had they been not-so-full of themselves, and made the simple and logical necessary tweaks and modifications to their models to stay relevant.

They will do absolutely everything but the actual things they needed to do to be of true value to democracy.

Go fuck yourselves, Time.

You flat-out lied about Serbs during the Civil War, and when I wrote a four-page letter to you as a teen, outlining them, you not only refused to make any corrections, admitted you were lying, and then lied again by violating my moral rights, printing some unrecognizable version of my letter without my permission.

You wouldn’t know truth if you woke up in bed next to her…

Are Google and the Washington Post run by bratty five-year-olds?


Here is a memo: Just because someone does not applaud your rigs and does not believe in exactly everything that you do, does not give you the right to destroy, confine, or censor the other person. Not everyone’s life requirements are like yours.

Maybe your parents were too busy having affairs to bother with you during your formative years. Maybe “willful intellectual neglect of children” was on their bucket list. Maybe ideological OCD is a real thing. Maybe you were just born an asshole. I don’t actually care about the why.

Really, I don’t.

But why on Earth do people, still in 2018, resort to childish measure when it comes to trying to impose their thoughts on others?


That’s essentially what some knuckle-draggers at Google tried to do to Breitbart.

Yeah, it’s partisan and biased, just like you.

And inaccurate, just like you were with your little blurb about me for years that never got corrected even as I was sending feedback.

It’s much better now, but it took me getting it verified for that to happen.

Screen Shot 2018-11-11 at 11.23.14 AM.png

Besides, kids, the Internet is big enough for everyone!


So share that space, Googlers!

But I am sad to say that the brats over at the Washington Post are petty and mean.

Read this bullshit bullying disguised as a piece of news:

Meet the Bottomless Pinocchio, a new rating for a false claim repeated over and over again

You Posties have been known to tell fibs on many occasions, as in, over and over again.

You blame Trump for the demise of newspapers, even though the industry was in trouble long before that.

You had Janet Cooke, the whole Jessica Lynch is Rambo fiasco, the whole giving legitimacy to a dubious web site about fake news, and that thought thieving reporter you fired.

You guys have a very large nose you pick, too!

Memo to the motherfuckers at the Washington Post: We got the memo that you do not like the President of the United States because he said you were no longer the “cool” kids, but a bunch of nerds who tell fibs to make yourselves sound important.

Yes, it is very sad for you that you can no longer be kingmakers and tell the little people how to think.

That wasn’t a lie. He told an inconvenient truth that you cannot accept and that denial destroyed your profession. If you had the courage to face that reality years ago, you wouldn’t be throwing temper tantrums in the gutter.

You are so vindictive that you are trying to manipulate the public hoping they do not believe anything Trump says because he said you were fake and a bunch of scheming liars — so if you discredit him, then maybe people will be tricked into reading your bullshit again.

But life for 7.4 billion people have gone on without you long before the November 2016 US federal election, and they will go on without you no matter who is the president because you did not keep up to code.

That is on you, not the president.

So get over it, children. Adulting is a powerful technique you should try.

So your “fact-checking” ruse is a pile of garbage.

And fake news, too, because it is war propaganda disguised as information — and people with brains aren’t buying what you are selling…

The Chaser Dilemma, Part Two: I was never a regional girl. Not even in a global village.






I was born and raised in Hamilton, Ontario, and I am the old school version: we work hard, play hard, laugh hard, will handily whip your ass and then have a beer with you. This was a scrappy city where even the nerdy kids were tough, and yet were friendly, open, and proud.

That version doesn’t really exist anymore. From being tough as nails steel workers who spoke by eloquently turning over cars during a strike to the town where a failed Basic Income project was parachuted in is a tumble in fortunes.

You know it was bad when the CBC was brave enough to open a digital location in downtown Hamilton a few years ago.

I can always tell who’s old school. Those are the tough, but perky survivors who always know how to land on their feet. There is never a thought of being nannied by a government. If you can get up and more parts on you work than don’t, you’re good enough to get back in the ring and beat the shit out of some obnoxious pantywaist who has confused voguing with fighting.

And fucking wipe the floor with them. Like nothing because you’re made of piss and vinegar.

By all accounts, Hamilton should have dominated Ontario. It is located in a prime location, in the centre between the US border and Toronto. We have space, plenty of roads, a sterling university, top-notch hospitals, and had real and viable industry here. The unions were strong. Businesses were strong. We had cabinet ministers in the government. It could have been on par with Toronto, but Hogtown psyched this popsicle stand out, free trade turned our industries weak, and there was a real and serious brain drain because the children of steelworkers got educated in universities and left the first chance they could.

Then Hamilton started to panic and voted NDP who never win, meaning there wasn’t a cabinet minister who could infuse the city with, let’s be blunt, graft. Outside smaller towns voted shrewdly, and they got the perks that Hamilton could have had if they thought a few steps ahead.

