New web site!

I will keep this one online but not updated, but have migrated everything elsewhere.

All the old posts are already there plus one, but as I said, I am relaunching.

This was my first domain way back in 2007, but I let it lapse, but as it was available again, it comes full circle.

alexandrakitty.com

I am still tweaking the layout, but everything should be polished and live in a couple of weeks…

Journalism’s delusions continue.

CNBC is trying to pretend journalism didn’t collapse.

Outlets are closing. Jobs are being lost and more so by the day.

And they are still in denial.

As usual.

It is the gambit of trying to drum up support with a shrinking audience base is nothing new.

They are trying to stick it to Trump, as if he cared. If CNBC thinks stroking his ego by telling the world that he is the only fascinating person on the planet, gee, you tell him, guys.

The profession is still dead. It has been replaced by vindictive propaganda that is unimaginative.

Kids, you are not fooling anybody. Your arrogance won’t save you.

***

On a personal note,  I will be offline for a couple of weeks as I am making major changes to this website.

In structure and in content.

For the last few weeks, I have been having a peculiar technical issue with this site — possibly malware or I have been hacked — and as no one as been able to pinpoint the problem in that entire time I have been trying to resolve the issue, I will have to find an alternative.

The short answer is that words I write somehow change after my blog post gets published — but when I go back to correct it — the original writing flashes on the screen for a second before the word I didn’t originally write comes back. This happens even when I cut and paste a passage in order to quote it.

I will chronicle that headache later.

So that’s the structural side.

As for the content side, I am also dealing with some other personal matters, and I will be in a better position to know the direction I will go soon enough.

I have wanted to make a major shift here since January since pointing out the rot of the fallen arrogant isn’t what I want to focus on because they are not worth my attention, or anyone else’s.

My upcoming book will outline all that — but it also discusses the future, and it is the solution that is more important than the problem caused by petty and myopic sheltered relics.

I keep saying journalism needs the alternative, and that’s precisely what I will start when I come back. I have worked on this system for over twenty years, and I have been good to go for a while now. It is a blend of Chaser News and A Dangerous Woman — with other things in the mix.

But how I can move forward with that all depends on how things unfold on my end.

Until then…

 

Toronto Bloodbath: 10 Dead, 15 Injured. No accident. No guns. But plenty of violence and terror.

The weapon was a rented van.

screen-shot-2018-04-23-at-5-22-46-pm.png

It is a global problem.

It is called violence and terrorism.

Strict gun control in this country, but if you can’t get a hold of a gun, rent a van, and it is not the first time this has happened in Canada.

Will there be a serious discussion about lapses and homicidal rage in the press?

Or will journalists start sunny spinning this rot so the middle class do not have to be all scared.

It remains to be seen, but so far, the press is bending over backwards blaming “mental illness” for this carnage, which is ridiculous speculation given they have no facts whatsoever. At this point, go find out whether that notion is true. He may not have had any group affiliation, but neither did Los Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock, but there was no excuse-making, nor should there have ever been.

So the fact-free journalism is in full swing…

 

Chicago Sun-Times leaves front page blank: no one notices the difference.

A cheap stunt to remind us that journalism hasn’t been informing people for years.

DbcU2KUXUAAKSOS

They are begging for subscribers by providing nothing:

Imagine Chicago without the Sun-Times: An urgent appeal

You want subscribers? Jam-pack your paper with facts. Leaving things blank when people already saw the blankness of your product years ago and abandoned your product is a stupid move.

You cannot beg for money. No one trusts a desperate person who wants things, but doesn’t make fundamental changes themselves.

They make a very weak case of it:

What’s at stake

Imagine our city without our headlines.

Without our journalists to tell your side of the story.

Without our beat writers to cover sports.

Without our watchdog reporters to keep an eye on government.

Without our columnists and editorial board to be a second voice.

Imagine it. Then help us make sure it doesn’t happen.

They don’t read your newspaper: their reality is just fine without your headlines.

And seriously? People don’t need journalists to tell their side of the story. They have social media to do it themselves. Disintermediation is liberating.

And I love how sports comes ahead of government. Oh, those screwy priorities.

And columnists! As if we had a severe opinion shortage and needed those endangered species to survive.

Just how deluded are you, Sun-Times?

