The day after journalism's Lockstep Fiasco...

Nothing in journalism changed. They threw their most blatantly partisan temper tantrum...

And then nothing.


It makes you wonder how an entire profession that think it is covering reality cannot see the humour of their own demise.

It is beyond funny.

It is comedy.

And nothing changed as they had their public breakdown.

What next? Another tantrum?

Or do they finally see what I have seen since the early 1990s?

That they have been living in a fog created from a toxic stew of both arrogance and ignorance.

And they have become nothing but a bunch of jokers, meaning they are not playing with a full deck.

And yet, they are oh so very serious.

One ambitious card left that cursed deck to hover above and chronicle how that house of cards crumbled.


And now she is creating something else because she knows that those who all walk lockstep, marching themselves right into oblivion...

Journalism's Lockstep Propaganda Fest: A pathetic self-lovefest that ignores their ugly reality.

Oh, those coordinated press attacks are very childish.

And propaganda.

When you have three hundred and fifty newspapers all write about the same thing in the same way, well, that's called skewed coverage.

And it is meaningless.

It reminds me of the recent flap over NYU professor NYU Philosophy professor Avitall Ronnell who was suspended after a male student accused her of sexual harassment. There was an open letter signed by all sorts of other professors who thought just because they socialized with her and she was book smart, that no way could she be a predator.

Yes, a authority mob ganging up on someone speaking out and protecting the one accused of misusing authority.

There was an investigation done by the university, and Ronnell was suspended. Her ways were found to be predator, and you could have had reams of signatures supporting her...and it would amount to nothing.

Because one has nothing to do with the other. It is classic PR firm-type strategy of getting people to sing your praises to deflect attention away from your rot.

And editorials today were playing the same game.

Journalism never had to be in this position. If they made changes they needed to do, oh say a quarter century ago, this wouldn't be happening.

Instead, like slacker students who crib from other test-takers' papers to pass a test, this choreographed spectacle is just a PR stunt, nothing more.

It is all about virtue-signalling and halo-wearing all while pretending to be knights who somehow are also damsels-in-distress and they need audiences to play knights to rescue them from an ogre meany.

No, journalism needed to be saved from itself.

If you just did your jobs and reported on facts on the things that actually mattered, you would still be relevant.

Get over yourselves...

Novella: A Murder in the Goddish Realm

This is my first Dangerous Woman novella in well over a year. For those who like the Otherworldly line of supernatural stories -- and for those who like the adventures of Holly and Verity, this is a treat just for you.

A Murder in the Goddish Realm.

Memo to The Atlantic: Just because you still have j-school students, doesn't mean they have the ability to save a dead profession. They are the Rote.

As I have commented numerous times here and in my book, journalism schools have not done one real or substantial thing to save journalism, and continue to teach using the same flawed theories and models with suckers and pigeons lining up to give money to what is essentially an academic scam. I have even used articles written by j-school students to show just how dysfunctional this segment of journalism is. The one place you would expect revolution and change is sputtering along in the same jalopy down the same garden path.

The Atlantic is doing what journalism always did: see a few people cluster together, and then decree it a trend. Their article about young Rotes enrolling in j-schools is a classic case of being shallow and not seeing the big picture.

Rotes are young people who memorize, mimic, and model with no creative input or output. They bring nothing to the table, but are conniving enough to think if they just march the way other people march, they will fly under the radar and get somewhere on someone else's ingenuity and hard work. They follow scripts have have no reasonable understanding of reality. They look for a paved path and march lockstep dutifully, believing that just because they have made a decree, that reality is going to bend to their fantasy and will.

It is no different than #NeverAgain. They do all the same things previous activists have done: blindly shill a side without looking at the facts that refute their own decrees. You have youth violence. You have kids murder other kids with guns.

But if you take away the guns, the problem doesn't solve itself.

So do you just want people not to have traditional guns? They can make 3D guns or eve make their own metal guns. They get smuggled guns or use a knife, a bomb, or even poison.

So why do we have youth activists go for the easy and lazy solution?

Because they are following their parents's scripts.

Doing the same thing, expecting a different outcome.

It would be more impressive if they called for action to see why their generation is murderous. It would be refreshing if they wanted to explore facts to find out whether the movies and games they consume are trashing their psyches -- and if not all of them are getting riled up by consumption of those media -- which ones are at risk, and what are the game plans?

That would show a proactive youth, but it is not. It is not even an active youth.

But a passive one going through the motions as a middle-aged spouse in a loveless marriage and a dead-end job.

So you have a cluster of followers go to j-school, and willingly submit to garbage education to get worthless degrees in a dead profession.

Whoop di do.

Most people who get a j-school degree never get to work in journalism, and of those who do, almost all of them have pay so horrid, they have to get jobs in other fields.


Because the education was always horrifically flawed, and did nothing to rejuvenate the profession.

Youth are not blameless and their blind fantasy is mistaken for idealism and optimism. It's not.

Optimists seek to transform, create, invent, and innovate. The ones in j-school haven't been doing that -- they honestly think that their partisan and propagandistic demands mean they have morals and being biased and with an agenda will force journalism to resurrect themselves and they will have better luck converting people to their skewed and self-serving demands than their fledging blogs and tweets.

You do not see demands for alternatives in journalism from this group. Ask hard questions, and watch the tantrums fly with snide and snippy remarks as they decree they are on top of a nonexistent moral pecking order than those who point out the obvious flaws in their theories.

You would think you had a generation see the collapse of journalism, and then want change in the profession. That would be the case if the motive wasn't primarily driven by an ego and a need to manipulate and meddle.