Small-town Grimsby voted PC in the last provincial election, had a small, but viable hospital that was on the Liberal regime’s hit list, but when Doug Ford won, those worries were over.

Hamilton voted NDP and lost their Basic Income project.

Grimsby knows how to take care of itself. Hamilton use to be of the same ilk, but not anymore.

But Toronto has fallen under the same spell as Hamilton. They bought their own hype and thought by sheer numbers alone, they could always play kingmaker, and could always rig the board to their favour.

That’s not how elections actually work.

The provincial Liberals held the same delusion: they always pandered to Toronto, thinking that’s all they needed to cruise to victory.

Except when you pander too much for too long, the person or group you are pandering to starts to see themselves as kings, not kingmakers, and then will look for some better servant to appease them.

The NDP usurped those votes, and then thought they were brilliant, except they don’t actually have a feel for political strategy.

The NDP, like the Liberals, are antiquated, and believe journalists who call their bungling buffoons brilliant.

Don’t look at journalists: they fucked up their own profession.

The old playbooks don’t work any more.

Doug Ford figured that one out and won a majority.

Without Hamilton or Toronto. Or Windsor or St. Catharines.

Andrea Horwath and Kathleen Wynne blew the election because they are, at heart, regional women. They play to Hamilton and to Toronto, respectively.

I am not a regional woman. I was never a regional girl. I am of true Steel City grit, but the world ain’t Hamilton.

And it is the reason I have had columns, articles, and books published in multiple countries over the last quarter century.

It is a global village, but I am not a regional player.

My brain was always wired to be global. I see the waves that bring the big picture into focus.

I can see a single grain and extrapolate, and vice versa.

Because I am an emotional learner, not a script-memorizer.


Regional boys and girls can play certain crowds, but they cannot adopt. The ones who can do it can expand their base and refine and modify their strategies, When we had strong local newspapers, the journalists who could adapt went on to daily metros before going national and even international.

But local got decimated, and now we have a generation of journalists who can’t play it local, national, or global. They can play to a regional crowd, on the Left or Right, but they don’t have the ability to build to form a sustainable base because they always fall on stunts and tricks that work regionally and hinge on impressing the crowd by knowing their Shibboleths, but when they can no longer crack the code of the bigger crowd that plays completely differently than the smaller partisan venues, they tank.

UK Prime Minister Theresa May and Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel are regional women. They pandered until it blew up in their faces. French President Emmanuel Macron is finding out just how not “centrist” he actually is. Only months before, the Independent praised him silly with this opinion piece:

Emmanuel Macron is the centrist that Europe deserves – and so desperately needs

His speech at the European Parliament has earmarked him as the voice of sense that we are lacking in the UK and across the world

Only if Europe deserves to be set on fire and have rioters tear down the street.

Speeches mean nothing. Those are pacifiers for the middle class to reassure them and make them feel smart and important.

Mastering various regions is a hard game to master, and that is the reason so many politicians and robber barons are desperately pushing globalism.

Pseudo-globalism, that is.

Not the real mosaic.

But creating a global village where the variety of regionalism they mastered applies to everyone; so they can rig the board, always win, and always predict things and look smart and right.

This is not real globalism: this is just like the Mean Girls who make up rules in high school, and then try to shame, bully, bribe, blackmail, and otherwise terrorize all the other students to agree that they are “popular” and superior to them.

It’s total bullshit.

A global village is nothing more than regionalism.

Force the whole world to wear cheap H&M garbage and shop through Amazon as you forsake cars and are dependent on the government sticking you on some smelly bus with a bunch of pervs that cannot be shamed because they don’t read the Troll Scroll.

Governments do not want people to have cars. They don’t want them to drive around and experience the Big Picture.

What if you see that what you thought was a great life was shit?

Or that there is crime and poverty three blocks over?

We can’t have that; so let’s say cars are bad for the environment; so down with cars!

As if we can’t make clean cars cheaply.

But the rigs of pseudo-globalism aren’t going the way those overlords wanted.

They are trying to put a genie back in the bottle, and they are rapidly making the situation worse.

Because both their regionalism and their global village are fake, their solutions don’t work.

They managed to piss off the French. They managed to unseat more and more European Establishment types who kept trying to paint their detractors as fascists, but to no avail.


It was simpler times when Europe and the US could bully Serbia during the Civil War. They held all of the cards, after all, and controlled the message coming through the press. They could paint Serbs as killers, monsters, and rapists with no opposition or questioning the giant holes in their canards.

Yes, there was war, and there were a few Serbs who were free out of prison did bad things as did everyone else there. Fuck you.

And because the focus was entirely on Serbs, organized criminal elements in Albania could do whatever they wanted, and get rewarded by Western Europe. The beginnings of Al-Qaeda began because the US and Europe inadvertently helped train and fund those terrorist operatives.

