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

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

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

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

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

It was all very Patriarchal.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

And then they would have to overhaul everything.

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

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

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

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

Bless them for it. Keep it up.

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

No swaggering female Turks that are taken seriously.

No Matriarchal structure.

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

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

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

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

Because it is time.

Right here, and right now.

American violence: Another school massacre. Another vessel of hate explodes. Grabbing that gun is a symptom, not the cause. When did it all go wrong and why?

American journalism has failed its people again. Another vessel of hatred and rage exploded, and like all the of the others before him, there were huge warning signs that people who should have done something about, ignored it.

American journalists have done a great disservice to its people: it keeps telling of a simple solution: just get rid of guns, and then all will be corrected.

No, it won't.

They will brings knives. They will throw acid. They will build bombs.

Do not kid yourself.

Do I believe in gun control?

I don't understand the need for guns in the first place. I have always said you can stick a gun in my hand, and anger me to the breaking point, I am not going to shoot anyone with it.

I do not live a stress-free, trouble-free charmed life. The last couple of years have been horrendous.

But I am not someone who would cause another person harm or trauma.

I have empathy. I have morals. Guns do not appeal to me.

But America has a violence problem. The guns are a manifestation of that problem, not the cause.

But the news media like quick and easy solutions. They tell people if guns are off the street, they can go back to their mundane middle-class lives worry-free.

No.

Gun control is a shallow solution to a deep-rooted problem.

Why do you have so many young men (and a few young women) who explode like that?

Violence is glorified everywhere: it's in the movies and on television. It is in video games. It is always seen as a solution to a problem.

It's not.

It is a hyper-violent society that has parents go ballistic if a teacher sees that their child is troubled and points this out to them. We do not teach emotional literacy in schools. We don't teach children at an early age to deal with rejection, obstacles, and frustrations.

I work as an educator. I have taught children and young adults. I worked in one place where a student physically assaulted a teacher, and the student was not expelled or charged -- and I find out all this after he was in my class. I was not warned.

The rate of shootings is increasing. The problem is getting worse. People want a fast fix, but there isn't one. It requires facing some very ugly truths. It requires work that will take people away from their online gaming.

What we have is a lack of connect. We have an Internet that is filled with people recruiting youth into all sorts of violent ventures, from gangs to cyberbullying to even terrorism.

The latest killer fell through hundreds of cracks. If teachers were given the tools and the freedom to identify troubled students so that something can be done, it would help far more than just hoping the kid whose gun was taken away doesn't resort to explosives.

Gun control is a tiny fraction of the problem. The drive -- the rage -- to kill is the bigger problem.

Journalism could have been a tool to stop politicizing hatred -- it could have had student reporters on staff to show what is happening within their own schools, for instance.

I have said it in my book Don't Believe It!: that there is a huge difference between a story that asks "Are your kids safe at school" and "Are you safe at school?"

It was something that troubled me when I was working on Chaser News: one of the stories I covered was a general version of the "Are you safe at school" story. It covered health and safety violations, but had I more traction, the natural progression would soon entail student-on-student violence because this was going to be a long-arc for me.

Because media never talked to kids. They have become an enigma to us. So when they explode and shoot up their school -- or pack it up to join ISIS -- we are shocked, shocked, shocked.

Why are we shocked?

Because an entire demographic was ignored.

Yes, America, you have a problem.

Don't look to your television ads for Gun Away that works like a Slap Chop.

Take a walk through your children's schools tomorrow, and study that battlefield.

Look around at the other kids, and your own to see how they fit together -- or don't.

You will have to do all this work yourself because there is no media outlet who can do that for you.

And that is one of the greatest failures of journalism -- that they never bothered to look toward the future by walking those school halls to tell you how things were fragmenting and falling apart.

Manipulating narratives: When critics gloss over the facts to suit their own denial of reality.

Just listening to Jerry Agar on Newstalk 1010 over Patrick Brown. The screened callers aren't exactly informed and are getting their facts messed up with no one to remind them of the basic facts of the case. Someone took issue with Patrick Brown's accusers being "anonymous" and that Brown as a right to "face his accusers". They are manipulating the narrative, without bothering with a single fact. Because Brown knows exactly who his accusers are. Here is a passage of an article I have used before:

So Brown knows who are his accusers. He knows of the incidents in question.

So the narrative that these are faceless women, and poor little boy Brown has no idea who is talking, or what they are talking about is rubbish.

And I am quoting his own words.

Scandal doesn't just happen when something is illegal. Canada is not exactly some country that cracks down on anything. We have the Gerald Stanley verdict to remind us that it doesn't always matter if a law is on the books, you don't always have to answer for your actions.

I don't care if what Brown did was illegal. When a person in a position of power asks an underling for date, that is a form of bullying. You are not on equal ground. That's not flattering. I am not on the job to get dates, or be noticed for my looks. I have to earn a living, stupid.

As I have said before, there are other things that Brown is associated with -- the nomination process in various ridings -- that have bigger ramifications, and show that a clear pattern of strong-arming and bullying. I don't think the PC Party would have kicked him that fast and disavowed of him that quickly unless they saw an opening to rid themselves of someone of that ilk.

And when you see a glow and a popularity surge from a party who is in turmoil at this very inconvenient juncture right before an election, you know that things must have been horrific during the previous regime.

That tells us everything we need to know about Patrick Brown. He is going after women, while keeping quiet on the other issues surrounding his leadership.

But that doesn't suit the narrative of the #MeToo critics who are hoping against hope that Brown can dodge this bullet with his blustering tirade. Harvey Weinstein is blustering, too. It doesn't mean a thing.

 

Watching the Patriarchal Meltdown: Patrick Brown, Michael Haneke show the shift in a changing world away from the Patriarchal.

The Internet has been a game-changer, for good and for bad. Great White Men made it, and it seemed like a sure-fire way to entrench a Patriarchal structure. It is not as if they had some devious plan, but there is an assumption that rigs are natural, and when they are natural to you, you want to spread that skewed prosperity around. Patriarchal storytelling is very skewed and is rigged to be all about the One and the One is the winner who takes all.

To not be the One means you are either (a) the victim, (b) the inferior supporting cast, or (c) the villain.

So you have the Great Men who stomp all over other people to be the One.

The One is a hypothetical construct. It does not actually exist, but it is a convenient delusion that give people the incentive to give it their best -- so they can "win."

#MeToo has now become the greatest challenge to this dysfunctional mindset: all the Great Men who thought they "won" and did it at any cost have been dethroned to their absolute shock and devastation.

A childlike fantasy has been shattered. This should give other predators food for thought that maybe, their narrative is not actually reality. You make too many victims of your manipulation and tyranny, they become a collective, a One of their own.

Or, more accurately, an Infinite.

The chorus of voices may be faceless (what traditional propaganda uses to demonize an enemy), become stronger than the "face" of the sea-appointed hero (the One).

The One becomes a target to evaluate.

It reminds me of an underrated game show called 1 vs 100.

250px-1_vs_100_gameshow

Do you take the money or the mob? One contestant up against 100 and the point is for the One to answer more correct answers than 100 others.

But once the One wins, game over.

In television.