Older generations who destroyed journalism have a lot to answer for and should be forced to do so.

But younger generation who follow in the same footsteps also need to be held accountable for enabling rot. They may not have experience or a fully developed brain -- but they do have eyes and the ability to compare and contrast to see the reality of a situation.

J-school students who go into those programs have already proven to be incapable journalists: if they cannot see the reality of the situation and go in all the same with no plan to create something functional than the dead model, then how can they possibly be expected to resurrect a dead profession?

They can't.

If you had a generation have the courage and the morals to demand the alternative because they saw what an outmoded model of journalism did to societies, it would be glorious and a breath of fresh air. It would be a true revolution and a sign for progress and improvement.

This isn't it. This is a group of investors sinking their money in Enron stocks just as the company was exposed to being a fraud just because older people got rich in it a few years ago.

It is the same logic and lunacy. Nothing more.

Journalism was never why does the industry have a Hamlet Complex?


Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy. He hath borne me on his back a thousand times, and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is! 

                                                                                                      -- Hamlet, Act V, Scene I.



The drama.

The melodrama.

Hamlet was a prince who was sore at his Uncle Claudius for stealing his paper crown with the word "King" written on it. He whines as he plots and schemes to get revenge, but, of course, with the "reason" to avenge his King father's murder. Hamlet's mother Gertrude married Claudius because, obviously, he had the keys to the whole kingdom.

Hamlet did see Claudius's rise coming, and when he stayed a mere prince, he plotted and schemed, resulting in him killing Claudius, causing the deaths of many others, including himself because his games set off the series of events that killed others, who had family who sought revenge.

For all the virtue-signalling Hamlet spews, in essence, he is a weaker and more incompetent and self-absorbed version of Claudius.

Hamlet talks. A lot:

To be, or not to be? That is the question—

Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,

Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,

And, by opposing, end them?

Had Hamlet had the right motive, perhaps he would have seen his father and his brother played the same games, and it was better to walk away and make his own world from scratch. Hamlet couldn't let go, and held grudges that took him down with the sinking ship, and in the end, fared no better than Claudius.

Both ended up dead for their troubles. He stared at the empty head of a jester, never realizing he was looking in a mirror reflecting his future.

Hamlet had nepotism on his side...until his uncle muscled in. His mother replaced one King with another. Hamlet saw something that wasn't there to justify his actions: his father's ghost. It was nothing more than a mirage and a figment representing the time where, had all things been equal, Hamlet did not have to lift a finger, and he would be crowned king.

Hamlet never bothered being vigilant or bother being a true knight to protect his family. He gets involved only when there is an upset to the pecking order and he is left out.

Of all of Shakespeare's protagonists, I always saw Hamlet as being a villain, and no matter how hard he tried to come off as a hero, not even his creator William Shakespeare could muster up enough liking for Prince of Denmark to give him what he thought he was entitled to have: revenge where he got off without a scrape -- and the status quo he did nothing to ensure he had.


Journalism has all of those Hamlet-esque qualities: preachy, long sermons, an assumption that they ought to be kings, having a grudge against their various Claudiuses: one called Big Tech, and the other called Trump, and plotting and scheming to get revenge because they remember the good old days when they had the reins of power and their audience was dependent on them to be informed, and get their message out.

But they also never were knights being active in protecting their kingdom, either. They just assumed they would carry the mantle of king until others saw an opportunity for progress and took it for themselves.

When it became obvious that Big Tech had taken away their crowns, the best course of action was to reinvent its purpose, mandate, methods, theories, education, and techniques, and find a way to thrive by changing the habits and routines. But the profession never questioned their basic assumptions or ever wondered what would have if the rigs that benefitted them for decades were suddenly no longer there.

If you are selling apples from your orchard, but then suddenly, everyone gets trees to grow their own, it is time to get out of the apple business.

Journalism never learns. It lives in a peculiar place that is in the past, yet they are always running in place in the Now. They do not look forward, but only back, and keep ignoring the lessons of history, the conditions of the present, yet somehow expect they will reclaim the future.

Yes, they once had a castle where they could do whatever they wished.


Now that everyone has their own castle to write their own messages on the walls, the profession could not let go and collapsed.

Cut down and poisoned by their own blindness.

But it doesn't mean we cannot replace it with something more positive and more in tune with the world...


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

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

Poynter has some interesting propaganda trying to spin garbage:

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

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

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

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

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

The beginning of this meta-propaganda is interesting:

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

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

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

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

The article then makes a very biased swipe:

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

It is unpresidential, unproductive and untrue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

How many times have they suppressed important information?

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

They are an enemy to the Truth.

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

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

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

Oh, aren't you clever?

What a manipulative paragraph we have here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shame on Poynter.

But it goes on in various manipulative forms:

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

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

Are you serious?

And appealing to authority doesn't make it right.

I love this question:

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

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

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

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

Why don't they see it?

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

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

We have to make it safe to change your mind.

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

The article spews and babbles:

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

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

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

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

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

And at the end, tries to sound reasonable:

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

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

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

They never listened or took it seriously.

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

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

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

Journalists keeping quiet on assaults on them? Nothing new. Not at all.

A couple of interesting, if oblivious articles about how journalists are keeping quiet that their fellow reporters are getting hurt covering leftist protestors. On CBC and in the New York Post.

This isn't exactly new. In the late 1990s, I had tried to write a story about how some reporters had been harm and manhandled by various people (such as prime ministers!) and protesters who had positive narratives spun, and those incidents were not mentioned by their colleagues. Needless to say, my story was nixed and never saw the light of day, even though I had interviewed those who had been harmed, even if they had police trounce them for merely asking a world leader to repeat what they said.