Google and Facebook dominate digital advertising, together collecting 73 percent of all digital ad revenue, according to a 2017 analysis by the research firm, Pivotal.  All other companies compete for rest of the digital advertising pie. As print advertising has declined year-after-year, this has a created an impossible business model for labor-intensive, quality local journalism.

So what? They built a netter model; and you stagnated. Now suffer the consequences of your inertia. No one owes you advertising revenue deal with it.

Journalists still do not get it.

Their minds are as blank as the front page of the Sun-Times — and it shows.

Get a grip: you should have made changes when you had the chance. You didn’t; so stop looking for others to bail you out of trouble…

Patrick Brown sues CTV for $8 million.

He’ll never win it, however.

It will be dragged through the courts for years, and the other, less savoury things will come out about him that will make his head spin.

And nothing will change.

CTV has little worry about. The PC Party was a little too happy to rid themselves of him for a reason, and they have moved on to the point that the Liberals are genuinely terrified for their fortunes. Their previous snickering and smug smirks vanished the day Doug Ford won, and they reek of fear. Brown should take a careful note and realize that Ford has what doesn’t, and he’s taking that with him on this doomed battle.

Brown’s Alpha Male chest-thumping is meaningless, and if he is trying to salvage his dignity, that ship has sailed a long time ago…

 

The Washington Post’s ABC Afterschool Special Logic.

Once upon a time, when I was a kid, they made us watching morality plays in school to tell us how to think and behave.

And then you’d run home, turn on the television, and then you’d be stuck with yet another morality play.

tumblr_o9n82oVD0A1vpk144o1_500

This article in the Washington Post is one of those things that reeks of that kind of childish indoctrination.

#MeToo bothers journalists because it exposed their immortality to the world.

And because it is a profession that puts more currency on narrative than reality, it is always trying to spin things into neat little packages, and this is an enormous disservice to people trying to improve their surroundings.

You win battles, you have setbacks, you keep fighting until you win the war. You do not have one victory, and then expect the people who defeated to now congratulate you for putting them in their place.

#MeToo is an army of sorts, and the battle is to go to work in peace, yet it is always being spun as some sort of “witch hunt”, which it never was.

It was a mass reaction to a problem Western society still has not dealt with adequately, if at all.

So you have a woman who created a list of men who abused women on the job, and it was leaked out and her identity exposed. She believes she was naive, but she wasn’t naive: she took on a fight that went on longer than it should have.

When you speak your mind out in public, you will get abused. It doesn’t matter if you expose a child molester, people who also molest children, their enablers, and those who got a pay check from said molester and now are out of a job will slag you in public because you tore down their façade.

If you expose that a so-called reality show is fake — people will do the same thing.

People abuse people in their own homes — their own children, parents, and spouses — so it is to be expected that they bluster and insult strangers.

It doesn’t mean that it should have been exposed.

There is always a trade-off: the problem is Western thought has been trained to believe you can squirt something on a dirty stain — and the stain will erase itself, and you can go back on the sofa and drink beer and watch television.

That’s journalistic narrative. 

Life is not about convenience — it is about pushing forward and understanding there will always be resistance — but you have to push forward, even when others try to push you back.

If life was wonderful, there would have been no #MeToo. It wasn’t as if people were bored and then decided to make themselves vulnerable and reveal they were powerless at work and scared. They confessed in order to make those problems go away.

It worked, but that was one battle — it was not the end of the war.

Except the Washington Post doesn’t comprehend what the movement was all about.

The column offers no reality and no context.

But journalism was never about either…

Canadian opinionists spew partisan narrative on Provincial election…as usual, no one knows what they are talking about.

Opinionists in Canada are less flashy than their US counterparts, and as hard as it is to believe, less informed.

Reading the babble about the Ontario election is particularly painful, because it seems as if everything is on auto-pilot.

Ho hum.

The Toronto Star, oblivious to reality as usual, has a silly piece about sexism in election campaigns. It is very whiny with a whiny headline:

Mediocre men walk their way through political campaigns. It is time to end the double standard facing women on the campaign trail

Except of all the sexism to point out, the opinionist picks one that isn’t true.

That headline is essentially her hypothesis, but it’s wrong, and NYU had a very surprising experiment right after November 2016.