Reality is very different.

#MeToo seems like a mob to many men who backstabbed, stole, puffed, and bullied their way to become the One.

Patrick Brown of the Ontario PC party has shown himself to be a true Jekyll and Hyde.

When he was the One of the provincial party, he was bland and had no fire to him. He acted as if he was owed premiership of the province and had no fight in him. He played it safe.

But boy, did he change when he was ousted for naughty -- but stealth -- behaviour toward intoxicated prey.

The man turned into an angry monster, all but vowing to destroy the two women who dared say he was less than perfect.

That he was not the man he was presenting to the public.

He was unrepentant when he misspoke about Premier Kathleen Wynne who demanded, not unreasonably, for him to apologize and take back his incorrect statement. He didn't, and now she is suing him for defamation.

Brown is not a man who owns up to his mistakes. He is out with his hired goons in business suits to hit back at those who dare speak against him.

The shift in his behaviour is very telling: he wasn't this passionate when he was campaigning, because he thought he had it in the bag. The rigs that got him to his position of power were firmly in place, and there was nothing to worry about.

Until his plans proved to be child's play to dismantle.

This is an epic temper tantrum.

But as the PCs start looking over other aspects of his brief tenure as leader, they are not liking what they are seeing. For what it's worth, I do not believe his fire actually has much to do with the #MeToo claims, but more with the other little problems the party is now exposing to the public.

With his minions ousted, the protection is gone.

What will get him in deeper trouble will be all those ridings where a candidate was strong-armed into position, and that's the reason he is going full-force after what he would deem the "weaker" targets, and is keeping his mouth shut on the bigger target.

His predatory strategy and campaign to get back at his detractors here is very intriguing to watch. It is the omissions that are worth noting, but he is outclassed by bigger players who are letting him burnout in public.

The Patriarchal imploded on Brown.

And it is scaring the other disciples of that structure.

Director Michael Haneke is whining about how it is all a "witch hunt" that will cause brainless women to "hate" men.

Women are not going to suddenly hate their fathers and sons. Women do not hate decent men who do not abuse people. Because predatory men in power have been historically sheltered from the wrath and frustrations of those they harmed on their climb to being Great Men, they do not understand the explosion of rage that took centuries to swell up and explode.

They have been exposed to the reality of their tyranny thanks to social media -- those sentiments were always there, but there was no outlet to register them. This movement did not come from thin air -- it came because women who were making their way in the world were sick and tired of the unnatural rigs that kept them back and all the garbage they had to endure -- the ignorant comments, the vile assumptions, and the cheats that favoured men, but did not favour the functionality of the whole.

Imagine if social media was around when white Americans owned black slaves: #MeToo would look mild compared the rage and anger of those who were seen as property to be abused at will.

Would Haneke be whining about a witch hunt then?

When your goal is to be the One, you lose sight of the Infinite. You become Machiavellian because being the only One is unnatural.

This resistance was inevitable, and now that the Great Men have to face the voices of people burned by their campaigns, they see that being the One doesn't make you the hero by default.

It can turn you into a villain.

And what was supposed to guarantee entrenching a Patriarchal narrative on the world is beginning to backfire.

And the Great White Men Thinkers are now having a meltdown at the notion that they may have outsmarted themselves.

Renegade Inc. has a piece how technology is killing democracy.

Silly, silly sophistry and scare-mongering.

No, it's not. Machiavelli had done all sorts of underhanded things way back before social media was a thing -- so it is not the technology, it is the bad behaviour of those in power that made them ripe for a backlash.

A One who can control the Infinite? That's what is truly meant by the term "democracy" -- you can do anything you want, so long at the One deems it okay to do it.

What we are witnessing is a genie out of a bottle.

The Patriarchal was always flawed, and hinged on people buying into its narrative structure.

But it made being the One the only thing to aim for -- and do you really think people are going to cheer a One that isn't them?

If they cannot be the One, then they are going to take down the One who has harmed them in that battle.

It is now a shift in perspective.

Patrick Brown said something very telling: he accused his second "accuser" of being "the aggressor".

This is absolutely telling of a Patriarchal narrative. There is no way he could have been interested in a young female, come on now. He was irresistible, because he is The One.

Had he not thrown that one out, he would have a better chance to be believed, but that comment says it all.

That he is going by the old insinuations of shaming the women by throwing any dirt he can find in their faces is also telling.

But it's the first remark that is the more telling of the two: it's the oldest trick in the book.

No, no, she threw herself at me!

Uh-huh.

Of course, you had to be The One. It's always all about you. It's the standard excuse for every philandering husband caught in the act.

When all else fails, you are falling back to the Little Boy Excuse, not the Great Man Solution.

And that is the reason we are, for the first time in history, seeing the Patriarchal structure crumble.

Too many little boys posing as Great Men, and when they prove they are neither, they fall back to the little boy defence.

And that is the reason social media is suddenly hated: because in all the muck, the truth and reality is still making their way through it all.

And it terrifies a lot of people whose house of cards is about to fall.

Is it demeaning for female broadcasters to be sleeveless?

Kim Campbell was a non-elected Prime Minister, and to date, the only woman in this country has had for the position. She has said something that has the typical knee-jerk reaction: that it is demeaning for female broadcasters to wear sleeveless shirts when on air.

It depends, and she is not entirely wrong.

If women are cajoled into wearing them on air by their superiors, then yes, it is very demeaning, as men on air wear long sleeves and do not dress to vogue to increase viewership (men on prime time programming, are often topless and ripped).

If it is the female anchor or reporter's decision to wear a professional outfit without sleeves, it is a different matter.

As Canada is not the UK, where there is always Debrett's to give sensible advice, we sort of wing it here, anyway.

But Campbell does have a point that goes beyond television news: women on magazine covers in general do have to be more naked than the men.

1391377259145_3-hollywood-cover-2014-640-new-logo.png

Notice all of the men are wearing pants, but the one who has the bigger cumulative box office draw on that cover -- Julia Roberts (who outdoes Clooney by hundreds of millions of dollars) -- doesn't.

Campbell's observation isn't reactionary. When you see a consistent pattern that women cannot get publicity unless she is in some state of undress, that points to inequality.

Even men who are considered sex symbols get to be dignified about it:

54cc5aef437f9_-_esq-01-george-clooney-oct-99-lg-80376050.jpg

And some women do have to fight tooth and nail for that equality, and win:

image-3.jpeg

It is an issue that women have to take into consideration.

beyonce-final.jpg

Versus Bono, who isn't just staring vapidly at the camera, he is making real change!

1101020304_400.jpg

So for those who are offended by Campbell's remarks, they ought to think about more than throwing their noses in the air, thinking women have made progress.

Because that Beyonce cover is from 2014.

The Candice Bergen cover is from 1992.

Should women wear sleeveless shirts when they deliver the news?

If they want to wear them, yes, of course. They are women, after all, and they are adults.

But they should also think why they are really wearing it, as well. Is it just because, or is it, deep down, you are worried the interns swarming around the newsroom will replace you and you have to keep up with your looks and your body?

And not the body of work you have done.

Cheap media stunts that backfire: We can draw attention to pay disparity, and hope no one notices it goes on in journalism.