It didn’t matter because everything was rigged. Systems were cracked and it those loopholes were easy to exploit. Serbs didn’t know what hit them.

I knew, however.

I was a teenager and I could easily figure it out because my brain is set to Global.

Not Global Village, but Global.

It is a quirk. When I volunteered as a recreationist at a psychiatric ward when I was a teenager, I noticed people watched a lot of soap operas. I brought art supplies and new magazines for diversions for patients, and I also started buying Soap Opera Digest, and read about every single soap’s storylines past and present so that I could instantly converse with people because it was a nonthreatening topic of conversation.

I could tell you what was unfolding on the Y&R as easily as what went down on Loving. I knew who was the head writer, and every actor’s name. I knew how many actors played a certain role and in what order, and for how long. I became the encyclopedia of soaps. I even knew about soaps cancelled long ago, such as Capitol or Search for Tomorrow.

My grandmother loved one soap: As the World Turns, and I used to schedule my university classes so I could come home at 2 PM to watch it with her. I appreciated the complexities of the stories, and thought Douglas Marland was a genius.

But that was the only one I knew from actually watching it.

The rest I read the recaps as if I were studying for a history or English lit class.

It came in extremely handy. I could make small talk and break the tension.

But soaps may have taken place in fictional small towns, but they weren’t regional. They were global.

Because they appealed to multiple generations of viewers across North America (and beyond) as well as multiple socioeconomic levels. There was nothing remotely regional — or patriarchal about them.

Like comic books, soaps were matriarchal in structure. They were epic, and spanned generations with storylines from decades ago still in play and impacting current and future storylines.

But patriarchal social structures consistently put down soaps as being “girly”, and comics as being “childish”. Both were dismissed as being unsophisticated.

And that’s bullshit.

Patriarchal is regional. Matriarchal is global.

The Global Village is Patriarchal. Globalism is Matriarchal.

I can see that very clearly. You are not going to try some misdirection on me by trying to claim that I am too stupid, nerdy, or regional to know what’s what. Jеби се, говно једно.

But in a world that has the global medium of the Internet, how can it be so…regional?

That’s a dilemma that is an enigma to solve.


The confines of regionalism and its mask the global village have made people feel crowded and frustrated. Global regionalism is now facing a real pushback. People do not want to indulge someone else’s regionalism that takes away their liberties as the ways of others surrounds them. The game of go is like quicksand, and people are drowning in the homogenization of structure and content of thought.

But I am not a regional girl. I don’t do a globe village. I believe in true globalism where there are multiple accepted structures and contents of thought. I believe in ideological flexibility that is sensitive to the zeitgeist and ortgeist.

I believe that rigs are cheats used to hold back natural ideological evolution.

The trouble with the Internet is that is can be rigged to be Patriarchal, when its natural, default structure is Matriarchal. Like #MeToo, the Internet was hijacked and co-opted by the Establishment, which is both Patriarchal and Regional, and now that the shit has hit the fan, people are getting angrier.

But they do not actually know where their illusions of anger are actually coming from.

Chaser is the curator of emotions. It is not just about intellectual facts, but the neglected emotional ones.

Because emotions are more than just global: they are universal, and I am willing to bet omniversal.

Yet we don’t explore that realm. Journalism shunned it outright by claiming to be “objective”, but any system that mimics a psychopathic mindset has a shitty filter to look at reality.

Not happening with Chaser.

We have people who go nuclear on a drop of a hat. We have cheaters who use fear-mongering to keep a fake status quo in place.

The war in the former Yugoslavia showed the deficiencies of journalism because it exposed that they had no feel to cover the raw emotions that explode during anarchy. They had their little preset scripts and narratives and stuck to them like glue.

How to finesse this model is something I am refining at the moment. Emotional reportage isn’t a thing, but it will be very shortly…

Stay tuned…

The Chaser Dilemma, Part One: Funding Models don't work. None of them. So now what?

Journalism used to sell ads and have subscribers, and the subscriber base was the draw for advertisers. The success hinged on popularity.

But then social media came along, had bigger audiences with Big Data, and advertisers went with the new kids.

The old kids were pissed, let me tell you.

But pissed doesn’t always bring innovation.

So now we have five funding models on the market:

  1. Changing nothing as media outlets try to manipulate and fear-monger an audience back. Yeah, not working.

  2. Getting purchased by asset-squeezers who are selling assets piece by piece before closing the outlet. Ick.

  3. Begging the government for monies. Just pathetic and not profitable. Once the money is gone, there is no new audiences to show for it.

  4. Donation-funded outlets looking for some deep pockets. Propaganda! Yay! No. None of it is working. NPR is just as precarious as any private outfit, for instance.

  5. Passively put your name on a list and pray for the Job Fairy to rescue you. We have had this sort of thing for years.

I am not in it for the money, but I am not in it for the poverty, either. Chaser is a prototype of sorts, but it is more accurately described as an experimental laboratory where the reinvention of information dissemination takes place.