It happens. It is difficult when there are mobs or people in power who can screw you over.

Once upon a time people would be outraged for the simple reason that reporters were just about the only people who could get access to volatile events or have a path cleared to interview people in power.

Now, it is not the same. Politicians a tweet their selfies and get their lackeys to spew junk on social media. Protestors can film themselves and control their narrative, spinning stories how they are oh-so-right-and-moral and if anyone sees their lies, contradictions, and hypocrisy are just pure evil for pointing it out.

So abuse of journalists is shrugged off because they have become obsolete. The value of journalists has been plummeting for years because of access to an international audience has been opened to the general public.

It is a sign of the times, and one that is still hard for many in the business to grasp because its implications about the state of the profession is too catastrophic to entertain...

Memo to Facebook: You are not capable of revitalizing journalism. You have been infected by the same disease that destroyed journalism.

Although they are now denying their arrogant lecture, Facebook is not going to save journalism:

...Campbell Brown, Facebook’s head of news partnerships, told a group of more than 20 broadcasters and publishers that she wanted to help media companies develop sustainable business models through the platform.

“We will help you revitalise journalism … in a few years the ­reverse looks like I’ll be holding your hands with your dying ­business like in a hospice...”

No, you won't.

Only people in a weakened position try to bluff by making stupid and empty threats like that.

There are many reasons why Facebook will not save journalism. The most important reason is they are built on an egotistical me-centred propaganda model completely clashing with actual information dissemination.

Facebook is amateur DIY public relations and propaganda. This is the place where you brag about your vacation and your kids getting an award for graduation. People who write those cloying end of the year letters now have Facebook to do it all year round.

This is the place where you take highly-filtered selfies, not the place for actual, serious news. If Facebook spewed that garbage, their days of influence are a lot shorter than it seems.

Because people are abandoning Facebook because they get depressed that their fake lives are not as exciting as their friends's fake lives.

Facebook was also about keeping the façade of adolescence artificially going way past high school. Facebook is actually a vanity yearbook where you are the editor and the subject matter. You get top billing and your friends may pop in with likes, comments, or being tagged with a photograph or two.

It is about preaching your political views and airing billions of animal videos.

Not news.

It is too vanity-centred for that to ever happen.

So if Facebook is holding some delusions, they hint that their success comes from conniving dumb luck more than actual cunning and business savvy.

The problem is that Alex Jones is proving you don't need Big Social Media.

I know that most of my traffic doesn't come from Facebook or Twitter. Not even Google. I am seeing definite shifts in the landscape, that's not a bad thing at all.

An alternative to journalism cannot be tethered or dependent on the medium. It has to be able to adopt to technology changes and their implications at a moment's notice.

Because the Internet is too unstable for it to be able to dominate. I do believe that a Fifth Medium will take over, and it will be in my lifetime.

Social media is not stable, and it is more of a tumbleweed -- a medium with no roots.

It has become the place where people just gripe and make demands over trivial things, and ignore the deep issues and problems as they want simple no-brainer answers that other people have to do for them like servants so they do not have to put any effort into it.

It has been corrupted by the same vanity that destroyed journalism.

Another couple of scandals, and social media as a force is done.

But people aren't going back to journalism.

That's not happening.

The love affair with journalism has been over for years, and the love affair with Big Tech is also about to sour, save for Apple.

Something new is coming on the horizon, and when that happens, a new information era is free to begin...


No facts? No problem! The Hill Times spewing propaganda once again.

Journalism has become beyond lazy. They do not bother to actually put a single fact in their stories anymore. Spew a narrative, speculate, and then get "experts" to say that yes, it could be true, but as those experts have no facts, they cannot prove your paranoid conspiracy theory.

The insulting nature of the Hill Times's article could not possibly be more arrogant:

Saudi spat with Canada could be ‘proxy’ for U.S. quarrels with Trudeau government, experts say

Notice the word couldNot "is", but "could".

Santa Claus could be real, too.

And the Hill Times could be a news product.

To assume that the Saudi government are mindless puppets of Donald Trump is, quite rich.

And racist. Xenophobic, too. The ones trying to smooth things over are being slammed for it. It is still Islamophobia if you knock people who are higher in the pecking order than you are; so no, you can't fool anyone when you are pitying those who you think are less fortunate than you.

Canada has made itself vulnerable for the last couple of years with their arrogant attitude, alienating more than one world leader, which I have chronicled with concern over the last few months here, long before this gratuitous spat with the Saudis. If the Canadian regime was genuinely concerned with the plight of imprisoned people over there, they would do things behind the scenes diplomatically, not morally masturbate on Twitter. That's slacktivist virtue-signalling.

The Saudis may have easily seen an opportunity cut their ties with Canadian dead weight and took advantage of it.

We need facts to confirm or refute a theory, but I seriously doubt the Saudis needed to stoop to being a white man's proxy and go after a small potatoes country like Canada.

So get over yourselves, you bigots.

And what else does the Hill Times's paranoid conspiracy theory proffer? That the fact that not even Tuvalu is coming to stand in solidarity with Canada?

195 countries on this planet and everyone is smirking on the sidelines.

Is every other world leader now a part of this Vast Trump-wing Proxy Conspiracy?

Here is a thought: maybe the Liberal Regime are a bunch of ninnies who couldn't govern themselves out of a paper bag.

The article is beyond horrid. It is literally paranoid garbage that offers no information.

This is the Fake News your mother warned you about.

Get facts. Get experts who do not indulge speculation because no real expert does that.

Do not spew spin to justify a narrative that your ideological lunacy is divinely right. It's not.