Maclean's tried a cheap stunt with their covers: MAC02_EDIT_POST

The nerdy National Post, as usual, didn't actually get it. They tried, bless their heads, to compare people not buying the more expensive edition with getting paid to say there wan't pay disparity because people don't pay for more expensive things.

Yes, they do. They overpaid for their bread because there was price fixing. They overpaid for houses in Ontario. They overpaid for CEOs from Sears and Target who didn't manage to bring profits over here. They overpaid for lots of things, sometimes because they have no choice, and sometimes to gloat, and sometimes because there that whole thing about a fool and money.

(Oh, and obviously the author if the piece never heard of variant cover comic book covers where people paid a lot more just because the cover was different or rarer, even though the contents were the same.)

Women are underpaid, and paid less than men.

Especially in journalism (something I discuss in my upcoming book with one glaring example).

So much so that Vice Media finds itself staring at the business end of a lawsuit for its actions.

Journalism ought to know how badly it treats its female employees.

And the Maclean's covers are an appropriate symbol of a profession that always saw women as lesser than men.

It is 2018; so why does North America continue to ignore female media critics?

dbi

It was about 2007 when I was interviewed for a magazine profile, and the editor of the magazine had been surprised at my credentials back then and wondered why I wasn't promoted more by other outlets and institutions. I did receive an award from my alma mater McMaster University for my career achievements, but he noted it should have been much more than that, and he was right.

I would have if I was Alexander Kitty.

Fast forward to 2018, and I can tell you that the situation is no better for women.

How so?

What has been on everyone's mind since the 2016 US election?

Fake news.

You would think my 2005 book would suddenly be in demand, all things considered.

Not a chance.

I may be blunt, eccentric, and suffer no fools, but my work is sound and solid. I do my research, and I am thorough.

So why hasn't Don't Believe It! been at least mentioned by writers and journalists discussing fake news?

Because I am Writing While Female.

The book has been mentioned in other textbooks and academic papers. If you want to understand the history of fake news, that book will tell you everything you need to know.

The misogyny in the North American press is beyond control, despite #MeToo.

However, not every place is as disgracefully silent as North America.

This is an academic paper from the University of Łodź in Poland that is a discussion of fake news from 2018:

The creation of fake news is nothing new. Alexandra Kitty in her book Don’t Believe It! How Lies Become News (2005) discusses many such cases.

Why is there no mention in North America? Either it is ignorance...or sexism. There is no third option.

Even before then, in 2005, the Irish Times had this passage in an article of book recommendations from various individuals, and this is one:

Don't Believe It - How Lies Become News (Disinformation Co, £9.99) by Alexandra Kitty should be compulsory for anyone in the media business.

Yes, it should have been because that was the reason I wrote it: so that journalists and other news producers got a clue; so we wouldn't have fake news being indistinguishable from real news.

But as the book came from a woman, those in the business just ignored it because they are convinced they know everything, and any criticism -- real or perceived -- levelled at them requires stewing or a temper tantrum...and the requisite demonizing and blaming of the person who is telling them the reality and truth of a situation.

In 2005, I had two media books come out within exactly one month of each other (Don't Believe It! and OutFoxed). That is not a common feat, and these books, when they were reviewed or noticed, were well received; so I wasn't churning out dreck. Only one academic paper actually bothered to notice this accomplishment in their footnote:

The publication date for Alexandra Kitty’s Outfoxed was April 15, 2005, nine months after the documentary. One month earlier (March 15, 2005), she had published a book on the broader topic of news and its manipulation.

This is sexism at its absolute worst. Men can be stoned out of their heads, rude, boorish, weird, uninformed, arrogant, and clueless...but they will be seen as visionaries who can see into the future.

Women, on the other hand, are ghettoized. We may get a patronizing pat on the head every once in a while that is supposed to make us girls feel validated enough to just run along all happy and out of the way of the men, but we have to waste precious focus and resources on willfully distracting battles that men do not.

Even now, this article is about how the New York Times' CEO says print will be dead in ten years...while I say the entire industry of journalism is already dead and buried.

I outline it all in When Journalism was a Thing.

jhp59ccaa956d599-2-2

As well as on the site.

I am not the only woman to be ignored this way. It's not just an Alexandra Kitty Problem. It's a Woman Problem.

We don't allow for women to be taken as seriously as men.

And it is time that rancid cowardice is confronted once and for all.

Dear Buzzfeed: in 2005, I pointed out the fake news crisis in my first book. My 2018 book and this web site has said we are now in an information apocalypse. Why is Aviv Ovadya's belated word worth more than mine? Because he's a man and I am a woman?

Journalism is rife with rank misogyny. Unless a man says it is so, a woman's well-researched word means absolutely nothing. buzzfeed_arrow.e86a786d9e5e2250e1ed3e0ec95ba42d

Buzzfeed's sexism continues with this article:

He Predicted The 2016 Fake News Crisis. Now He's Worried About An Information Apocalypse.

Sorry, Buzzfeed, I predate Aviv Ovadya.

My proof:

Don't Believe It!: How lies becomes news.

dbi

and

When Journalism was a Thing.

jhp59ccaa956d599-2-2

But journalism has attracted men who cannot imagine a woman could actually predict anything. It is an inherent rig within their own structures.

And, by the way, my first book has been quoted in other books, academic journals, and been used as a textbook. It is not as if it is some obscure, extremist book. It is well researched, and warned the profession that they had to make serious changes, or else no one would be able to discern their work from propaganda, which is what fake news essentially is.

This web site has also repeatedly shown that the profession has collapsed. My book is coming out, but it goes into greater detail.

But when you are a woman pointing out troubles, you are dismissed as silly and hysterical.

I am neither silly nor hysterical. I am rightfully angry that I am being ignored and shut out.

But I also know that I am not the only woman who gets ignored this way.

Journalism collapsed because of the conniving games they play: and they should stop having the default assumption that only men can see the troubles in a profession and society.

The New York Times and the Smearing of Dylan Farrow.

The New York Times has been an organ of propaganda for the "Great Men". They do not understand women. They do not see them as visionaries, innovators, or rebels. They do see them as unstable liars who are suggestible.

Case in point: Woody Allen apologist Bret Stephens was given a platform by the Times to smear Dylan Farrow in a piece of odious dreck.

To be clear, there is absolutely not a shred of journalism in this piece of misogynistic hate speech. It is to preserve the opinion that Woody Allen is a Great Man, and everyone who ever said so at a cocktail party or newspaper/magazine article was never wrong because they are smarter/hipper/cooler/shrewder than you.

Memo to Mr. Stephens: you all were wrong. Your ilk are bloated and pretentious churls, and hoped that you would seem smart by proxy, by elevating disposable entertainment into something other than a quick life-sink.

And to do it in a public forum without so much as precursory investigation is wicked.

Dylan Farrow is a grown woman and she is more than capable of defending herself.

But to the brutes who get away with rape, molestation, and other forms of the hate crime of sexual terrorism, they know if someone as rich, powerful, and connected as Allen gets taken down, they don't have a prayer. They dispatch their little minions to misuse terms such as "witch hunt" in order to prevent them from being made accountable for their conniving games.

