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…

 

Why journalism cannot come to grips with their demise.

Michael Goodwin has an interesting article in Imprimis about how the 2016 US Presidential race harmed journalism, and although there is much to go for it, Goodwin doesn’t get it.

Journalism had it easy for one reason: they owned the flow of information and speech, and he misses this point from the get go:

I’ve been a journalist for a long time. Long enough to know that it wasn’t always like this. There was a time not so long ago when journalists were trusted and admired. We were generally seen as trying to report the news in a fair and straightforward manner.

People had no choice back then. They gave not so much their trust, but their goodwill to the press. They complained about coverage even back then, but as there was an alternative, they let many things slide.

But the second they could bypass the press, they did so as fast as they could.

That’s when journalists began to panic, and I agree with Goodwin that legacy media, such as the New York Times did go down the propaganda gutter — but the difference was they were so focussed on regaining power that they forgot to hide their true motives: they weren’t covering the news: they were rigging the flow of information to get the outcomes they thought worked int heir favor.

They could not keep up pretences and fight to reclaim their past clout at the same time.

Donald Trump won because he tweaked his nose at the press — he has an uncanny ability to read the pulse of the collective — something good sales people can do with ease — and he used that untapped energy to win. He did what people wanted to do to the news media for decades, but couldn’t.

It is like the servants being forced to listen to putdowns by their employers, and then go spit in their food.

Trump spat in the press’s food in font of the world — and the world cheered.

He merely stated what people had thought for years, but were too terrified of saying it.

The press saw Trump as a joke and dismissed him the way they dismissed all those broken down unemployed people in the Rust Belt — the press created a kinship, but it was Trump who could read the crowds and the press and ride on those wavelengths.

He used Twitter to show how useless and powerless the press truly was, and now that same press is in a tizzy because they were exposed for being unworthy of the power they once held.

There are points going for Goodwin’s piece, but his optimism blinds him in one significant way: he thinks journalism can be resurrected, but it cannot.

Journalism is unfixable and too corrupted. It is antiquated and not aligned with reality or the current state of technology and the world. Worse, journalists had a taste of that power and they will always be scheming to get that power back — and that’s not the point of their jobs. It is not about issuing royal decrees: it is about informing people with facts.

You cannot go home again. Journalism had problems long before the US election: what Trump did was hammer the final nail in the coffin, but the body in that coffin was already decomposing when he hammered.

What we need is an alternative to journalism — something that gets away from the old rot so we do not have to have a replay of the ugly propaganda and social engineering that has held the world back for far too long…

Journalism’s looking for free labour continues — Big Brother style.

I love this headline for this article from the CBC:

Help CBC News investigate political ads on Facebook

How much are you paying for people doing your work for you? Oh, that’s right, nothing.

ProPublica is behind this one, and has a similar headline to a similar article:

Help Us Monitor Political Ads Online

ProPublica launches a “PAC” to scrutinize campaign ads on Facebook.

What this extension is a way for media companies to monitor your online habits, without having to pay people a dime. How noble of you to exploit people’s fears and labour as you get to look at what people are looking at so you can tailor-make propaganda in the name of being “journalists.”

Nice try.

Remember — ProPublica was founded by Democrat billionaires.

They aren’t that rich for nothing, kids.

The New York Times pulled the same stunt during the 2016 president election — and Trump still won despite the Big Brother monitoring of the partisan flock.

This is the sort of thing journalists howl at when other people do it — but then they just do the same thing.

If they want to do some market research — then they can pay for it like everyone else…

New York Times wins a Pulitzer for a story they suppressed since 2004.

Journalists love, love, love to give themselves awards and prizes.

two_medals

These days, these awards mean nothing.

The New York Times won the big one for their “story” on Harvey Weinstein.

They had to share it with Ronan Farrow, who actually began the investigation before they did.

But they didn’t exactly earn this one for a very big reason.

They passed on the same story in 2004 when Sharon Waxman’s piece was killed.

Why didn’t she win the Pultizer?

Because she was silenced — and then the newspaper turns around and wins an award for something they were perfectly aware of for over a decade.

That’s how much these awards are worth…

George Stephanopoulos interviewing James Comey: A study in partisan reportage.

I find it interesting that George Stephanopoulos interviewed former FBI Director James Comey, who was fired by Donald Trump and now is shilling his latest book. He was a political operative for the Clinton regime and Senior Advisor to the President in the 1990s.

That is pure partisanship on ABC’s part, and deliberately so. This isn’t done for information sake, but to pander to the Left.

The atmosphere is interesting. The New York Times’ sniffed in their book review that Comey’s book was “very persuasive.” The review is pure propaganda, but this is about Comey.