And deal with reality; not the fantasy of denial...

100+ newspapers openly become propaganda outlets marching lockstep like a zombie attack.

Bullies on the playground. That is what journalism does.

They are too cowardly to admit why their industry died; so they blame one man.

And they are deciding to all gang up and write garbage propaganda to prove why they do not know what news is anymore.

They made a mess of things. Their failures are on them

They do not know what news is anymore. They either drool over celebrities, attack Trump, or inflate customer service complaints into some sort of social breakdown.

That is the reason journalism is no longer relevant.

And when those coordinated attacks bring them nothing, then what?

Will they then admit they no longer are rational human beings, but dead zombies outraged at nothing in particular?

That is the reason we need F.R.E.E.D.

We need it to replace the propaganda and the garbage being paraded as news.

Journalists remembered how their bullying destroyed the Serbs, and now they want to relive those bloody glory days.

Yes, they are pathetic.

Yes, they are losers.

No, that is not opinion. Just look at their fortunes and face reality.

They lost the game.

They lost the battle.

They lost the war.

Memo to the press: Yes, we know you hate Trump because he defeated you all with a single elegant victory. That is not news.

Get over it before.

And move on...

Skull Tower, partisan narrative fantasy, and why journalism destroyed itself.

Ćele kula, or Skull Tower in Niš, Serbia, is something I would make every person who ever wants to resurrect journalism have to visit and stay in as the reality of its wisdom seeps into their own thick skulls.


I would also make every person who fancies themselves as an "activist" go and live inside there for a year.


Those are real skulls of Serbs in there, and ask any Serb, and they can tell you its history.

But the long and the short of it that tower represents a Serbian defeat. The Serbs fought for their independence, and they lost.

Their oppressors of the Ottoman Empire did that. They built that tower as an example of what happens when you try to break from the rigs that keep you back.

Serbs did liberate themselves, and they go there as a pilgrimage.

They honour those who failed. They honour them for trying with every grain of their being. They do not see the tower as a symbol of failure, but as a symbol that they kept trying until they succeeded.

It became their symbol of independence.

After all, it is a tower made from Serbs. That's our DNA in those bricks. No one else's.

We did not tear down that tower. We could have torn it down, and hide from that reality.

We embraced it.

I know many people in the West do not understand Serbian logic. There was one very ignorant American professor who wrote a book whining that Serbs celebrate defeats.

No, we face our defeats. We do not deny at certain points in history, we lost and failed.

But those events compelled us to try again and again and again.

We deal with failure and memorialize them.


We don't spin it to make it look like a victory. Only cowards do that.

We honour people who gave their lives and didn't reach their goals.

Some were taken down by Nazis, like Stjepan Filipović. 

Person #9 of people everyone should know.


And even with his last breath, that 26 year-old was not afraid.


Life isn't easy. It isn't fair. It is rarely ever kind.

But it is a challenge, a blessing, and a triumph.

Journalism's problems began when they were too afraid of their own darkness and failings. They began to deny they were wrong, always spinning some obnoxious partisan narrative fantasy why they were always great and glorious and Defenders of Mankind.

As my first name literally means "defender of mankind," I take exception to their self-styled and lofty ideas of what they are and have become.

They glorify Watergate, but do not deal with their industry's failures. When you try to whitewash your past and rewrite it as you take offence to being forced to face your group's failures, you no longer have a means to assess yourself.

You forget that bad things can happen and that your own ignorance made you vulnerable. You forget that no one owes you anything.

You don't wallow in failures. You don't make excuses for them, and you certainly do not try to spin them as victories.

No, you fell flat on your face.

You fell.

You failed.

Your opponent was bigger, stronger, smarter, and more able than you were. The End.

The curtain fell and that was the hand you were dealt.

But when a curtain falls, it means it will rise again.

So what are you going to do the next time? Pretend you didn't lose?

Will you pretend that you were perfect and the victors were without a redeeming quality?

Only if you want to keep on failing.

Because you will think the same, act the same, and if you didn't make mistakes, you will do the same thing, and your opponents will catch on, and thump you again.

And again.

And again.

And again.

Sooner or later, you ditch the script with the lousy partisan narrative fantasy that you keep stupidly falling for like a moron.

Yes, like a moron.

And you examine those mistakes, learn from them, as well as learning from your opponents because they (a) know what to do in order to win, you know, the same thing you want to do, and (b) their winning system isn't perfect, and you can find what you need to do to get back up and move forwards and upwards out of that tower.

Serbs have that tower as a reminder that there are people who will kill them and build towers with their skulls if they have a chance to get away with it.

But just because you were defeated, it doesn't mean you don't do something else to liberate yourself from the shackles of failure.


Like move and create a new path.

You may be down, but not out.

You know, for a very long time, despite everything, I thought people in journalism had some desire to succeed and resurrect the profession.

But it has gone on for so long that they like having an excuse to be failures. You can whine, blame others, and do nothing as you wear that halo, pretending how important you are.

There may be a handful who are still fighting and trying, but people like me who do keep going realize that the profession is dead, and it is dead because of a toxic mindset.

When you start thinking you are blameless and everyone owes you something, you are hiding from the truth that you need to change and that you cannot expect anyone else to save you.

When Serbs hit upon that solution, their fortunes began to change.

But they didn't tear down that tower. They kept is as it is and went there to see reality in all its forms as they can also see how far they came, even when the chips were down and it seemed like the whole world was against them...

Does the New York Times live in this century?

I seriously doubt it. Their logic is of another time and place, and  what they see -- and don't -- is very telling as to why journalism is no longer a thing.

