Are you up to the challenge of a career in mainstream journalism?

There’s no more noble aspiration than that of one day becoming a professional journalist, but many may feel intimidated or unequipped to pursue such an impressive career. Do you think you have what it takes? Here, from our friends at the Babylon Bee, are nine qualifications needed for a career as a professional journalist. 

1. Burning desire to seek the truth: And if the truth you discover isn’t what you were hoping, just come up with something else. 

2. Have an IQ no higher than 45: Any more than that, and CNN won’t even consider you. 

3. Be OK working for peanuts: That’s not a metaphor, media companies are struggling so much they can’t compensate you with money. 

4. Possess an undying desire to rid the world of the evil that is the United States: You can’t just allow freedom and democracy to keep running roughshod over the world. 

5. Ability to pass a lie detector test while lying: It’s a skill possessed by the greatest reporters. 

6. Willingness to be verbally abused by Donald Trump: Even though most of it is probably true. 

7. Be a hot blonde woman in a tight dress: This tip is specifically for people wanting to work at Fox News. 

8. No actual training in reporting facts: You don’t want actual news to get in the way of telling your predetermined story. 

9. Be a registered Democrat: This is the most important one. 

If you check all the boxes listed above, you too could be on your way to being part of the greatest threat to America.

The Bee is Walt's favourite source of Christian satire. If you subscribe, please tell `em Walt sent ya!

VIDEO: "An Alamo moment for the First Amendment" - Matt Taibbi

At the House Judiciary Committee yesterday, award-winning author Matt Taibbi spoke passionately about government efforts to censor free speech. Here's what he had to say.

Just because Donald Trump won the election [honestly! Ed.] doesn't mean that the fight against the Deep State and its controlled media is over.

"We can be great again!" - The retired general's anti-woke speech the "legacy media" won't let you see

Here's the headline and the lede from an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on November 15th. 

Canadian Forces officers applaud speech slamming Canada's climate change policies, cancel culture, weak leaders

Serving senior Canadian military officers gave a standing ovation to a speech by a retired general who criticized everything from the removal of historical statues and apologies to victims to government climate change policies.

Did you note the date? November 15th. The speech referred to was made by Lt.-Gen. (Retd.) Michel Maisonneuve as he received the Vimy Award, a top Canadian defence award, on November 9th. Excerpts from his anti-woke speech appeared "below the fold" in some of Canada's lickspittle media a day or two later, but no video of the speech itself can be found. Believe me, Ed. has looked!

Nor has a full transcript been published, until today, when the editors of Canada's National Post summoned up the courage to run the full text, which apparently was submitted to them by the general, in response to popular demand. We've copied the whole thing, without permission, and believe Lt.-Gen Maisonneuve will be glad we did so. He wasn't talking just to hear himself, eh!

Lt.-Gen Maisonneuve is a decorated veteran of 35 years in the Canadian Armed Forces, and another 10 as Academic Director of le Collège militaire royal [Royal Military College] de Saint-Jean. He is a huge advocate for veterans, and served as the first Chief of Staff of NATO's Supreme Allied Command Transformation in Norfolk VA. In his November 9th speech, he pulled no punches in describing what he thinks needs to be done to make Canada great again. The emphasis is mine.

The Vimy Award. How humbling; what a tremendous honour. With this honour comes the opportunity to accept this award with a speech that acknowledges the spirit of Vimy and shares with you my vision for Canada today and for the future.

Canada — once we were great. We stopped the Americans in 1812, we gave the world Billy Bishop, Alexander Graham Bell and Lucy Maud Montgomery. We isolated insulin, invented the zipper and the snowblower. 

In World War One we mobilized 620,000 troops. We were victorious at Vimy Ridge. In World War Two we were brave enough to land at Dieppe, and we secured our beach on D-Day. The Devil’s Brigade remains the template for special forces the world over. Our small country boasted the world’s third largest navy at the end of that conflict. We became internationally recognized peacekeepers and more than 80,000 of us served on missions during the Cold War.

We beat the Russians on their ice in 1972 and a young man named Terry Fox continues to inspire us all with his unparalleled courage and determination. We gave the world the Canadarm in space; we won a world series. When the world changed again on 9/11, Canada stepped up — first to join the coalition of the willing and send in ships and JTF 2. Serving with distinction in Afghanistan — we still mourn the loss of our 159 men and women. Canada was a great nation and though we are faltering today I believe we can be great again.

Since this is my speech, I get to share what I believe Canada needs to do to take the world stage again; to be thought of first when it comes to seeking alliances, to be seen as a serious country once again. What will it take? Well, I believe it will take leadership and service. These two crucial foundations of greatness for any nation have somehow become secondary — lost in these days of entitlement, “me first”, “not my problem” and endless subsidies and handouts.

Let me start with leadership. Leadership applies in all pursuits and at all levels. Great leaders are distinguished by the success of those they lead and the entity they lead — be it a country, an army, a corporation or a sports team. When that entity succeeds, we recognize its leader … and when that entity fails, misses, or misses the playoffs, the leader must — should — take responsibility. 