These little boys know they are not great men: they are mediocre and mundane little boys who use hype and puffery to tell the Little People that their trash is genius.

No, it's not. It's garbage. Worthless, uninspiring, primitive garbage.

The New York Times has aided and abetted these sheltered little boys for decades, and that they keep defending an immoral twerp tells you that they are not the Paper of Record: they are cheerleaders trying to protect people who have done nothing of value.

But if the Times was truly an honest and accurate paper of record, they would tell women that they live in a primitive country where child molesters who harm four-year-olds get reelected to positions of power with the full support of the mayor:

According to Spartansburg Borough Mayor Ann Louise Wagner, she, along with members of the fire department and community, are aware Gilbert is a sex offender... "I think we are making this into something that it isn't. I don't know why she (the victim's mother) won't drop this."

She doesn't know why the victim's mother won't drop the fact that the man who would stoop so low as to rape a child is allowed to have a position of authority.

Ms. Wagner, just how out of touch with reality -- and humanity -- are you?

I find it ironic that predators who hunt prey, get scared and then accuse the prey of witch-hunting them.

You set the terms of engagement; you normalized hunting. You rigged it because you thought you were the only ones who could do it, and when your prey all got together to make you accountable, you cry like the children you always have been, screaming no fair!

This is the very reason we need a form of journalism: we have people in power who do all sorts of immoral things to get to the top, and if they are exposed as the weaklings that they are, they lose their seat on the gravy train because they know they would not be capable of earning those perks.

If we had a real press, they would be exposed, and we'd have a far better and functioning society.

The trouble is the press has aided and abetted incapable trash, making them as untrustworthy as the predators they go out of the way to protect.

Memo to the Times: there comes a time when you allow too many predators to harm one too many victims, and people who become an in-group then get together to rightfully deduce that you are an enemy. When you have a few victims, their voices cannot be heard.

But then the predators think they are invincible and entitled because they really are too stupid to see the changing of the rigged board. In the United States in 2018, that's what happened. You no longer have power. You squandered it protecting and elevating one predator too many.

An apology to Dylan Farrow is in order, but that takes courage and morals.

And stop employing shrill little boys as columnists. They're incapable of genuine thoughts that just degrade your newspaper even more, if that's actually possible.

The minionization of the press: When you have no power, but want to play make-pretend, you curry favour with those who don't have it either. How the mainstream press made fools of themselves in 2016.

The New York Post has an interesting column about how certain ex-journalists (Sidney Blumenthal and Cody Shearer) " gave a State Department official additional unverified allegations against Trump." When members of the press become quasi-operatives for a presidential candidate, it calls into question every story they ever did.

But they weren't smart enough to hedge their bets right. They picked chronic-noob Clinton. Even the Post's Michael Goodwin buys her hype:

Thus, the Democratic nominee paid for and created allegations against her Republican opponent, gave them to law enforcement, then tipped friendly media to the investigation. And it is almost certain FBI agents supporting Clinton were among the anonymous sources.

In fact, the Clinton connections are so fundamental that there probably would not have been an FBI investigation without her involvement.

That makes hers a brazen work of political genius — and perhaps the dirtiest dirty trick ever played in presidential history. Following her manipulation of the party operation to thwart Bernie Sanders in the primary, Clinton is revealed as relentlessly ruthless in her quest to be president.

Goodwin vastly over-estimates her genius and cunning. She is of average intelligence, but above average in ego. Her methods are conniving, not cunning.

She lost an election, not because she was cunning, but because her mundaneness proved she was no match for Donald Trump. She engaged in puffery, to make herself seem smarter than she was, psyching out middle-management types who look for sure bets, and then follow the script so they could make their neighbours jealous, without having to work, think, or show just how weak and mundane they are, too.

My grandmother used to call Communist party members laktaš: people who got positions of power, not because they were smart, but because they were brutes who used their elbows (lakat) to push through and sucker punch people to push ahead. In other words, people without a moral compass who were basically a one-trick pony.

When Clinton was surrounded by other mediocre types, she thought she had an army, but that army runs for the hills at the first sign of actual battle. Sure, they give you a paper crown and wear the uniform they strut in proudly as they let you make up the rules, but only if there no way there is an actual battle to be done.

Meaning that it's not an army you want if you have to fight a war, and an election is a form of war. Trump, on the other hand, has an entire family of loyal and capable soldiers who understand diplomacy and strategy.

And he knows how people who push and elbow their way to the head of the line behave -- and was ready for it by strategically and stealthily taking just enough electoral votes to defeat her.

If she was this political genius -- she would have shored up her resources, but she is an egomaniac at heart: she went after redundant votes, instead of strategic ones. That she could take advantage of a passive and broken in flock of Democrats who were too busy following scripts to see the landscape ahead of them tells you how poor of a strategist she was.

At least Bernie Sanders was smart enough to bring in fresh recruits with courting Millennials. Clinton never bothered to bring in any fresh new blood -- she stuck with whoever was already in the ranks. Like I said, a noob past the best before date.

She stuck with what worked before -- a red flag that a potential leader doesn't have what it takes -- you have no true sense of strategy, but you follow someone else's playbook, hoping that will be enough, and that no one notices just how in over your head you really are. She hoped her mere sex alone would be what "differentness" she brought to the table -- but not her platform or strategies.

That an amateur politician bested her should be no surprise. When you follow a script, you cannot focus on the reality unfolding because you hinge your victory on someone else's instincts. You don't see how to take advantage of a weakness or opportunity. You have no lateral thinking abilities. You coast on someone else's thoughts.

That means the only people who can attract are minions. You won't have strategists because you will be too threatened by them -- perhaps they will see who you really are, and then want to topple you and take over. You don't want people to think for themselves, or your house of cards collapses.

Which brings us to every reporter who hitched a ride on the Clinton Titanic.

It tells you these are kinds of people who fly under the radar and think they are cunning enough to play it safe by following someone who looks like a "sure thing." These are not original thinkers, strategists, or survivors. They parrot what other people are saying because they do not have the vigilance or creativity to think of anything based on their own thoughts and observations.

They are the people who find the person who elbows her way and hold on to her because they see she is freeing a path, and they do not want to have to do any of the heavy labour.

But the people who are truly cunning create their own path by digging and paving it for themselves. They see opportunity because they know a new path is unexplored and has more resources than the one everyone else is taking from. These are active thinkers who make their own way, not relying on anyone's elbows to do it for them.

Everyone works. Everyone contributes. No on rides on the backs of anyone else or thinks they are owed a paper crown.

That's the reason why Western journalism collapsed: you have followers going down a path that no longer has any resources left because everyone was a scavenger, taking without growing or investing more resources. They picked it bare.

It's why we no longer have journalism. We no longer have investigative stories or new revelations or styles of reportage. It is all whispers and gossip as reporters openly support people destined to lose because they are always puffing and hyping themselves into oblivion.

The press made fools of themselves in 2016 because they coasted on a losing team and the stench of defeat covered them, too. Playing it safe was the worst thing they could have possibly done because they showed the world their every weakness.

And it should surprise no one why journalism is no longer a thing: it marched right into a black hole, mistaking it for the path to paradise.