They have some rambling piece with the following headline:

When a Local Paper Gets New Owners, Partisan Strife Hits Its Doorstep

When any media outlet gets new owners, partisan strife hits the fan. I chronicled one example in my book OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism when News Corps bought a previously independent station and then wanted to veer hard Right. 

The book came out in 2005.

This is not some sort of "local newspaper" thing. When new owners take control, they want to put their imprint, and people who work there do not like a disruption of any routine because they memorized the script and broke in the old bosses, and now there is new rules and games with new rigs, and chances are that the new owners are going to break your code, and then you'll be without a job.

The article revolves around the  Santa Clarita Valley Signal, and its backstory is typical of many other places where the new boss has ideas that the old boss didn't, and now people are throwing fits because people do not like change, let alone an outsider whose beliefs do not march lockstep with their own.

In other words, xenophobia.

But the Times doesn't bother to state why the original owners jettisoned the cargo in the first place. The opening of the article has some folksy logic how everything here was just grand until the Mean Old Republican bought the newspaper, never mind that there was no Good Old Democrat who saved the newspaper in sight:

The paper has a circulation of about 8,000, a newsroom with about 24 reporters and editors and the slightly misleading slogan of “Your community, delivered every day” — the paper is printed and delivered Tuesday through Saturday. For decades, it has been a reliable source of information about the Santa Clarita Valley, a region of more than 300,000 people that includes the city of Santa Clarita and communities such as Valencia, Newhall and Saugus, all part of Los Angeles County.

“It was the one place where people had a kind of town square,” said Anthony Breznican, 41, an entertainment journalist who lives in the Valley. “The great thing about it was that it was very local.” 

For a lead, it could not be more manipulative.

Obviously, the newspaper had problems because you do not shed something that is working for you.

So there is more to the story than is being told for the sake of a fake narrative.

Then we have another feint in the piece:

And in smaller, rural communities, the decimation of the newspaper industry is being keenly felt. Since 2004, more than 1,800 newspapers have died or merged with other companies, according to research by the University of North Carolina’s Center for Innovation and Sustainability in Local Media.

This has left roughly 200 “news deserts” without any local newspaper coverage, and even more areas where a single source dominates, said the study’s leader, Penelope Muse Abernathy, the university’s Knight professor of journalism and digital media economics.

Those numbers are growing. “There are more counties than you can count that are right on the line right now,” Ms. Abernathy said.

Why is there an abandonment of newspapers?

Because they weren't being the watchdogs as the article implies. Local papers covered easy events, and then, when that whole Internet thing came, people had another source to get their information without the middle man. The Times always glosses over this point.

They keep assuming that people cannot communicate without a medium, as if they were psychics who were the conduit between the living and the dead.

Journalism was replaced. 

The photographs in the piece are typical propaganda of activists and citizens looking oh-so-very serious, something typical of partisan newspapers that skew right.

But the stupidest part of the piece comes here:

Some residents of Santa Clarita have taken to Facebook groups and Twitter to make their voices heard.

Like, just now in 2018?

They haven't been griping on social media before?

Hello, New York Times! People have been doing that for years!

That's the reason they don't rely on journalism anymore.

And the brainless buzzword "news desert" is quite the knee-slapper: people are relying on citizen journalism directly through social media.

They think their opinions are superior to journalism's opinions and have for a very long time.

So there are a bunch of discontented white people in California who want everything their own way. That is the sum total of the Times' babbling propaganda piece.

That's not even news. That is enabling and validating middle class ennui and ignorance. These days, it is very posh to whine as you move goal posts and complain how that group called They aren't cleaning up your messes and making life perfect for you, while you pick issues that have no meaning while ignoring the real rot because that would mean being wrong and flawed and then having to do something about it yourself.

It is 2018, and journalists have no idea about their times and place. None. They want that magic wand to make everything good again. Not happening. Deal with it.

Times have changed. So should the Times...

Explaining away failure is still spin. And it is denial of reality.

The Guardian is picking up some very bad habits, such as explaining away failure. Because of the politically correct pseudo-culture that is a form of cold terror, people never can look at reality. They either explain it away or justify if, or deny there is a problem.

People want to pretend they are prefect and being called on the carpet for their wickedness is some sort of horrific act of terror.

The Guardian has completely misread the tensions between Saudi Arabia and Canada, coming to the conclusion this spat has nothing to do with Canada, when it does. This was entirely preventable, but the federal regime has now had an established history of virtue-signalling by their own meddling in other country's affairs. The Guardian is sounding like one of those stay-at-mall moms who want to brag about the lazy ne'er-do-well brat, but as brat skips classes and gets bad mark, she has to spin some kind of ridiculous canard how it is everyone else's fault but her kid -- and her. (And as someone who has worked as an educator since 2000, you never see this kind of parental behaviour of students who do well on their own).

But the narrative of excuses The Guardian piles on never ends:

Soon after Donald Trump took office, it became clear that the longstanding relationship between the United States and its northern neighbour was about to change: there were terse renegotiations of Nafta, thousands of asylum seekers walking across the shared border and attacks on against Canada’s protectionist trade policies.

It began when Trudeau was having his photo op "bromance fest" with an outgoing president, who, for the record, has been too busy living his life to weigh in on the matter in public. That was the first slight and a manipulative play of optics to let the incoming president know where he stood in the schoolyard pecking order. I knew then that was going to cost my country a pretty penny. This isn't high school, and even if it were, Canada should have looked to the defunct Spy magazine to a clue about what was in store for them.


But when you have a prime minister whose playbook comes from what works in private school, you know he is going to stick to that juvenile script no matter how badly he will fail with it.