The FBI does go through a vigorous screening process; so I do not believe Comey is a stupid man. He would have to be cunning to make it that far only to be checkmated by a more cunning man. Comey played a game of chess, but his opponent was playing Go. I do believe he is spinning a yarn to justified his firing — which I don’t blame him — but the vindictive and very careful spinning with hints is beneath him. He is playing in the gutter, obviously, and now it is akin to two bratty and spoiled brothers having a perpetual slap fight with each other.

The press is more than just salivating over it: they are being downright patronizing, with The Daily Beast instructing the little people how to watch and stream it, though they are not the only ones. The New York Times also has little faith in their readers’ intelligence, proving crib notes of the interview.

Vox, ever falling for basic stunts, are babbling about Trump’s tweets on it, even though those are nothing more than misdirections that really should have been ignored over a year ago.

As for the interview itself, it is not actually newsworthy. It is not explosive, but typical of what I would expect someone who isn’t used to be scrutinized getting flayed in public: justifications of his actions, wallowing with self-pity, calling his former boss all sorts of dirty names as he gossips, and trying to retain some dignity in a sordid and unprecedented affair as he is assuring the legacy media that he and his family are Hillary Clinton supporters. Everyone else is wrong, and he is holier-than-thou, and he is full of excuses.

He does parse his words as he chooses them very carefully. When I worked as a journalist, that was always a huge red flag that the indirect approach was used to paint a narrative without direct proof; otherwise, the person would give you actual proof. I never liked slippery sources whose every word must be put on a scale and examined under a high-powered microscope.

The only difference between Comey and Trump is that Comey uses verbal sleight of hand to fight dirty, while Trump blusters on Twitter to achieve the same ends. I do not have confidence in either man’s account. At all.

People are watching, hoping Comey can offer some new dirt so they can lose their minds, but ABC is pushing this as an “exclusive event”, when it is an advertorial interview promoting a book. I see two huge alpha male egos clashing, and the loser of that territorial skirmish reduced to melodrama.

But I can understand why the Beltway had a meltdown with Trump’s victory: they are all broken in, and used to go through the motions as they memorized the scripts — and with a spoiler blustering in, all their old routines and rules have been thrown out the window, and now that they can no longer rely on rote hacks, their façade of superiority has been exposed as such.

Comey was a bit player in this sucker circus, and one of the earliest acts to get the boot: the interview ran too long, and was pure theatre — and a very boring one at that…

The new beggars: How journalists try to exploit their own incompetence.

If you look at many journalism sites and their various barnacles known as “organizations”, you will see a lot of begging for money.

A lot.

Not just obnoxiously begging for money, but a manipulative little sob story how giving your money is absolutely essential for democracy to survive.

Screen Shot 2018-04-15 at 8.06.40 PM

And if it isn’t begging for donations, it is a demand and threat to subscribe.

Screen Shot 2018-04-15 at 8.11.35 PM

This is a gambit: if they cannot get funding through advertising and people wanting to subscribe, then instead of making the necessary changes, passively take out your tin can and howl for cash.

And despite the circulation and viewership declines, the profession thinks a non-profit model will save them.

The New York Times certainly thinks so, making it a habit of musing about it here about the Guardian, openly cheerleading it here, and now doing free advertising for Report for America here.

These methods aren’t working because the same corrupt elements are at play. The non-profit is a retreat strategy: they want to do the same thing, but trying to spin the optics to make it seem they are some sort of noble civil servants, and not broke and inept blowhards who still do not see what they have done to the profession.

It is obvious that this is a ruse to exploit their own incompetence into something noble, but to a dead profession, they will play any trick to pretend an archaic system to information corruption can be brought back to life…

When journalists do not know how to report on their own industry.

When I worked as a journalist, most of my stories concentrated on the business of journalism. It was not exactly an easy gig. There was a lot of egos and even more secrets, and that usually hinted that things presented were far more shaky and sketchy in reality.

And those hints always turned out to be right.

The business end was always rickety. There was always some sort of scheme to prop up the true health of the industry, and it was always presented with a sunny spin. For instance, free newspapers were counted as part of the circulation, which was a very dodgy gambit meaning that those stacks of unread papers were counted as readership.

Journalism’s fortunes were already on unstable ground back then, but now, it is in a free fall.

The journalism part and the business part are two separate problems, but because the journalism side reports on their business side — and the business side has no qualms misusing the journalism side for self-promotion, score-settling, and lobbying, it is a good idea to look at how that toxic dynamic contributed to the profession’s collapse.

For example, the New York Times has one of their gushy Great Man profiles on new Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong. The puff piece is typical of how the Times perpetually shuts off its brain when doing free ad copy for a real or perceived Titan of Industry.

