Memo to the Globe and Mail: Canadian newspapers squandered their trust, and now deal with it with the truth, not the "Trust Project". Why Canadian journalism always runs behind authorities when the going gets tough.

David Walmsley's misaligned mind clearly lives in another dimension where truth and reality are mere servants to the press who can keep doing the same destructive things, but can expect a positive outcome because that truth and reality will clean up the messes created by arrogance, ignorance, sophistry, and flat-out lies. His pathetic opinion piece in the Globe and Mail is both deluded and manipulative on so many levels that it serves as the perfect example why journalism died, and why the Canadian newspaper industry was the first to be felled:

Interest in how journalism is pursued has never been higher, and The Trust Project is both simple of intent and laudable of ambition. Its application is difficult to deliver, but we must try.

Interest in journalism in general has never been lower. It is the reason that newspapers in Canada have been thoroughly gutted. They have been gutted for years because you cannot give away newspapers and newsmagazines. People are not flocking to online versions, either.

And then Walmsley begins right away by appealing to authority: the authority this time is a farce of an organization called The Trust Project, calling it "laudable", instead of the accurate term "laughable."



With not a shred of evidence?

Nice try.

Just because it is affiliated with an academic institution means nothing -- considering that those trained news producers who messed up their own professions got those degrees that gave them no tools that would actually keep the profession thriving.

But journalists love to appeal to authority. They live for it, thinking that all they have to do is defer to such a figure, and then they do not have to actually do any real work and research, or be accountable for any lies or errors that are brought to light.

It's a hack, so to speak.

But when the industry suffered decades of massive job cuts, they kept doing the same thing: running to authority after authority, using their "name" to explain to the little people why journalism matters.

It has not worked because not everyone blindly follows authority.

Yet the opinion piece continues down the road to obliviousness:

Working with newsroom leaders in Scandinavia, Italy, England and across the United States, our big challenge has been settling on indicators that allow the audience to assess whether what they are reading is trustworthy. The industry recognizes it has to do a better job of telling its own story. Show as well as tell.

In other words, how do you improve your propaganda campaign of making people believe you are trustworthy, without having to be trustworthy as you use institutions to help you along instead of doing exposés to show their shortcomings. And that the author of the piece has been affiliated with them for two years places him in a conflict of interest: you have a vested interest in the Trust Project, meaning you have no business writing about it.

Because he still has no clue of what the problem is: it is like an abusive husband trying to win back his wife, and willing to change his clothing and haircut, but refusing to acknowledge that his punching her in the face every chance he gets is the problem. He feels he is entitled and refuses to admit that perhaps he isn't husband-material.

J-schools led journalists astray. That is big problem number one. It would be like abusive husband runs to abusive daddy to ask for relationship advice.

And then comes the requisite arrogant Globe knee-slapper:

To that extent, The Globe and Mail commits to a transparent code of conduct for its journalists. We offer backstories on how our work evolved. This is especially the case involving some investigations that take months to complete. As a founding member of The Trust Project, The Globe offers other indicators too. This includes demonstrating a reporter's expertise and providing the methodology behind a final story.

In other words, the "opinion" piece is just a Globe and Mail advertorial.

Are you serious, Mr. Walmsley?

The Globe has done none of these things he claims in the above quote (I did backstories of how my stories evolved years ago with my previous venture, and I can tell you the Globe isn't even close, despite the fact that I had zero resources and the Globe has a whole more than I ever did on my own).

The Globe pretends to be a national newspaper, yet anyone from outside of Ontario pointedly calls it the Toronto  Globe and Mail for a very good reason: its filters are strictly Toronto-based, meaning reality and its interpretation of it are two entirely different things.

But that's only if you ignore other truths about the Globe:

  1. They never did fire serial plagiarist Margaret Wente. Stealing other people's ideas is one of the worst intellectual sins there is aside from lying as you hide facts, and manipulate with sophistry.
  2. They never knew when their own masters were going to divest of almost all of their newspaper holdings.
  3. And, most inappropriately of all, there is Shattered Mirror.

Using the Public Policy Forum to make a case that Canadian newspapers should be government funded -- and then spewing that self-interest propaganda in the pages of the newspaper was a conflict of interest on every imaginable level. Taking the authority status of a think tank, hijacking it to make a case of getting money because your own system was failing you, and then hyping that tainted paper in your own pages instead of presenting real news is one for the books.

Why didn't you tell readers the real backstory of that little episode?

The reason journalism died is simple: reporters were ignorant, arrogant, and then ran to authorities as they served as their stenographer.

When the PPF gambit didn't work, you had a back-up with the Trust Project? Is that it?

Doing the same rancid thing and expecting a different outcome?

Journalism is dead, Mr. Walmsley, and it was those conniving little games that did it in.

If a new kind of journalism is to be born, it cannot be done with the old guard who are too entrenched in their flawed ways to ever admit how badly they harmed the profession, and those in it.

Not once in your propagandist's rant did you admit that the Globe, and journalism in general made huge errors. Not once do you look within your own flawed methodology to see what went wrong.

That haughty arrogance masks nothing. Deal with it.

J-schools are the problem, not the solution. Organizations that house unemployed journalists are also not the solution.

Stop running to authorities to fix your problems. Stop pretending journalists weren't the architects of their own misery.

Start facing truth and reality as it is. You have a public who are uninformed, but do not know it. You have journalists who are stenographers and gossip-mongers.

We need more than change at this point: we need a new model of journalism. From the ground-up.

We don't need thought thieves stealing other people's ideas, for starters. We don't need people drooling over people with titles. We don't need arrogance.

We need intellectual soldiers with focus, science, and a deep and real understanding of truth, reality, perception, and interpretation.

And you have none of that and neither does that farce called the Trust Project.

I am determined to make 2018 the breakout first year for those of us who are genuine informers of truth and reality for a better system where we can do what needs to be done to bring information out there in the proper way.