 

Medill's j-school prof has been #MeToo'ed.

It is not surprising. The professor in question taught investigative journalism. Medill Large

You have multiple complaints, but in a university setting, the word of a professor often overrides the word of a dozen students. Students are less experienced and have more faith in a system than they should. They believe in a system, and think their word will carry weight. Rarely it does.

The problem is predators have practice and they either ambush or prime their prey. The system is rigged to favour the cunning, not those who speak the truth. We need better ways of rooting out rot, and ensuring that those in power do not abuse it -- and that underlings have clear guidelines of what is expected of them, and why they shouldn't get their lines blurred.

The US has had an awakening of sorts, but I do not expect self-entitled abusers to just own up to their sins and retreat -- they are often so used to getting their own way that they see this as war and a challenge to prove their cunning, brute force, and superiority. They can never admit they were wrong, and with their enablers, they are shielded from truth and reality as the system rewards and mollycoddles them.

What happens here remains to be seen, but for journalism students, this would be the perfect starting point to learn what it means to investigate and to dig at an event that hits this close to your own future.

Why fragile men like Bill Maher are lost in an era of #MeToo: Police state? Really? Stop being a snowflake and learn the difference between sex and exploitation. It really isn't that hard.

#MeToo has exposed a lot of men as cowards. The ones who are brave and do not use sex as a weapon have nothing to worry about. They respect boundaries. They let their feelings be known to someone they are attracted to in such a way that they do not come off as a terrorist, stalker, or psycho loon. They are sensible.

Bill Maher is whining that #MeToo has turned sex into a police state.

Oh, boo hoo hoo.

Here is the deal: Forcing yourself on an unwilling partner is not sex. Threatening an underling by denying work or promotions -- or threatening to blacklist her from the industry isn't foreplay.

You are not special. You are not entitled. Only cowards who think they have to terrorize women to keep a relationship going have made enough trouble.

Women are not trophies or possessions. They are people, and just like man-people, women-people do not care to be abused or disrespected.

We are not objects. We are more than a pair of breasts, and we have minds that think.

And, in case you may have missed the memo, we are no longer Neanderthals. Men do not have to hunt, anymore. Women are not prey, anyway.

Men have been sheltered for many years. Women have held their tongues because they were terrified of being beaten and/or killed if they stood up to someone who can snuff their lights out in a heartbeat.

It took centuries of clawing our way to having something other than a mere existence. Women were not allowed to vote. We were deemed property of men. Heaven help the woman whose fathers weren't prominent and provided them with a modicum of protection.

That is no way to live. We could have done more productive things for the whole of civilization instead of always having to cower and be obedient little diplomats to people who threw angry tantrums if the floorboards weren't scrubbed to their exacting specifications.

We had a lot of misdirections to steal away our focus and beat the ambition out of us.

We did that all with a smile.

It had an unexpected consequence: it weakened and infantilized a lot of men who needed all that propping up to feel manly and validated. It made them believe they were smarter, greater, sexier, and more cunning than they really were.

They were like the cranky infant everyone had to tip-toe around as to not set off another screaming fit.

So we gave men lots of candy, using phrases like "great man", "icon", and "visionary" to keep you amused, hoping if you got just enough positive attention, you'd start feeling an emotional connection to the rest of humanity.

But the childish men wanted more. They wanted everything their own way, being competitive, and wanting more, more, more. More money, more fame, more attention, more mistresses, more rights to exploit with impunity.

Then one day, those accommodating women, who have been tap-dancing since the day they were born just wanted one little thing.

A female president.

It didn't go so well.

And the boys -- the Peter Pans who never grew up -- started getting nasty and entitled.

That was a very bad move.

Sooner or later, boys have to grow up. They have to face the reality that those paper crowns are made up constructions like a teddy bear you wave in a toddler's face when he screeches like a baboon at the nice restaurant.

And for all that dirt kicked in those women's faces, it was one temper tantrum too many.

And the biggest spoiled brat of them all got outed in the New Yorker.

That was the day millions of mommies got fed up with their little boys.

And decided it was high time for them to face reality and learn the truth of what it means to be a man.

Little boys whine about life not being fair. Little boys want all of the toys to himself. Little boys taunt others on the playground. Little boys are always looking to get something for nothing and play games where they always win, even if they have to cheat, lie, steal, and bully to win.

So what you are experiencing, Mr. Maher, is something called growing pains.

American society has grown up. It has realized stomping over people just to prevent a few from screaming in their soiled diapers isn't worth it.

Now that women have matured and started coming into their own, it is time men like you did the same.

Men have nothing to worry about in the era of #MeToo. They never had a problem before; it will be the same now.

But for those who always want to be the strongest, smartest, richest, and most cunning in the room no matter who they hurt and how badly they destroy them, they have a few realities to face.

And it is time that they finally face it.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a tricky spot.

So what do you do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

Why is doing your job so difficult for you?

Jimmy Savile, Canadian Establishment Journalism, and the Lapdog Mentality: We do not have journalists. We have servants. Why the British scandal and the US-led #MeToo have lessons for Canada.

I

It is a illusion that Canada has journalism.

It doesn't.

But before we get into the how and the why, let's talk about Jimmy Savile.

He was an icon.

He was the host of multiple BBC shows in the UK. There were accolades, awards, honours, a knighthood, and he was renowned for his charity work.

Yet there were always whispers.

But what are the words of abused no-name children and teenagers with imperfect reputations worth?

Then Savile keeled over, and the ugly truth came out.

He took advantage of his good name, and the dodgy or unestablished reputations of his victims.

He was elevated. His victims' claims were haughtily dismissed.

Then things turned around, and Britain was rocked with a far more accurate picture of reality: a talentless boors was elevated to celebrity when he should have been thrown into a jail and kept away from vulnerable children.

Had the been in the US within the last six months, Savile would have been outed, and his victims believed. There is no doubt. American women have reached a new level in their civil evolution: mothers had to endure abuse, paving the way for their daughters to move higher without the torment, but when their girls went through the same abuses, and were being kept back, that simmering rage exploded when the female presidential candidate -- the one who endured all those humiliations in the name of progressed -- got easily pummelled by a man caught on tape boasting all sorts of unsavoury things.

Women kept quiet thinking that sacrifice and silence was a strategy to improving a future for their daughters.

It wasn't.

II

But it explains why American women have moved decades ahead, while Canada has fallen drastically behind: there has been no watershed trauma to serve a wake-up call. We still have a smug press who see nothing infuriating about a so-called "feminist" prime minister who is white, male, comes from privilege, has a wife who has no heft or impressive independent career, and had a father who was prime minister. They behave as if everything is just fine for women here.

Then #MeToo blew over in Canada, and the entire Canadian news industry threw a temper tantrum as if messed with their narrative of how refined and sophisticated they were.

It also hinted that the Canadian media were the keepers of very dark secrets, but were deliberately refusing to inform the public about them.

That is not the worst of it, however.

The press here will defend anyone in power accused of harassment. They will never question any investigation that exonerates the accused -- but should the predator be found guilty, they will do everything that they can to imply he got framed.