I go over this in more detail in my book, but the Times has a very bad track record of doing these kind of kid glove pieces, only for the test of time to prove they should have been more skeptical and critical in their coverage.

The headline is troubling to me as someone who has seen this game before:

L.A. Times’s New Owner Plans Big Moves. First Up, Relocating to the Suburbs.

When I wrote a profile of one up-and-coming newspaper owner, he tried to use the identical angle on me: “big plans” and some cutesy colour of how his wife thought they would have to “remortgage the house” for him to buy those pricey newspapers. I didn’t bite at either angle, and his tenure was fairly short-lived, and proved to be the tip of the iceberg of a much more serious problem.

But never expect the Times to do anything that resembles genuine research.

The exit of Michael Ferro is presented in a threadbare manner: there is much more to say, but don’t expect a Tronc property such as the Tribune to confess anything in regards to their own dirty laundry. Bloomberg’s piece scratches the surface, referring to Ferro’s tenure as “controversial”, but what really went down is not going to be examined with any authenticity. Even the Wall Street Journal’s article is milquetoast, calling his time as “short but rocky”.

Not that other news media has a clue. WBUR attempts to look at the collapse at local news, but nary a word on how the profession sowed the seeds of their troubles themselves. It is shallow, self-serving, and cannot do a thing to resurrect the dead profession.

It is not a well-oiled machine: one side of the equation should help improve the other side, but it is often used to hide the true state of affairs from the public. Journalism needed a better method, but when your own chroniclers of reality cannot unearth the reality of their own, there were doomed to crash and burn so horribly…

There is no more “great journalism”. There comes a point when you have to face the truth about journalism.

Journalists are like the brat in this viral video who will eat an onion, insisting that it is an apple.

She is suffering, but no way is she going to admit the obvious.

That’s the state of journalism.

They are antiquated, reactionary, primitive, corrupted, and kaput.

So when you have a dead profession tainted by denial and narcissism, they will scream that everything is wonderful.

You see the implosion. Dean Baquet, Executive Editor of the New York Times, will talk about a “crisis” in journalism, and how this is its “Golden Age” of it.

It isn’t a golden age, and we are well beyond a crisis.

When you have journalists parroting press releases, you know the profession isn’t an authentic one, and when you are mandated with chronicling reality, not being authentic is a very bad thing.

fb_img_15234484102221789962014.jpg

Instead of looking inward, journalists are spinning a lie about “fake news” being something outside of journalism. Nice try, but I wrote the book disproving that silly hypothesis — three times over.

97

But journalists cannot help themselves, always spinning what they do as such a wonderful and selfless thing.

The Chicago Sun-Times chirping that their rivals Chicago Tribune’s drive to unionize is all about “doing great journalism” is laughable.

It is about saving their jobs, not realizing unionizing in a dead profession won’t do the trick.

Journalists will put up with the stench of their profession’s needless death rather than admit the obvious.

It is time for a change.

And the time is now…

Watching journalism’s implosion on Drudge.

Matt Drudge has been America’s Editor in Chief for a couple of decades now — the way old school newspaper and magazine editors used to rule back in the days when journalism was a thing — or even Don Hewitt did on 60 Minutes.

His machine has an uncanny pulse on the zeitgeist. The Left never had an equivalent rival or colleague because they are not in tune with reality the way he is.

But he is The One. We don’t have a female Drudge, a black Drudge, nor do we have any foreign Drudge anywhere else on the planet.

We are talking about my entire adult life, and not even a Millennial Drudge or a AI Drudge.

There is only one Drudge.

And his methods are so effective, that the destruction of journalism doesn’t impact him.

If journalism had a pulse the way he did, they would still be in the game.

But their arrogance is debilitating. They don’t see that he doesn’t use a cheesy motto about how important journalism is. He doesn’t shake people down for donations.

He cuts to the chase, highlighting stories from various media outlets in a low-key and minimalist style.

So it is interesting to see what he picks for stories about journalism.

The stories, not surprisingly, chronicle its own implosion.

For example, the Right-leaning Townhall had this column:

The Liberal Press Rebelled Against Reality – and Lost

That’s about half-right. The Right-winged outlets aren’t exactly clued in, either. Even the article itself reveals its lack of news savvy:

These journalism students are specifically taught that they need to report on the sorrows of the downtrodden, represent the world as a fundamentally unfair place defined by poverty, disease, death; and that injustice cannot be vanquished but by rejecting traditional standards of morality. 