So while my news-gathering model is set to go, now I am focussing on the other end. How do you make it profitable enough to make a decent and stable wage, while having enough resources of doing the news part right?

I don’t have an answer. I have three theories I must test first, and none fall into any of the five categories. I am going slow with Chaser so that I can work out the bugs, and find something that reaches all of the benchmarks.

Stay tuned…

The Winter Implosion: Europe is burning and that's not good for the psychic environment.

It started in France, and now we see anger in Greece, the Netherlands, and Belgium.

What’s going on?

I am sure Mohammed bin Salman is wondering as all of money lavished on US PR firms was such a waste.

Everyone is blowing their lid at someone. China is angry at Canada, Alberta is Angry at Trudeau, Trudeau is angry at Trump, Trump is angry at Robert Mueller, and if Mr. Mueller can break the angry chain, more power to him, but I doubt it.

The Toronto Star is angry at Doug Ford and he is angry at the Star. Sometimes it is circular, too.

The world getting polluted with all of this anger and it is poisoning humour, friendships, Facebook, and eating away people’s lives as they waste it on bullshit.

For a cold season, December 2018 is one angry month for the coldest of places.

People have lost their sense of direction, and none of those cute animals videos and positive meme posters are doing it anymore.

We could get angrier. That’s easy enough to do.

Or, we can actually find active and constructive ways to finally face the things that truly need our attention…

Kevin Hart, Justin Trudeau, social media, the Middle Class, Abraham Maslow, and the strange and destructive mindset of a Zero-Risk World.


Kevin Hart lost a not-so-lucrative gig of hosting Hollywood’s hours-long advertorial farce called the Oscars.

Over tweets he made almost nine years ago that he has long ago expressed remorse for and took ownership of his own insecurities.

Not everyone is condemning Hart, however.

I am not for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that I have no way of knowing who is behind this very well-choreographed campaign. It does not have a grassroots vibe to it, and for all I know, a rival, a racist, a disgruntled acquaintance, or some other group has paid a firm to execute a take-down campaign.

We know social media crawls with bots, PR firms, saboteurs, and fake followers: so why do we automatically accept every troll campaign that pukes out rage from Twitter?

At what point do we ask, Okay, who is behind this latest smear campaign, and can we establish provenance for it? How many “offended” users are real and legitimate human beings? Are they being paid? What are their motives? Who are they? How many of their followers are real or purchased figments?

And why do we expect purity and flawlessness from human beings who are the epitome of deficiencies and deficits?

But the childlike innocence prevents critical thinking, and there is a reason for the societal cowardice, and it is one of the unintended consequences of social media.

The Western world is in a Zero-Risk mindset.

It is why you have spoiled do-nothing Millennials suddenly want the safety of communism. They want to get paid taking zero risks. It is the reason why Facebook and Tumblr are banning sex talk. They want a pristine image and will be fascists in order to achieve it.

When social media first came on the scene, it promised hedonism without effort that would bring instant fame, fortune, and fun. The just a selfie of your lumpy ass and post it to Instagram, and maybe you will be the next Kardashian!

Only if you have rich and connected parents, of course.

Read the fine print, kids!

No one wants to take risks. What if I post my lumpy ass on the Facebook and people call me out for having a lumpy butt? Well then, that’s body-shaming!

Well, yes, it is, and people who do not like to stare at your ass have the right to express their offensive opinions. You are not going to force 7.4 billion people to applaud your butt selfie because I will never be one of them, but I am not going to forbid you from doing it. It’s your damn ass, do with it whatever you want.

What people never realized is that being in the public eye is very risky. People like me know this risk, understand the risks, and will accept the risks. I write excruciatingly well-researched books, knowing some knuckle-dragger who never actually read it will dismiss it as rambling and boring because they are not willing to invest in learning facts that tell them that fame means nothing.

That’s the risk. They are allowed to be openly ignorant. I will not congratulate them, but I am not going to try to destroy them, either. That book wasn’t written for people like that in the first place.

But the Internet’s beginnings showed no sign of this problem. It was an insider’s club. I know because I had a modem before it was mundane, and it was a very different atmosphere.

But then the MIddle Class started wading into those waters, and that posed a huge dilemma that could have been cut off at the pass if tech wasn’t so greedy and impatient.

For all of the bitching how the wealthy are horrible, it is the Middle Class who are mostly responsible for the troubles society has. For one, there are more of them than there are rich people. If it wasn’t for the wealthy, the Middle Class would be poor.


Because the Middle Class have a single phobia.

They fear risk.

This is the risk-averse class. They take gambles, and huge ones, all in the name of avoiding risks because what if they mess up in front of someone who makes fun of them?

The trouble is there is no progress without risk, but there is an inversely proportional relationship between a risk and a gamble: the less risk you take, the bigger the gamble.