They had two actors — a man and a woman — who switched roles — the man mimicked Hillary Clinton in words and demeanour, while the woman took on Trump’s role.

The point of the exercise was to prove that if women behaved like men, that everyone would jump down her throat.

Except that didn’t happen.

Subjects preferred the female Trump — and much more than the real-life male counterpart.

And they disliked the male Clinton, seeing him as smug and arrogant.

I had said in 2016 Hillary Clinton was the absolute worst pseudo-feminist candidate the Democrats could have possibly chosen. They didn’t a firebrand maverick who was over-the-top. This is America, and Americans love someone who is large and in charge. If women were waiting for the moment to be crown a queen instead of a king all those decades, then, for pity’s sake, show it like you mean it.

11518666_bodyshot_300x400-1405

I have always said that the problem isn’t that there aren’t wild female eccentrics — I am not the only one on the planet, thank you very much — but they are deliberately silenced — not because people wouldn’t like them — but they would love them just a little too much, and that would bruise those tyrannical male narcissists who hoard power and keep everyone else — including other men — back.

As I write stories with nothing but idiosyncratic women — I have a hard time getting attention, but when people read it, I do get wonderful feedback — so the problem isn’t the the world isn’t ready for a wild woman — women just make assumptions and restrain themselves unnecessarily.

So the Toronto Star is just spewing folksy logic that isn’t true. Kathleen Wynne won a majority in the last election — and considering she is openly gay and has radical ideas that frighten Jordan Peterson — she was given public goodwill the first time around. The Liberals had a minority and a lot of illiill with the public, and they went solidly behind Wynne’s regime.

But her penchant to throw money the province doesn’t have to nanny the people is wearing thin with the public. It has nothing to do with the fact she is a woman.

And the election isn’t over. As I have said before, if she won another majority, I wouldn’t be surprised. She is a survivor and is that way because she has a working brain and knows how to use it instead of following other people’s scripts.

If Wynne loses, it will be because she earned her loss, just the way Clinton spectacularly earned her defeat. Sometimes you lose — not because you are a woman — but because you think you are owed because you are a woman. Get that chip off your shoulder. People do not vote in women — they vote for the person who seems like they are willing to listen to their constituents, will fight for them, and will make things happen. Politics is not an arena for social engineering — it is a gladiatorial fight and people want to see candidates fight tooth and nail for the right to make their lives easier — and if you think that sounds silly, you really didn’t get the memo on democracy.

Don’t take it up with me because if it were up to me, we’d be governing ourselves by referendum and by electoral conscription.

Oh, and by the way, Toronto Star, Clinton had more votes than the victor. Remember that? There may be sexism, but we have come a long way, baby.

But the Globe and Mail has a different — but equally silly take on the election:

Why is Doug Ford giving Kathleen Wynne a chance to invoke Donald Trump?

That’s right! Shame on Doug Ford who obviously forgot to tape Wynne’s mouth shut so she couldn’t invoke Donald Trump. He should have hired a chaperone for the little lady to supervise her. Jordan Peterson warned the world how dangerous she is and everything.

Do you honestly think he could stop her or her operatives from saying it — regardless of what he said and did?

It is a campaign, people: it is all about using dirty tricks, and then using the meta-dirty trick of accusing the other guy of negative stuff as you paint him in a negative light, like Justin Trudeau recently did.

There is so much to discuss when there is an election: platforms, current situation, problems to be solved, qualifications, track records, needs, wants — and yet we have babble from opinionists who have no idea what to say.

We are as ill-informed as we were before. We need facts to make sensible decisions, but what we get is the same old script that is always devoid of any real data…

Memo to GeekWire: Why would we “certify” online journalists when they have no specialized training, governing body, or any method to their work? A little blue checkmark is meaningless.

Journalists are scheming these days, trying to reclaim the power the people took away from them, and GeekWire is on the bandwagon with this silly babble:

Certifying online journalists: A bad idea whose time has come?

Why would be bother to pretend to give online hacks legitimacy? What specialized standardized training do you have that separates you from others?

None.

What governing body regulates you?

None.

What methods or techniques do you have that is unique to your profession?

None.

What do you have?

A bland logo, like all the other self-labeled “online journalists” who couldn’t resurrect the dead profession of journalism.

geekwire-default-logo-social

So let us not validate your egos by pretending you are superior to anyone else or worthy of anything to make you seem legitimate, because that little symbol or designation would be a fraud, and confirm the fact that you are fake news along with the rest.