It is lapdog journalism: be incompetent at your job, but if you kiss up to the right people and cheer them on in the press, then perhaps no one will notice that you are an incapable reporter.

But victim-blaming is a popular pastime, and not just by reporters.

I remember this murder case very well. Estranged wife and daughter of a judge is stabbed to death by her husband who is then killed by police, leaving behind three orphaned boys.

This case stuck with me because I was friends with a woman whose own two grown sons were friends with the murderer. I liked this woman a lot. She was a dear family friend, and came to our house weekly as we also did lunches and had fun.

But there was something that struck me: she defended that killer because he was friends were her own sons.

To her, it was the dead wife's fault. The woman was a nurse who sacrificed her career for his career in sales. When his career sent in over to the US away from her family, she went with him. When she was fighting breast-cancer, we was having an affair.

She had enough when they came back to Canada, and she filed for divorce.

He became increasingly erratic and hostile; she wished to distance her and their children away from him.

And then he went to her house and stabbed her to death.

It is as open and shut as it gets: you don't murder someone just because you are not getting your own way. You fool around when she has cancer, then yeah, she is going to be angry...but she didn't kill you.

Divorce isn't fun, but it involves having to negotiate. Nobody wants to lose, but you have children in the equation, and you are going to have to swallow an awfully lot to put their needs ahead of yours.

Lots of people get divorced, and they do it without bloodshed.

When news of the murder became public, the friend in question had no sympathy for the victim.

Just the killer because he was friends with her sons.

And that meant he could do no wrong. She drove him to kill her, according to her because she was pushing for less visitation from him.

The fact that he may have been threatening her and behaving badly was no reason for her to get scared.

The fact that she had cancer and he was cavorting and took pictures of his philandering also wasn't his fault.

He was seen as being sensitive because he took the three kids to his parents.

He had to be on the side of right, she said, because he was charming, and always was the centre of attention when he entered a crowd room.

It just wasn't his fault and why did his wife want to restrict his visitations, she'd ask me.

I suggested the fact that he took a knife and repeatedly gutted her proved that her fear of him was warranted, and that people usually don't just kill someone -- it is usually an escalation from physical abuse to murder.

That couldn't be because he was friends with her sons, and he was too charming for it to be his fault. She even took umbrage that one newspaper article that discussed her murder from her family's perspective used their term of endearment for her.

"That wasn't her name," she said as if there was something wrong with a family identifying their murdered daughter the way they did for her entire short life.

When it came to that killer, she wore blinders. The act of stabbing is more violent and personal than shooting.

She was upset that my sympathies were strictly with the victim, and that I suspected the killer was a high-functioning psychopath. Whenever she'd give a reason why he was such a nice guy, the episode would just confirm my suspicions. Somehow, for a nice guy, he'd always get things his own way, be the centre of attention, and no one else in the yarn would ever seem to matter.

I have heard many stories of nice people -- personally -- and professionally as a journalist, in most of those cases the "nice" person in question did something for other people. They saved rescue animals scheduled to be put down. They took in a neighbour's kid who was thrown out of the house, and then went to lengths to be a legal guardian, even paying for university. They volunteered at homeless shelters. They looked after a dying relative. They gave away their clothes and books to someone else whose need was greater than their own. They even drove their grandparent's dotty friends without fuss.

There was never anything remotely close to these forms of nice. I'd always ask why his brand of nice never involved doing anything nice for other people, but apparently, just allowing others to be graced by his charming presence was supposed to be enough.

I'd never bring up the case, but it somehow always managed to come up. She thought I was blinded by the fact that he killed a woman and made three children orphans to see his obvious good-nature.

Oddly, she wasn't in the habit of defending other killers -- those people were selfish and cruel, but this one, it was somehow all a huge misunderstanding.

But I am certain if he had done the same to one of her children, that spell would have been broken.

The Canadian media is under the same kind of spell: they can accept that there are bad Americans who hold power, but not bad Canadians. Especially as those men seems so nice and charming -- and men such as Harvey Weinstein look boorish and gross.

III

Britain has had their Savile trauma where the harmless and cranky kook was anything but harmless. He got a free ride, despite the lack of charm and fashion sense, and he took full advantage of a credulous press, many who may or may not have had their own dark secrets, and saw nothing wrong with any of it.

But Savile's thirst for harming others was seemed insatiable: the number of victims and where he'd find them was jaw-dropping. Leave a predator free to roam without supervision, and he will take down as many prey as he feels entitled to taking.

A few years later, the United States saw what complicity did: it didn't bring equality. The rigs were still firmly in place. Giving praise to the Great Men did not make them kinder, more civilized, or reasonable: it made things worse. Applauding their mediocre efforts and feints didn't tame the beasts around those beauties -- it emboldened them.

Women wanted a female president -- it didn't matter which one, and they had hoped that merely making their wishes known would be enough for enough people to grant the wish. No way was someone like Donald Trump supposed to beat the female candidate with the right pedigree and paper-based experience. Mediocre men got to rise to the top...

And the woman lost to the man who represented everything they had to endure in their own climb to success.

Two nations with a chastened public saw much of that smugness vanish: the surefire little tricks and rules were not going to bring peace, let alone victory to anyone save those who preyed on the vulnerable -- or the ones just wanted a nice job and make a success of their lives.

Both countries had their watershed moment, but Canada lives in a bubble: it takes no lessons from either the UK nor the US, particularly the press here, who seem indignant that their own could be accused of being predators. They seem themselves as nice guys, even if they don't actually do nice thing for others.

They don't use their medium to scrutinize people in power; they do not even consider the possibility that their masters are tyrants.

They curry favour with them; not expose them. As broken as the US media is, you still have journalists asking earnestly why the staff of Newsweek was let go for exposing their owner's corporate mangling.

It is a different mindset over here with no watershed trauma. It is easy to believe there isn't one; but when no one looks, it's easy not to find it. There is sycophantic complacency, and an assumption that mom and dad have the pull to make things better should any truth come out.

But the media here has collapsed, and their clout is nonexistent: once upon a time, being blacklisted could stymie a reporter's career.

These days, there are other avenues to take where there is no damage to one's professional trajectory.

It's a global village these days. The little enclaves that once served as barriers or no longer present.

But in its weakened state, a single shock can literally shut-down the rest of the press here in Canada. A single scandal alone, and it doesn't have to be a big one.

Just one where the press was in the know, and kept to themselves.

No government bailing out will stop an angry mood.

It is the reason an alternative to journalism that goes beyond borders is crucial: one nation can be complacent to its detriment; but if the tides and change are felt around the world, there is no time or place for that kind of slumber.

Dear National Post: Please do not write another word about #MeToo. You have no clue about truth or reality. Just tell the people of Toronto what movies, shows, causes, and restaurants to support that won't make them too nerdy. With cartoony diagrams. And drop the "Investigation" schtick. That's nerdy.

National Post should get out of the news business entirely. 20180207_203005-1858645323.jpg

Yes, I covered them as a journalist from the day they were born.

They could be a publication focussed on telling people in Toronto how not to look like total nerds in four main categories: where to dine, what movies to watch, what causes to say you support, and what to watch on Netflix.

That they could handle.