And Trudeau is playing by that book and has been for a very long time. He has been tweaking Trump's nose -- and when you are the leader in charge of the lives of millions of people, it is not about you. That is the agreement: people give you goodwill and power. In return of getting those precious gifts, you give them a better life as you guide them because realistically, you are no match against millions of people. They indulge you.

But the Guardian doesn't get it:

Canada’s lonely stance was swiftly noticed north of the border. “We do not have a single friend in the whole entire world,” Rachel Curran, a policy director under former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper, lamented on Twitter.

And that should be a sign. Why isn't anyone publicly showing a modicum of support? Why has the International Bank of Goodwill closed this country's account?

I am certain if Donald Trump was in the same position, journalists would gleefully jump up and down and dutifully explain in excruciating detail all of the reasons why Trump caused the US's isolation, and yet that it is Canada in the hot seat, the Guardian doesn't consider it. 

Their silliosity continued:

The United Kingdom was similarly muted in its response, noted Bob Rae, a former leader of the federal Liberal party. “The Brits and the Trumpians run for cover and say ‘we’re friends with both the Saudis and the Canadians,’” Rae wrote on Twitter. “Thanks for the support for human rights, guys, and we’ll remember this one for sure.”

Perhaps Canada should remember all of the times it did the same to other nations and wonder if the silence has a more troublesome reason behind it.

The lack of awareness permeates throughout the article, and the arrogance is never questioned:

In this particular dispute, Canada did not need US help, said Thomas Juneau, a professor at the University of Ottawa. “Saudi Arabia-Canada relations are very limited, so there’s not a lot of damage being done to Canada right now,” he said. “But this should be a source of major anxiety: when a real crisis comes and we are alone, what do we do?”

The relations were hardly limited, and this unfounded assertion should have been disproven. In Ontario alone, the exodus of Saudi interns and students are having a direct impact on hospitals who now have huge holes to fill. Saudis bought our food. The invested in our companies. They had contracts to purchase more controversial things. They could cut off the oil supply, and it would cause serious problems.

This is not a minor spat, and considering Canada already unnecessarily made one with NAFTA, the list of countries who are having their fill of our government's antics are piling up.

But the article's worst flaw is here:

The week’s events have added impetus to a conversation that is slowly getting underway in Canada, Juneau said. “We are starting some serious soul-searching in the sense of what does it mean for Canada to have a US that is much more unilateral, much more dismissive of the rules and the norms and of its leadership role in the international order that it has played for 70 years?”

Notice the blame is being placed on the US -- not on Canada. That means that Canada sees its regime as ineffectual, and hence, a façade. If you are the one who made the error, you have control to correct it by altering the course.

If what you do makes no difference, then you stick to the same script.

And the federal regime has said in public it will keep doing the same things, but expect a different outcome.

The very definition of insanity.

Canada will take a series of serious hits in the coming months, and there will be consequences.

I am optimistic, though. While our journalism industry is unteachable, the rest of the country has an actual learning curve, and has a very good sense of when to change course. 

And it will change course, but right now, it is stuck with a government that behave as if it were in private school, and playing conniving games that usually result in mommy and daddy having to bribe school officials into making the problem go away by means of a large charitable donation.

Except now there is no mommy and daddy to clean up the mess caused by a government of knuckleheads who are way too old to be sticking to juvey scripts when the stakes require original and active thinking that reflects reality -- not selfies...


Fort Wayne News-Sentinel lets go all but one news staff employees. You want to still tell lies that journalism is still a thing?

There lots of thick heads of human ostriches who love to stick their heads in the sand.

Eight news employees were still standing, but seven got their walking papers.

You have partisan vultures such as ProPublica play make pretend while their unreasonable facsimiles to journalism that require funding from the well-heeled partisan Establishment who think they have figured a sneaky way to fool the masses by means of a blind, but there is no money in news anymore.

The model is dead. Done.

The pseudo-journalistic models are not doing well, either. The "public" model of journalism is funded by wealthy dilettantes who have money to throw into tax shelters and write-offs because they think their money gives them intellectual sophistication and superior culture to herd the sheep.

Sooner or later, even those numbskulls will figure out they are coming off as the unteachable and barbarically ineffectual antediluvian nerds that they are and go fund something else that makes them look hip and smart without having the blessing of being either.

Go lobby to make fake cocktail party laughter an Olympic sport or something.

But we have a void. The quality of information that is present on the Internet has gone done to dreck.

I remember when I used to go online twenty years ago: web sites were not as elegant, but there was no shortage of quality information. I could email experts directly and have meaningful discussions with a total stranger hundreds of mile away.

Now, so much as been shut off. Access to actual people has been shut off in many ways. Tweets with blue checkmarks are more often than not done by someone who doesn't have that checkmark by their name.

There are forms to fill online and it all goes into a black hole, replaced with animal videos, and other life sinks. Companies have no trouble asking for personal information or even taking it from you without your knowledge or approval.

Minimum wage jobs with lousy hours and no benefits demand credit ratings, doctor's notes, letters from your insurance company, criminal checks, and even driving abstracts at the candidate's expense without telling employees what are the hours, wages, or conditions of that job.

The Internet has been rigged and skewed, and it is the reason it is not built to last. Facebook's usage has taken a nosedive, for instance, and it is not surprising in the least.

Because when a medium is as blatantly rigged to favour one side over another, and it is dependent on the goodwill of the party getting screwed, they can just up and walk away.

As traditional media relish the idea that the likes of Facebook cannot control the monster they made, people aren't crawling back to the old guard. They certainly no longer have an impact on where people flock for their dose of partisan fairytale spinning, even if they Big Brother  ban it.

