Why we need an alternative to journalism now.

If Journalism was an E! True Hollywood Story, everyone would say, "No wonder that has-been crashed and burned."

News Corp working overtime in their propaganda campaign to stop Facebook. They never got the Internet, thinking it would be a MySpace generation, and hedged their bets wrong, and now that they are no longer the cool kids, are trying to stop progress to reclaim their past glory.

And while Facebook is clueless about journalism, those who pretend to be journalists don't know what makes good journalism, either.

It is still a profession with rampant abuse, and Charlie Rose's reign of terror was always accepted because that's the cutthroat ways of journalism.

It is a profession that is deluded, as the Conversation that thinks there is such a thing as quality journalism.

When you have no empirical methods of research, never pushed the limits of your assumptions, and allowed lies, propaganda, hoaxes, fake news, and misinformation into your own product for decades, then keep quiet about having "quality journalism." You had a monopoly on disseminating information that propped you up, and its rigs ensured you had a captive audience. Everything the profession knows about "quality journalism" is wrong because of it.

The Globe and Mail's knee-slapper of a self-serving editorial has it backwards:

Democracy’s immutable need for a free press

No, democracy needs information -- but it doesn't need journalism.

Journalism has betrayed the truth too many times. It has sparked needless wars, convicted innocent people, allowed grifters to be presented as legitimate titans of industry, framed racist and sexist narratives as immutable truths, and blinded people to real dangers while playing up trivial non-issues as important distractions.

Journalism is a quack science, plain and simple.

And democracy needs an empirical science to give them the facts.

Not this kind of farce.