They could be, like, the Canadian Details magazine for the bored househusbands. They cater to sheltered men, anyway.

They totally get shallow men who panic and hyperventilate when they discover they don't know a nugget band like The Hives, and a woman at the cocktail party raves about them. (Sadly, this is a true story).

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysGtBZX32I0?rel=0]

Hard news stories, on the other hand, the National Post can never do, let alone give actual sensible commentary.

They do not get #MeToo. This phenomenon is hard for them to understand because it comes with the built-in perspective that some in men power are bad.

And to the Post, there is no such thing as a bad man in power, unless he is Donald Trump, and as Trump's hair is just not cool, that is the reason he is the lone exception to their rule.

But even sometimes, their founder Conrad Black will defend Trump in a column...so even then, a man in power can never be seen as universally bad.

But women with or without power are always bad in the eyes of the Post. If a woman says she was raped by a man in power, by golly, she must be lying! How dare she say a man in power did something bad?

This is the childish ideology that drives the Post. In all the years they've been a wobbly, money-losing thing, there has been one column that actually had a positive view of women (and yes, I mentioned it here when it came out way back in February 2017).

This latest column is shoddy logic at its worst: it is all talk and lecture, but one that comes from an ivory tower of sorts.

The discussion os over Steve Paikin's recent troubles, and the manipulations of this article are quite breath-taking. Paikin cannot be wrong because he is the columnist's friend...and, psst!, didn't you hear that the woman making accusations is a little bit crazy?

It is this patronizing drivel that created the atmosphere for #MeToo.

Well, people won't change their minds, so don't bother with those Great Unwashed is this article's central thesis. People who support #MeToo are hypocrites.

This is not someone used to digging and doing genuine research, and it shows. It is a vexed accusation that the angry people are being an annoying inconvenience, and there is no talking to them.

Canada has always been a place behind the times.

For all the claims that #MeToo is a "witch hunt", I find it very telling that those who are critics do not actually do the research to show these accusations to be false.

When your argument is "he is such a nice guy" and "she is a nutty slut", your credibility flies right out the window.

I have said from the beginning that real journalism is about facts. It is about research.

That means rooting through garbage. That means going into dark alleys in the middle of the night to talk to a skittish source. That means talking to nannies and maids to find out just how nice someone is...and driving hours to a small town library to go through microfilm to find a single newspaper article that proves a source is lying -- or digging through archives to find a single court transcript that somehow never made it to a database. It means scouring yearbooks to establish a timeline to confirm how honest someone has been with you -- and then discovering they haven't. It means muddling in a foreign language conducting an interview with someone who can confirm a small, but critical fact of a story. It means sitting and listening to disturbing stories that cannot possibly be true, and then you go digging and digging until you find out that the story is absolutely true.

I have been there. I have done all of those things. Every single one.

That's what you are supposed to do when you claim to be a journalist. You respect truth. You respect reality.

You understand that the person sitting in a jail cell may be innocent. You understand that the person with a mental disorder may be telling the truth. You understand the guilty people have been cleared, and innocent people have been convicted.

You do not guesstimate based on looks. You do not appeal to authority. You go back and back and back, and you dig, dig, dig.

This is not the way of the National Post.

They sit there with their noses in the air and think they know everything by mere look alone.

The National Post is an absolute disgrace and shame on the dead industry of journalism. I saw it from day one, and it has only gotten worse over time.

They ought to stick to writing for the shallow and competitive househusbands of Toronto; the ones whose mommy and daddy come from prominent positions and spoiled their progeny senseless, and created fake positions and jobs for them as they are too inept to do it themselves -- and even then, their wives have to financially support them.

Tell them what they should serve at their cocktail parties. Tell them how to respond if someone asked them if they liked a new movie. Tell them how not to come off as too nerdy.

But leave the real news to people who get the rough and tumble ways of liberating truth form lies. You offensive posers are just getting in the way.

Memo to The Cut: Pop Culture's Great "Awokening"? Nice try. What we are now having is a Cultural Implosion. How Patriarchal Structures keep fooling the suckers.

Identity politics is a form of tribalism. As someone whose background is of mixed heritage, with a huge chunk from the former Yugoslavia, this little label is nothing new to me. I have seen this game all before. When the warring factions were thrown together and labelled Yugoslavia, factions were frowned upon. It was supposed to be some sort of melting pot, and there were over a million mixed marriages, but as decades wore on, things began to fray, especially after the death of Tito.

And then all those factions started pulling in different directions, all before they killed each other in the name of nationalism.

Or identity politics.

Identity politics is nothing to be proud of for one reason: it is a fragmentation that is a precursor to the delusion that you are more powerful and significant than you really are. Chauvinism sets in along with the hubris.

And eventually, people think their identity is superior to everyone else's and there is bloodshed.

Because people always have to one-up each other: you have to prove your cultural or political identity is better than everyone else's.

I remember being twelve years-old and my family went to both Dubrovnik (Croatia) and Beograd (Serbia) for vacation. Even then, I could see what was coming. Tito had been dead for six years, but even within my own family, you could see factions forming.

Three years later, I was a high school student in my history class, and my assignment was to give a presentation on the political landscape of a nation of my choosing.

I chose Yugoslavia, and just on my own youthful observations, my thesis was this country was going to implode and break up.

My history teacher did not believe me. "Where will they go?" he asked me.

I refrained from saying, "Right down the garden path and straight to hell."

He was wrong. I was right.

By the time I was an undergraduate, the country broke up and all those fractures destroyed millions of people who tore down everything that took thousands of years to build up.

There is a difference between an awakening (awokening because a writer thinks that is clever. It's not.) and an implosion.

And New York magazine's The Cut has no clue what is happening.

cut-feed

They think pop culture is having an awokening.

It's actually an implosion.

For it to be an awakening, there would not be (a) that much anger, (b) there would not be the level of possessiveness toward sanctioned insanity that is being labelled culture, (c) there would not be such chronic nitpicking of other people's culture with everyone being offended, (d) there would be respect for those who created in the past without the current set pretending they were the first to notice voids in representation, and most importantly, (e) there would be a variation in the structure of stories.

Structural variation?

Oh yes.

Because for all the talk of diversity, there is only half diversity.

With a high dose of structural appropriation from the mainstream culture, which nullifies almost everything produced in the last ten years.

For all of the awakening, the patriarchal structure is still there.

It is still Us versus Them.

So bad is it, that the discussion of culture is also nothing but Us Versus Them.

We are the only heroes. Anyone who opposes us is a villain.

That's not culture; that's propaganda.

And when narratives are nothing but Us Versus Them where anyone who is not in the in-group becomes inspired is labelled a villain, you know this isn't culture being produced.

But fortresses because people are beginning to gird themselves for war.

It has happened before in the last century: Art Nouveau was the brash new movement until Modernism vilified it and accused those who liked the style as being lesser intellects who were lower on the evolutionary scale.

And then World War One broke out in the very continent where all of these artistic and cultural debates were taking place.

Art Nouveau was a reaction to the mainstream culture, complete with manifestoes.

They had a short lifespan before Modernism reacted to the initial reaction.

It all eventually imploded.