But legacy media's reaction reminds me of an old Serbian anecdote of a man's cow dying and his neighbour celebrating because while he never had a cow, but at least his neighbour won't have one, either.

So the decline of the Internet is not paving the way for the old model of journalism to resurrect itself.

There is a growing black hole, and the toxic combination of arrogance and ignorance are just making it bigger as we need more information in uncertain times...

It is virtual, not real. Fake followers is nothing new. It predates the Internet.

Fake it until you make it. That is an old saying, and it is hard for people to understand that on the whole, people just aren't that into you.

As in, at all.

I was always skeptical of carny. I do not believe the hype of the Kardashians, for instance. People cannot remember the names and ages of their own children; so they are not remembering much of other people's children, either.

How much people pretend to earn -- and I am talking celebrities here -- is vastly misaligned with what they actually do earn, for instance. When I was writing about the business of journalism, one thing I knew about was paywall (back when it had a different meaning than it does now: back then, a paywall was the maximum salary anyone in a set position could earn), and I knew what people were actually making, and what they told me they were making was something two or three times what the paywall was -- not that they clued in that I may know more about their wages than they thought I did.

There is a pay scale, and puffing is a common ruse among people in entertainment and communications. What they are trying to do is make themselves seem like the cool kids who everyone knows, envies, and bothers reading or watching.

Bloat a following and maybe advertisers will be fooled into giving you truckloads of cash to hawk their wares.

Once upon a time, a good hint about a celebrity's true worth came from People magazine when they had a little section about celebrities selling their homes. It was never the ones whose careers were strong; just the ones who had a bad film or two in a row.

The first expense that had to go was the luxury mansion.

Newspapers played those games long before the Internet by including papers they dumped in colleges and greasy spoons as part of their paid circulation. That was their version of fake followers, and nothing that caused the New York Times to get huffy about.

They are whining about fake YouTube views this time. People try to make themselves stand out, and they will pay to inflate the figures. Spin back an odometer or inflate page views, it is always the same game.

That is the reason I always used to verify numbers in different ways than what I was presented by a vested interest. People would build up the hype, but the truth is that much of hype comes from people either recruiting friends and family to anonymously endorse them -- or paying a third party to boost the numbers to gain that grit of traction.

Advertising doesn't always work, and neither does the most clever campaign. You can have a first-rate product, but the push doesn't always bring you what you need, let alone what you want.

Fashion publications can't hype of their September issues anymore -- but it is cheaper for fashion houses to appeal directly to potential customers via social media than in the glossies. I have a soft spot for Louis Vuitton, Van Cleef and Arpels, Shu Uemura, Takeshy Kurosawa, Ralph Lauren, and Moschino, for instance, and I do not need Vogue to show me the goods.

But I haven't cracked open an issue for well over a decade for personal reading because I have ways of looking at what I like directly. I don't need the middle man to tell me how to think or how to dress myself because my style is my own, and always has been. Being a good little middle class sheep and minion was never my thing in the first place.


But the New York Post seems surprised, but their piece on it had one interesting observation:

“The September issue means nothing anymore,” said Sam Shahid, founder of branding, advertising and design agency Shahid & Company. “You used to hold that magazine in your hand. It takes you to a place — that’s what a magazine used to do. Now they are all doing the same thing. There’s no imagination there. It’s just pure product, it’s pleasing the advertiser.”

Shahid says a lack of funds at publishers, due to a decline in print circulation and ad revenue in the digital age, has led to a crazy scramble to attract any kind of buzz or revenue.

“There’s a desperation right now with print,” he added. “The power magazines used to have is no longer there. Celebrities are controlling fashion.”

Celebrities have the machine to hype their things and buy their followers, but even they have co-opted the puffing, and took out the gate-keepers.

We like the myth of other people worshipping us, but we aren't paying attention to other people much anymore.

For an alternative model to journalism to thrive, it has to take that into its equations.

And not try to bluff its way with a big bang.

But a little pop. A little at a time to cultivate an alternative way of disseminating information in a world where virtual is still mistaken for actual...

Alexandra Kitty's Wild Ride.

When I decided to take the initiative and go into journalism to see why it was having problems, no one gave me the idea to do it. I made my own decree and carried it through.


I had no compass or map because doing things like this wasn't being done. I called it Method Research and while we have undercover police officers (who I wrote about in Elle Canada) and we have reporters who have gone undercover for stories, we don't actually have a system of working in a profession because your job is to audit it.

It was more than a job. It was a meta-job.


You are always wearing two hats, not one.

But when you are always wearing two hats, you become a magician who keeps transmuting, and you become some who always has a dual-purpose: one to do a job, and one to assess the job you are doing.

And because journalism should have gone through this process itself, it should have transmuted itself, but it refused, staying static.

But I didn't stay static.


I developed certain abilities because of doing something that you would think would be standard for industries such as journalism: hovering above to see how its own internal health was doing.


They didn't, and while I am nor surprised in industry corrupted by arrogance didn't think to look inwards, I am still shocked they are behaving so destructively as their own profession imploded.

I took a breather after my Method Research because suddenly, I my thinking was completely changing, becoming a peculiar blend of big picture and minute detail, which was one of the skills Method research honed in me.

It was like wearing a microscope with one eye and a telescope with the other.

So I had to pull back and start to focus in a different way.


When I was studying psychology as an undergrad, I stumbled upon a strange fact about myself: I had no Left/Right brain dominance.