News is defined on reporting on what isn’t working, not on what works. That’s advertising. Cheerleading about a Great Man’s success isn’t news — and contrary to the piece’s assumption, reporters have spent a great amount of time fawning over real and imagined successes — they built up the Kardashians. They made men such as Kenneth Lay to seem visionary and competent. Let’s not pretend that we had journalists tell us where the faults in our society have been simmering. They supported Hillary’s Clinton’s flawed campaign, for instance, which, in fact, undermines the thesis of this opinionist.

It isn’t just “leftist” vehicles that have a hard time confronting reality — it is the rightist as well, as in the entire profession imploded, not just one faction of it.

Another very Right-leaning vehicle, the Gateway Pundit, brings up this nugget: a California senator introduces a bill that only “state-sanctioned” fact-checkers vet information going online. Obviously, this is covered by the Right, and not mentioned at all anywhere else. Aside from it being unconstitutional and makes no mention of other media, such as print or television, and it would something I would expect from those Russians that American journalists have an unnatural fear of. It seems that the government wants to control all of the information on the Internet — and it is the reason why we will see a fifth medium much sooner than later.

Newsmax, yet another Right-wing outlet, is hiring a former Fox News Channel executive to position themselves into a more expansive presence. Despite legacy media’s constant attacks on the online fringe, Newsmax is having an easier time than Breitbart that once seemed to have the definite edge with Steve Bannon.

However, fortunes come and go very quickly in this business, and the cycles of longevity keep getting shorter. Fox News’ success was mostly thanks to the late and infamous Roger Ailes, who knew what would sell and then knew how to make it happen.

Perhaps sensing that the mood for social media is turning nasty, Twitter’s Jack Dorsey is cultivating an image of being more meddlesome with his platform. The Fast Company story is typical fawning Great Man love — and usually serves the Great Man’s purpose than actually inform a public about anything.

The dysfunctionality is capped off with a horrible New York Times article already kicking iconic Vogue editor and current Conde Nast artistic director Anna Wintour to the curb as media speculate that she’s leaving, though nothing is official — and the source of the gossip comes from its rival the New York Post.

The headline is absolutely dreadful:

Imagining a World After Anna

Hello! She’s not dead!

She is still in the world, New York Times. At least the Times chose that first picture where she is the best-dressed of the bunch, but the words chosen as well as the subject matter is not actually newsworthy.

But cluster the articles together, and a picture emerges: journalism imploded and we have anarchy. The government is trying to impose its will on Big Tech; Big Tech is trying to impose its will on its users. Fringe media has the same clout as legacy media, and everyone is just speculating.

Facts? Well, don’t expect to find them in a news story. It is the reason why fringe outlets have the same weight on Drudge as the traditional outlets. Drudge did what Trump did years before: bypass the media to create his own success. In a world that is devoid of facts, but its illusion is one of having too much information, he reads the headlines the way a fortune teller reads tea leaves: there is no magic to it, just an ability to read someone’s demeanour and body language to riddle out what is the problem — and usually it is always the same problems that plague everyone.

He gets the rhythm of the world, and presents it in an easy-to-digest way.

Journalists never learned what the Internet required, and dismissed him.

And it is the reason the stories about them have turned out to be so distressingly unflattering and troubling…

And one more article that came late today from the New York Post about CBS worrying about the fallout from Charlie Rose’s antics being exposed. Rose was #MeToo’d and according to the Post, those nondisclosure clauses are being used as a fortress to prevent any sins and complicity from being known to the public.

Journalists may thump their chests and pretend they are holier than thou, but when push comes to shove, their tactics are no different from those they pretend to expose…

Why journalism will learn nothing from Facebook’s privacy crisis.

The New York Post has a silly article about those pesky Millennials are not getting all scared by Facebook. They are seen as naive and their Live Out Loud philosophy means they do not care what people know about them.

The implication is that nothing like that ever happened before those Facebook bad guys came along.

Not quite.

There was Farrell’s Ice Cream Parlour.

f1

They compiled lists where children could give their vitals to get ice cream for their birthday.

A couple of young boys created a fake birthday boy, and when that fake boy turned of age, Selective Service sent him a reminder that he was liable for draft registration.

The boy only existed on the ice cream list.

This was 1984.

What does ice cream have to do with the military?

Having children fill out a form shouldn’t give any government a clue how old they are, but the idea of personal data being used for other purposes is not new.

When the story broke, journalists were asking who else was playing those games.

And like Facebook, Farrell’s said they had no idea what those lists were being used for at the time. It was a third party, after all.

Journalists don’t seem to clue in that this whole using personal data for other purposes is not new.

As in totally not new.

But the press will keep trying to make it sound as if this was a Facebook thing rather than an old and reliable way of gathering information, learning nothing from history — often chronicled in their old pages…