So in 2018, we have primal reactions to an oppressive mainstream patriarchal influence, but with people only noticing the contents of pop culture.

But not the structure.

The framework of the vessel has the bigger flaw, but everyone is still walking lockstep to it, thinking it's the way of gaining traction, when the fit is unnatural.

You cannot just produce content. People become more bored with the structure. It is the silent partner of stories, but if you don't change the structure, you are falling for the same rigs that kept you back before.

That's why pop culture is in a deep slumber.

Because culture has stagnated.

It was the same in the former Yugoslavia: the structure of the nation stagnated, all while trying to alter the content.

And it all went up in smoke.

It's happening again.

Because pop culture is a disposable culture. It was never meant to create real legacies.

It was meant to feed young fantasies by changing content to fit with the times with young and fresh faces -- when the next generation hit, alter the cast and the content.

But that structure never deviated.

It still hasn't deviated.

And that we have writers who do not see that obvious, tells you just how bad our cultural awareness is in these shallow times where people become enraged, but don't realize it is the structure they are violently reacting to as much as the content.

It's an ugly road ahead because the same rigs are in place, and when the storm comes, very few will see what hit them and why.

Memo to the Calgary Herald: Your historically illiterate columnists should pick up a history book and attempt something called "research." There is no comparison between #MeToo and the Salem Witch Trials which was a sanctioned genocide of women.

The Calgary Herald should learn a thing or two about reality and researching it. calgaryherald

Just as I think we have hit the upper level of stupid when it comes to discussing #MeToo, a Canadian columnist decides to wade in -- always defending the helpless little wealthy men from the underlings they have abused.

Naomi Lakritz's ignorant offering is just the latest example on just how ill-informed the Canadian media are about the dynamics of #MeToo.

Likening #MeToo to the Salem witch hunts?

Not only is it unoriginal, but it is insulting to women.

No #MeToo man has been arrested. The women of Salem were tortured, confined, and then murdered.

Drowned or burned, take your pick.

It was a sanctioned genocide against women.

Women who were never accused to misusing positions of power (which they never had, knuckleheads), or physically or sexually terrorizing people.

The accusations were so over-the-top that they were physically impossible.

So, you are saying #MeToo men accused of rape and abuse are the same as women who were accused of levitation and casting spells.

Rubbish.

It is akin to accusing women who file a rape charge of being fascists.

That's what you are saying.

Shame on you.

Why is it whenever a group of victims speak out, people automatically take the side of the aggressors?

Why do we always assume that the accusers are villains and are dishonest?

That is the definition of evil.

Not only are the anti-#MeToo brigade hypocrites for doing the same thing they accuse women who speak out of doing (assuming the people they do not like are lying), but they do not even look empirically at each case.

They just assume men are little boys who never do anything wrong and all these evil women are out to get them.

That's not just sick; that is the very reason we need a #MeToo movement in the first place.

To slap enablers and apologists right back to reality: no, there is no safe little script or default assumption you can use that will protect you from all the ugly truths.

You have to think.

And that column has put not one fraction of a brain cell to use.

Stop lying by making false comparisons. These rich predators are still rich, free, and breathing.

The same could not be said of the women convicted of being something that does not actually exist.

And those women didn't have lawyers, publicists, and crisis management teams to shield them.

Nor did they have air-headed columnists come to their defence.

They had no one and died in agony.

So shut up, grab a history book, and start learning about the tortured history of women.

Because enough is enough. Shame on you.

I have been saying it all along -- the Great Men of Hollywood were rubbish. And I have offered an alternative for years. Why does traditional journalism hijack and pretend their writers are the first to notice feminist issues?

The New Statesman has an interesting article about how one writer can "finally" say she finds the gynophobic works of Woody Allen et al to be "rubbish." newstatesman_logo@2x

Maybe you held back your tongue, but Alexandra Kitty never did.

I did like Kill Bill, but on the long list of Hollywood movies, I am not a fan. Too patriarchal and sexist for my liking.

But I didn't just outline a problem: I offered alternative fiction stories -- feminist adventures told in a matriarchal style.

Content enlightened.

Structure enlightened.

I did this in 2013.

You can look through Kindle and Kobo for over 80 publications.

The World's Most Dangerous Woman, The Doyenne Assassin, A Goddess Among Us, The Hughes Girls, Alena Love and the Mothers of the Mosaic, Chaser, The Holly Lake Mysteries, Dr. Verity Lake's Journey of a Thousand Revelations, The Sparrow: Dream Detective, The Goditor, I Am Jane Doe, Chaser, Danni's Wall, and so on.

Short stories, novellas, and books that have different meanings and effects depending on what stories you choose to read and in what order you choose to read them.

There are levels of stories: Silliosity have no villains. Fables and Bedtime Stories are of heroes with villains -- but many antagonists aren't bad, and it is not always Us versus Them. Case Files and Other Mysteries are stories told in a traditional good versus evil style, while Dread Tales are anti-heroes and even villains versus villains.

These stories are all interconnected, but can be standalone as well.

Dr. Verity Lake's Journey of a Thousand Revelations clocks at almost 1600 pages -- I call it the feminist War and Peace and it is unlike any novel you've ever read, but as hard as I pushed (and it was an extremely trying time in my life, make no mistake), I could get people to read the entire book with fantastic feedback, but no press coverage whatsoever.

In other words, I didn't just gripe about misogyny in stories and cinema -- I spent nearly a decade working on a solution before launching A Dangerous Woman Story Studio in 2013.

You think I got any press or publicity? From traditional media? Alternative media? Feminist media?

Nope.

Nada.

It was as if I did not exist.

I am not some flake who was writing creepy and bad stories: I have worked as a journalist, and had three books published by traditional media.

My first fiction book Consumer-isms in 12 easy Steps,  is on the shelves libraries and even Ivy League universities...but when it came to media attention, there was nothing.

Why?

Because the pseudo-feminist narrative in the press is simple: OMG! Look! Movies/books/music/television can be sexist! I noticed it first!

And it has been that loop for as long as I can remember.

It is always Square One. Anyone who says, "Hey! Hi! I have a solution..." is promptly ignored.

Not just me.

The media narrative for men has always been Look at the maverick visionary! The indie genius will become the Next Great Man...yada yada.

The New Statesman article is no breakthrough -- it is part of the same rotten loop many hopeful feminists see as a sign of change.

Don't kid yourself.

People like me, who do not fit the established narrative are ignored -- and so, it is very easy to keep pretending we are on the cusp of change.

Change has been happening.

But journalists keep shutting it out, distorting the view of reality while keeping the status quo in place.

And it's time it is stopped so we can move forward beyond Square One.

 

TVO's Steve Paikin has been #MeToo'ed.

The story is here. 1200px-TVO_logo.svg

 

Thos one is an interesting case: Sarah Thomson ran for mayor of Toronto, and made claims of the late mayor Rob Ford groping her; so to the detractors of #MeToo, they are hoping this just some sort of thing she engages in...

But she says there was a witness to the Paikin incident, but no more details are provided.

In 2014, he wrote some remarks about the lack of female experts suitable for television, causing much social media grumbling.

Where it all goes in Canada, we will see...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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