And gambles are based on superstition, ignorance, arrogance, passivity, and hope that fate likes you.

The best discussion between risks and gambles I have ever read comes from Robert Greene in two of his books, which I highly recommend.

The problem is the Middle Class have a confirmation bias and tendency to look at half a landscape.

After all, Left-wing, Right-wing is a middle class invention.

So what you have is a large group of people who look for sure things and do not want to take any risk. They will gamble, to be sure, all in the name of avoiding calculated risk.

And journalism used to have all of the power because they disseminated information with authority, and that gravitas played up on the erroneous assumption that there was no risk in believing news stories.

Then came the swaggering new kids of the Internet who upped the ante.

Journalism manipulated their gravitas to promise what they disseminated was true, 100%. No risk. They were the gate-keepers who ensured no risk by deciding what people, issues, events, and stories were worthy of being covered. That was their fail-safe.

But then the new kids laughed at the gate, broke it open, and promised everyone a risk-free good time to the Promised Land if they trusted them instead.

These were two incompatible media.

And truly for the first time, the Middle Class had to make a judgement call.

Not a risk, but a call.

Who do they believe? The stodgy journalists who ignored their little precious cupcake’s winning of Miss Small Potatoes at the county fair?

Or YouTube where they could upload a video of the sacred moment for the whole world to see?

It was an easy call, and journalism lost out, but never humbled or learned why their old model became antiquated.

The Middle Class just assumed that all they had to do was mug and make fish faces on their smartphones, and they would be “discovered.”

That’s all it would take, The End.

And it was a young generation who bought into it in the late 1990s.

And now that they are too old to be “discovered”, are broke, have the same tats and neon-coloured hair as everyone else, and never got what they wanted from the Internet, they suddenly want champagne socialism as a consolation prize.

But then things got weird.


The Internet is not a tough steak at a restaurant that gives you an excuse to abuse a waiter with a temper tantrum and demand freebies: once you are out there, you can’t take it back or be compensated.

If we went back to the first postings of Facebook, and then followed the progression of the middle class youth who honestly thought they were superior to their parents and would set the world on fire with their decrees and selfies, we’d see cocky and smug young turks telling everyone they were musicians, artists, actors, models, and software gurus.

Facebook’s biggest mistake was throwing those memories in their user’s faces with their “On this Day” section. That is the daily reminder that these middle class kids didn’t get the brass ring.

It was a tactical error, and the idea was most likely from some successful and well-heeled charmed executive who achieved his or her own dreams and ambitions, and didn’t think the idea through with empathy. When we say people are “woke”, we merely mean they have been divorced from their dreams of success and now are ready to pulverize anyone who may end up reaching their own dreams. How dare they!

We cannot allow that to happen! Let’s take away their success! Let’s move the goalposts so far away that no one can actually reach them, and if they do, we’ll declare them evil cheaters, and take the spoils for ourselves.

Because we were always too cowardly to take risks, and social media promised us to reap the benefits of risk without ever having to take a single one. We want safe, sure things, and then brag to our siblings all about it.

It isn’t happening, and now bored people think they are enraged and righteous, when they are neither.


My mother grew up in socialist former Yugoslavia, and there is a story she is fond of telling that I think about a lot these days.

When she was in grade school, she did a lot of creative writing, and one day, a school official was coming, and the school decided to have an assembly and recital with students reading their stories and poems.

And it turned out that every one chosen was written by my mom.

So, she did all of the work, and if the school was fair, they would have recognized her talents, allow her the entire recital, and praise her for being an able writer at such a tender age.

But that’s not what happened.

At first, the understanding was that she would read all of her work. Fine, she said.

But a little later, the rules had changed: because it wouldn’t “be fair” for her to get all of the attention — but it was fair for the school to exploit all of her work — other students would read it, but she would get credit.

She did not like this idea, but agreed.

But then a little later, it wouldn’t “be fair” to mention her name, and no names would be mentioned.

And it just so happened that the kids chosen were the ones various teachers liked the best.

Would you assume the kid reading the poem or story was the one who wrote it? Of course you would.

At this, my mother balked, and pulled out all of her work, a brave thing for a kid to do in the early 1960s.

And the night was cancelled, the teachers and principal got angry at her, calling her “selfish”, but she wasn’t going to be a chump or a dupe.

If her work was good enough to be used in a recital, then she was good enough to get the credit for it. I am certain the plan all along was to move the goal posts with a foot-in-the-door technique. The trouble is my mother doesn’t play. She is easygoing enough, but cross a line, and she lets you have it. The school overplayed their hand.

I am the same way. When I was looking for a publisher for my first book, I thought I had found one university publisher who would go for it. They did it by peer review, and the reviews were mixed: some said yay, others said nay; so the publisher decided to get more feedback.