Nice touch pretending you don’t want to get a paper crown, though, but I am not buying what you are selling, you manipulative grifters…

Memo to New York Times: Who shilled for war more than you? Weapons of Mass Destruction? That was YOU. Enough about Facebook, you jealous tyrants.

The Gray Lady’s anti-Facebook temper tantrum continues, with this propaganda fear-mongering:

Where Countries Are
Tinderboxes and
Facebook Is a Match

False rumors set Buddhist against Muslim in Sri Lanka, the
most recent in a global spate of violence fanned by social media.

The New York Times should have just gotten Judith Miller to write that diatribe with the headline, “Facebook: The Real Weapon of Mass Destruction.”

Who sparked more wars than the press by just cribbing from press releases, and with rumours, bad and skewed information, and flat-out lies? The first Gulf War sparked when the babies and incubators hoax was reported as true. How about the fun and games Ruder Finn had spreading brazen illogical lunacy during the Civil War in the former Yugoslavia that the New York Times swallowed and regurgitated?

There should have been many New York Times’ reporters sitting in The Hague for the bloodshed they enabled and outright caused. Do not think that everyone has forgotten.

Let us not pretend we never had such a thing as tensions, clashes, and war — and that happened before the invention of the wheel and discovery of fire.

Gray Lady, stop blaming Facebook, and trying to use this as a way manipulative way to try to get back the power you squandered peddling lies.

Because you do not have the actual intelligence to fool all of the people all of the time…

 

The sheltered relics of 60 Minutes: Fear-mongering, free PR for the Ivy League, and general non-newsiness.

60 Minutes really is a shadow of its once towering self. Watching tonight’s offerings reminded me just how away from news that newsmagazine has gotten.

The first segment “The Data Miner” was just cheap no-brainer pot shots at Facebook, with the standard journalistic fear-mongering. Lesley Stahl came off as some helmet-haired church lady in it, practically putting words in interviewee’s mouths with all sorts of admonishments usually reserved for your grandparents finding out your new squeeze came to the family picnic with alcohol on his breath.

The worst of the segment was pretending that the lack of privacy was unknown: if you use any app on Facebook, it usually asks permission to access your friends’ list, for instance. If developers and advertisers know it going in, and the app’s connecting splash page asks, I am not sure where the secret part comes in.

And as one of those people who does scan the terms of service, this isn’t shocking.

Someone should have given Stahl the memo that the term “Big Data” comes from the mining of mass information and then selling it to various third parties. No babes in the woods, folks.

But apparently journalists were too busy drooling over Kardashians and coming up with cutesy portmanteau’s for celebrity couples to know what was happening in reality.

In any case, the propaganda here was kind of rickety.

The second piece from Scott Pelley is pure advertorial for MIT’s “media lab”, that is really out of touch. First, the awing over the touchscreen computer screens in the 1980s isn’t really all that impressive — Disney World had them back in the day and I should know considering I used to use them to make dinner reservations at the Magic Kingdom.

But the true hilarity is the drooling over computer uses in academia, while completely forgetting that Facebook began at an Ivy League university. If you are going to make a case for people to be impressed with the goings on in Ivory Towers, then don’t bring up Facebook, and if you are going to make the case that Facebook is sinister, then don’t go cheerleading at the same kind of environment that fostered it in the first place. Make up your mind.

In any case, 60 Minutes proves that journalists truly do not understand this whole Internet thing.

The Pelley segment was truly obnoxious — absolutely no critical questions or wondering about the ethics of any of it: it was just a bunch of goll-ee! remarks while giving a free platform to MIT. Science and technology reporting is notoriously just a giant ad for the industry, and 60 Minutes may very well be the worst offenders.

The third segment was the only one with any value, and that it was done by a doctor who has an understanding of empirical methods explains it. Watching the decade-long decline of a woman with Alzheimer’s Disease was truly a heart-wrenching, but informative human interest piece of the consequences of a husband who eventually could no longer look after his wife. The traumas are real and permanent.

The only segment that had worth was the one that neither tried to put a sunny spin on things, nor tried to fear-monger, but one out of three is a very poor average…