I sort of knew on one level because I am ambidextrous and can write and draw with both my right and left, but when one of my professors wanted to demonstrate the Stroop Effect to the class and picked me, I zipped through the list not making a single error, which is not something most people can do. It did not take long for my handedness to come up, and after retesting my abilities, I found out my brain just did not like to pick sides.

Because my ideology is what I call Radical Centrism: I am not a Leftie or a Rightie. It is not as if I am sitting on a fence; I just look from every angle, and like to keep moving.


But even if you like to keep moving, sometimes you still have to removed yourself to look at yourself, too. What can you do with what you can do?


For me, it has been taking a series of risks as I begin a new level of something that is new, but without ignoring what inspired me to do it in the first place.


And climbing a spiral staircase was what I did, making sure it was not a hamster wheel.

But sometimes you want to make your own staircase to go somewhere new to create something better.

So while journalism turns into some zombie horde needlessly, I am moving forward with something more liberating and fun than what the status quo have condemned and confined themselves for no good reason at all...

A tale of two journalisms: One is a propagandist for its regime. One is a propagandist against it. Both are worthless.

Canadian journalism is a warrior mom to its sheltered child, the federal Liberals, and it has become a pathetic sight.

It gets huffy whenever some other kid calls out her precious little boy. That mean old Trump is making Canada wait its turn at NAFTA talks!

Never mind that its was our regime arrogance that put us in a bind.

But coming up with excuses is what enabling parents do best to explain away their failing children. The National Post got all huffy about Saudi "propaganda" that Canada treats women poorly.

Well, National Post, I guess they read your anti-woman garbage and came to a logical and natural conclusion.

Your male and female reporters alike have all decreed that women are insane liars who can never be trusted when they accuse men in power of sexual harassment.

So paranoid is Canadian journalists that are actually spewing out a vast Trump-winged conspiracy that he has put up the Saudis into taking down Canada.

That is insane, and considering how many countries Canada has managed to offend with its regime's arrogance than less than a year, world leaders do not have to get a script from Trump to tell them they are being dissed.

Or did 190-plus countries who are not coming to Canada's defence a hint that maybe, just maybe, we installed an incompetent regime?

What? No former American presidents to rush our defence, either?

But that is what happens when you give rubes paper crowns and then have bigger rubes serve as their enablers who honestly believe all they have to do is tell the little people how to think, and they will all mindlessly nod and think it.

Yeah, that ship sailed when the Internet blew into town, kids.

But as pathetic as Canadian journalists have been in spinning the Trudeau regime's incompetence, their American counterparts have lost every sense of reality in the opposite direction.

Their self-serving vendetta against the president makes them look insane. They have lost every control of their morals, logic, and common sense, taking their tantrums to new lows and a personal level.

Ganging up on the president like a bunch of schoolyards thugs with a Let's Trash Talk Day is infantile and abnormal. There is no logical or rational reason to do this -- and the reason, "Well, the president bad mouths us" is no excuse.

Your job is to provide facts, not settle scores, that, truth be told, you had coming. You built him up for decades; so he knows who you really are.

He would not have been president unless the press legitimized the myth of the man. And no, this wasn't a People magazine soft news enabling -- this was a New York Times and 60 Minutes enabling.

But here we have two different countries with media doing two very different propagandistic things.

And they are getting absolutely nowhere. Not in their ratings or circulation numbers, and not in actually making any sort of dent with their manipulative partisan reporting.

You would think that both would put on their thinking caps and see their strategies are garbage.

And that they need to take a good long look in their mirror and stop blaming other people, world leaders, and countries for their destruction.

But no, that would take bravery, morality, and an eye to see reality.

And they don't.

Making their coverage worthless, and the real reason why they self-destructed...

Boston Globe is a Propaganda Machine. Yes, journalism is dead, kids. What you see is a vindictive zombie.

The Boston Globe has now completely shown itself for the propaganda-spewing vendetta-settler that it is.

But, as cowards usually, do, they want their zombie army to all march lockstep together August 16.

This is the gutter appeal:

The Boston Globe has appealed to newspapers across the U.S. to publish editorials on Aug. 16 denouncing what it calls a “dirty war against the free press.”
The Globe says it’s appealing to editorial boards to take a stand regardless of their politics and whether they generally editorialize for or against the president’s policies.
Trump often characterizes the media as “fake news” and journalists as his true political opponents.
Marjorie Pritchard, who oversees the Globe’s editorial page, says dozens of newspapers have agreed so far to write their own editorials. She says they include both large metropolitan dailies along with many smaller publications.

Dozens of propaganda outlets trying to settle a personal score with the president.

Your mandate is to inform. Not settle childish scores that prove the president is right.

The press wants a president pat them on the head and drool all over them.

You can't take insults and do your jobs? That's on you.

You failed. You have no idea what journalism is anymore.

You find facts and report them.

You do not write propaganda that suits your own self-serving interests.

Is journalism dead?

Yes, and the Boston Globe proves it...

On becoming Alexandra Kitty

I believe in self-cultivation.


No masks, no scripts. You have a purpose and then you work toward it, guiding yourself in all sorts of surreal and eccentric directions.


People may make fun of you and call you names, but too bad for them. They can't seem to read me, even I can read them, and their story is a real snore.


I don't put up with manipulative garbage, and I will say it to your face, but I am much nicer than most people see at first.


I believe in caring for others, even if -- especially if -- it is not convenient for you.

I also believe it is forward to the past.


Because those who don't know history are doomed to screw up everyone else's lives.

I believe that ivory towers no longer have a place in academia, and we need to reconsider how we study the world.


I believe in rebirths and resurrections. I believe in alchemy, the art and science of self-improvement.


Because you are always a work in progress, and a story being written...