Then came one that made snide remarks about my credentials, as if writing for media trade publications was some sort of deficit, but I should “team up” with a veteran columnist in Chicago, who had no background in doing stories about journalism.

Now, if you looked at a book and saw a “veteran” columnist’s name first and a younger journalist’s name after his — who would you think thought up the idea and wrote the book?

I guarantee you that you would think I was just there to fetch the coffee and give him blow jobs just to get some pity credit.

So, I said no, surprising the publisher who re-iterated that I had a good idea, but wouldn’t get a book deal all by myself.



And without an agent.

I took a series of risks. How I studied journalism was risky. The critical approach I took to the all-mighty news media was risky because they would ignore it. Going it alone was risky. Going with a controversial publisher was risky.

I took multiple risks on every imaginable level, but I have no regrets. I would do it again with the same book, approach, and publisher.

I have had no shortage of middle class people look at me funny asking how it is that I got a book published, and multiple times, as if I was someone incapable of putting together a book (but not from people from either side of the economic spectrum, oddly enough).

Easy: because I am a smart, thorough, hard-working, uncompromising, honest, patient, and persistent risk-taker. The end.

I didn’t wait to be discovered on the Internet. I didn’t look for sure things. I still don’t.

But when you have a society that first decides the Internet is a sure thing with a swagger, and then finds out it isn’t, they retreat, but as they never want to admit flaw or miscalculation, they don’t want anyone else to succeed, either. It is the reason I have had some very rude and cruel comments made to me when people find out that I am a publisher author. Everyone wants to have a book published, yet there are people who don’t want their circle of acquaintances to be the ones who do it, even though I have always been happy to show other people how to do it themselves.

But the shift in the air has brought out an ugly mood in people who are wounded because the Internet didn’t deliver everything it hinted it would. Those who are disillusioned are on the warpath, looking to take down people who seem to have succeeded at something. To keep those disillusioned people happy, the now Big Tech is trying to erase anything and everything that could set these people off, and it won’t work.

For starters, I am not the only person in the world who has no trouble with using the Internet even if I am not rich and famous. Fame to me seems like a burden and a cage, and I don’t train well. I learn easily, but I do my own thing. Keep your scripts away from me.

But for a Zero-Risk Society, scripts are their bibles. Let everyone think alike, act alike, and conform alike, and then there is no risk, just sure things with easy payoffs in a world there you are never seen as wrong or deficient.

It is a lie. Ignoring your wrongs and your defects is a gamble.

And the more offended you are when someone expresses something that draws attention to your wrongs, the unhealthier you become.

Or didn’t you know that offended people are not self-actualized?


When you have a society that fears risk, and becomes averse to controversy as they seek sure things, what you have is a psychologically weak society. They can tolerate less adversity and, hence, cannot function. The ghosts of social media’s broken promises is forcing them to cannibalize on their own hearts and souls, and if these people think the world will conform, they will not know where to turn when it all explodes, and they suddenly have more adversity to face than they ever did in their lives.

Too bad they sought fame, fortune, and fun instead of facts, or else they would have stumbled on Person #24 on the List of People Everyone Should Know.

A humanistic psychologist by the name of Abraham Maslow.


He had many sensible ideas, but there was his standout: the concept of self-actualization.

It encompasses many things, but one of the core concepts is the idea of self-acceptance: the ability to laugh at yourself.

If you cannot laugh at yourself, and throw temper tantrums, as you vindictively moralize and are perpetually offended, then the problem is you.

You are not self-actualized. If you cannot stand to laugh at yourself, you cannot stand on your own.

And you stand for nothing because you are always conniving and manipulating people to rig the board to hide your deficits.

Deficits, I might add, that wouldn’t be mocking you if you just took a motherfucking risk every once in a while, even if people complain, are offended, and make fun of you.

Do they pay your bills? Do they nag you about wearing a sweater or eating right, or worry if you strayed too far for too long?


Then fuck them. What’s your problem?

That’s right: you don’t take risks, but gambles. You confused self-actualization with selfie-actualization.

Not the same, kids!

Just ask Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who panders to the Middle Class as he takes no risks, but over-the-top gambles with a nation of risk-averse citizens.

He talks in scripts and liberally uses labels that never match the goods. Playing it safe has resulted in getting Canada pummelled from more and more quarters of the globe.

He thinks he can find loopholes to US tariffs that got slapped on because he stuck to a script. Canada behaved like a vassal state on behest of the US, and now we have lost liberties in China, the one country Trudeau had banked on in saving Canada from those US tariffs. The US knew it, and found a perfect way to block that avenue.

And now those fractures are showing within the country. Alberta’s ire is ready to explode. Ontario has already been alienated.

What is going wrong?

Risk aversion, and you cannot be a capable leader unless you are literate in the strategy of risk.

Those who take risks succeed. Those who play it safe by preset scripts do not. The neo-Victorian whining is a mere byproduct of a caste of people who did not reach their expectations, and now are looking to blame others for their passive gambles.

Social media is not living up to their bargain, and it is the bargain they could never fulfill. You cannot make grandiose promises and then think people are going to let you climb to the top using their broken dreams as your staircase.

That was social media’s sin, but social media was co-opted by a greed scam, and those scams hinge on having pigeons who want something for nothing. Now that they aren’t getting rich and famous, they want a pension at 30 with no one else succeeding because then those pigeons will lose in the comparison.

It is a toxic stew that has poisoned the communications stream, and yet people still fear risk instead of fearing their flighty gambles.

But society thrives only in a pro-risk environment. Economies blossom, art thrives, and people progress and evolve.

Until we learn the difference by accepting risk, facing our own flaws, and learning to laugh at ourselves, we will keep regressing as we retreat, looking at defeats as victories until even the lies spit in our faces and tell us to grow up…

No sex please, we're Facebook: how social media has turned into puritanical enemies of free speech.

Ladies, break out your sheeple cosplay!


You all want to be sheep, and march lockstep as you are made into bland and sexless subservient beings? Facebook is gearing up for the slaughter of free speech.

Tumblr is living up to its name by having its user base take a serious tumble after banning adult content because they see people as children who need sheltering.

Social media is committing the same slow dance of death that journalism did to itself.

Memo to social media: you will always have people complain about something. Always. You cannot please all of the people all of the time.

I doubt Facebook is going to be in for the long haul. I also doubt Tumblr will, too. Social media promised freedom, and now that it was spooked, it is retreating to another millennium.

One where there was no indoor plumbing, electricity, or human rights.

Facebook should not fool around. Look what is happening in France and Greece. People are ready to snap and revolt against governments. Collectives, as a general rule, do not like when the rich and powerful break the very promises that made the rich and powerful in the first place.

Facebook will not end well. They are trying to contain the damage by taking it out on the very people who gave them their power in the first place to placate various governments who are losing their own clout and authority. It is a recipe for disaster, and Facebook doesn’t seem to know what to do — or not to do — to survive…

Memo to the American Conservative: If you don't understand the business of your own profession, then don't write about it.

The American Conservative has a stupid article about the death of journalism. It is the same sort of stupid other Left-wing media trolls have whined about, and I have said before, but let me say it again.

Journalism properties were bought by asset-squeezers for the last twenty years because legitimate companies could no longer make a profit because no one was reading their product anymore.

An Asset Squeezer is a vulture that feasts on dead carcasses. The end. The American Conservative has no grasp on the concept at all, and that’s truly frightening. They are blaming vultures for their death, which is ridiculous.

Asset Squeezers know how to make a profit from dead properties. They fire everyone they can. They sell assets, such as real estate. They cut down on printing and sell off the printing arm and centralize operations. They get rid of things as they shed resources that are profitable whether or not the publication is.

If this concept is hard to understand, think of it this way: you can’t find a job, but you have debts to pay; so you sell all of your jewelry, stocks, bonds, and collectibles before selling your house.

You are still bringing in money, but as you are not working, sooner or later, you have nothing more to sell.

The gravy train runs dry.

Now suppose your house and all your chattels were acquired by an asset-squeezer. The difference is they sell your house, car, gold, keep the cash, and then kick you out once they sold your last possession.

That’s what happened to newspapers.

But it is also actively happening in broadcasting, too.

I covered the newspaper industry in the early aughts: this was happening back then, too.

The American Conservative doesn’t compute: they are talking about the New York Times’ digital subscriptions as if it were a hopeful sign, when it is a sign that the industry imploded.

You still have a few relics who want antiquated information, but they aren’t going for local, but whatever seems to be left over. It’s like a fad food outlet being everywhere, and then it loses its popularity, closing most of its outlets, save for a few in a couple of larger markets, and then people who still want it drive up a distance to get to the few remaining ones.

But even that will not last long. Once the habit of not reading local was broken, eventually, people don’t even want the big city papers as they can no longer relate or have real use for it.

When the smaller arteries die, the bigger ones die as well, and that is a basic concept reporters still do not seem to be able to grasp.

Your audiences have been shrinking for decades. You are attracting grim reapers operators for a reason.

Do not expect a Reality Denier to know what the fuck is going on — they only report from the planet Deludo, and keep hoping for a miracle in Hell…

Am I the only writer who doesn't have a hate/fear for social media these days?

Reading this article in Reason magazine made me wonder just why people in the communications industries were always so terrified of social media.

I am not a fan of this publication, but they hit the nail on the head here:

Then there's the legacy media, which is also doing its damnedest to characterize tech and social media companies as not simply all-powerful, but unprecedentedly dangerous in their actual effects on our lives, dreams, and politics.

…The New York Times recently released a breathless, three-part video series called Operation Infektion about "Russian disinformation from the Cold War to Kanye." Neither of these products (and others like them) do a particular good job of explaining why new modes of media are particularly dangerous or even effective.

…The overall impact of these sorts of journalistic pieces is to add to the idea that we are in a bold new world that needs bold new solutions. Ironically, of course, those solutions are themselves older than the mummies on the Senate Judiciary Committee: breaking up businesses or heavily regulating them, typically with rules written by the very people who run them.

Reactionary, yes, and not just mainstream legacies. Foreign Policy is in on it, too:

The Internet Is Going To End Up Like Greece

When the big players get away with open fraud, trust disintegrates.

I doubt I am the only one who can handle social media. It is not the be all and end all of my existence. I write here, for instance, but I also write books, and am working on number five as we speak. There is a lot to be said about the power of the Fourth Medium.

For example, I could have never taken courses from Oxford or Harvard unless I relocated before. Now, I can and do take courses from academic institutions I respect the most. I have far more control here than what authors before me had.

Are there problems with the Internet and social media? Yes, plenty, but the distaste for it comes from the lack of instant and enduring fame and fortune that Big Tech always hinted at during its heyday. It made a lot of cheap and easy promises that people bought into, and a lot of young people became disillusioned. If the glamour factor actually was true, people honestly wouldn’t care about the intrusions. Celebrities have had reporters and paparazzi stalk them and know the colour of their gauchies for decades, and they put up with all that bullshit as those factions made money from celebrity Big Data.

And legacy media made a killing on that Big Ass Data.


And that was perfectly fine.

I always said that Big Tech’s fortunes rested on them keeping their Big Promises, and you really can’t do that for billions of people.

But if journalists think the power is going back to them, it’s not.

We don’t drive Model T’s anymore, but we didn’t go back to the horse and buggy.

We traded up.

And when the fifth medium comes along, people will flock to it because those players will make a new and different promise.

Big Tech will not be what they are now, and it will come a lot sooner than people think. Apple, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, Netflix — they may be giants, but so were dinosaurs.

And the Internet is a transitory medium. Those salivating at breaking them up don’t seem to see that the act is most likely unnecessary.

To me, it doesn’t matter. Print, radio, television, and Internet never frightened me.

And what comes after won’t rattle my cage, either.

I study the medium, understand its strengths and weaknesses, and then make plans.

But the Victorian Left do not understand that nothing is perfect — and that includes them.

They are looking for purity perfection, and God and Goddess have better things to do with Their time than to indulge a fickle crowd who get offended by everything little motherfucking thing.

Memo to the fragile virtue-signallers: you are offended by an old song, but ignore the fact that your friends, neighbours, coworkers, siblings, and children are getting beaten and abused by their spouses? Fuck you. Navel-gazing is not cool.

Get a life, a sense of humour, morals, and some genuine courage while you’re at it.

Because if you’re trying to get some fame and fortune that way, here is the memo: it won’t work, either…

Who watches the watchmen? Snopes gets silly...again.

The Daily Caller has yet another example of Snopes fucking up.

And it is not the first time it has shown Snopes to be, well, silly.

But it has all become very meta, with fact-checkers fact-checking other fact-checkers.

All self-proclaimed, of course, and they do nothing better or differently than journalists do, and often much worse.

Facebook relies on the unempirical Snopes, which is a stupid thing to do, and my favorite Snopes screw up is this one, particularly this bit:

Screen Shot 2018-12-07 at 5.25.45 PM.png

It is not “misinformation”: it is just a joke. It is DIY humour and farce, making fun of serious memes that pollute social media.

Kids, don’t take it seriously.

But Snopes started as a site that debunked urban legends, which doesn’t take a lot of brain power to do. Then it branched out into something that is out of their depth, and it shows.

That you have sites such as Facebook think Snopes brings them credibility is also just plain silly.

We have no shortage of "watchmen” out there, usually with a partisan-bent, with no qualifications, and often with zero experience in journalism to actually know how stories are constructed. That is not a minor oversight. Anyone can be an armchair critic: it takes mastery and precision to know exactly where the breakdowns are, and how to fix them. Snopes lacks that, and it consistently shows. Figuring out that everyone has an uncle whose dog carried a deal rabbit home from the neighbours and he had to buy an identical one only to find out the rabbit died and wasn’t mauled by the dog isn’t hard.

Blindly believing “fact-checkers” is no better than blindly believing the press — neither has the discipline, and consistently bungle facts to the point of becoming a unintentional farce of their own.

And what would Sgt. Al Powell have to say about that?

(Just kidding!)

Is running for president a good excuse to get rid of your business?

It looks like Bloomberg News is being tweaked for sale, by getting rid of the top (read: most expensive) talent.

He could have merely placed it in blind trust, but given the climate, selling it makes more sense, and a presidential bid is a great reason to rid yourself of something that’s no longer powerful or has clout…