History has given us many great leaders. Ask yourself: would those leaders have been as successful in today’s world? Well, let’s see; today’s world, where social media captures every move and word spoken — taken in context or not. Where cancel culture still flourishes and there is no call for redaction or amendment even when accusations are proved false. Truth is not a requirement; once cancelled, you are done.

Today’s world, where balanced journalism is difficult to find. The practice of presenting the facts — a truthful illustration of an event, a personality or issue that allowed the reader to form their own opinion — is no longer compulsory in mainstream media. The line between "news" and op-eds has blurred and too often we are subjected to sermons written not by seasoned journalists but by first-year graduates of woke journalism schools. Unbiased reporting seems to have died with Christie Blatchford and Matthew Fisher.

Today’s world, where extremism — once the almost exclusive purview of religious zealots — seems to be flourishing in all aspects of our lives, on the right … and on the left. Some of the most popular "causes" and beliefs of today are embraced by all manner of extremists with no thought of how to achieve this utopian ideal in a responsible or plausible manner.

For example, Canada’s prosperity is being sacrificed at the altar of climate change as opposed to being used to help the world transition to clean energy. Throwing soup and paint at the world’s art treasures is as heinous as it is useless. The perpetrators should be punished, not celebrated.

Today’s world is also where taking personal responsibility for our own actions has disappeared from the landscape while the phenomenon of collective apologies flourishes in our country. Individuals and groups fight over who gets to wear the coveted victim’s cloak. But any role they may have played in their own fate or in injuring others is dismissed as learned behaviour, inherited flaws or generational oppression.

So I am not here to debate whether those great leaders of yesteryear would be as successful in today’s world. But nor will I judge the decisions they made in their time against the standards of today. Enough statues have been toppled; erasing our history is not the solution. 

I believe that the most important leadership skills have not changed and are even more so today than ever. Number one is communication — it is more critical than ever in this world of sound bites and mic dropping. A good leader ensures his followers know where they are going and how to get there. A great leader makes them want to go there. A great leader can take a seemingly insurmountable objective and make it possible to achieve in the hearts and minds of their followers.

Thankfully these leaders still do exist in today's world and there is no better example than Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In his nightly address he clearly, continuously, and passionately articulates the mission to his fellow Ukrainians. Dismissed early on as "an actor, a comedian, a dancer," President Zelenskyy has rallied the world to his just cause. He surrounded himself with good people, made difficult decisions and by communicating, has captured our hearts and souls with Ukraine’s plight. God speed Mr. President and Slava Ukrainii.

Secondly, cohesion, acceptance and tolerance. Today's leaders must stop dividing those they lead! Hasn't history shown us that success as a leader demands cohesion, unity and respect of all those they lead — not just those who agree wholeheartedly with them? Can you imagine a military leader labelling half of his command as deplorables, fringe radicals or less-thans and then expect them to fight as one?

Today’s leaders must find a way to unite; not divide. Leaders lead. There is a difference between making a good decision, based on research and consultation, and making a decision because it is popular or it polls well. The best decisions are those made for the good of the whole — not just good for friends of the leader. Today, special interests have trumped the collective good. Making decisions for the collective good requires strength of character, the communications skills to explain, and a great deal of courage.

Courage remains one of the most important qualities of a leader. The courage of ideas, courage in the face of criticism, the courage to guide and lead. The courage to create a vision for the good of all. The courage to recognize a mistake and accept responsibility — personal — for that mistake.

The second key to bring Canada back to prominence is service. Just a short two months ago, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, queen of Canada, died. It would be impossible to find a better example of service. On her coronation she promised that she would dedicate her life, whether long or short, to the service of all. Over the next 70 years, in good times and in bad, she placed the care of her realm and subjects above all else. She exemplified character and duty and provided us all with an example of dedication to service. She kept her promise. May she rest in peace.

The idea, the concept of service seems to be forgotten in our "me-first" culture. Service to others, to one's country, to humanity must be a noble aspiration. The obligation to give back in gratitude for a life filled with blessings, peace and good fortune should not be innovative. It seems that Canadians have lost the desire to serve and the need to serve their country.

The military — being in the service of one’s country — used to be a most highly regarded profession. Today, I see a military woefully underfunded, undermanned and under-appreciated; a force where uniforms have become a means of personal expression rather than a symbol of collective pride and unity: uniforms are no longer uniform. The idea of serving in our armed forces is getting little traction. Could it be because the moral contract under which our military serve is broken?

Members of the Armed Forces fulfill their side of the moral contract that exists between them and Canadian society — they serve and are ready to serve in dangerous missions at home or abroad to protect our country and project Canadian values. But Canada should also be holding up its end of the contract: providing them with the state-of-the-art tools they need, the best leadership, equipment, education and training to be safe and successful, and looking after them when they become veterans.

In my opinion, we are failing. Because for Canadians generally, the Armed Forces are not important until there is a crisis, and successive governments’ support of the forces reflect that mindset. Our troops who have dedicated their lives to serve this country deserve better.

We are in Veterans Week, commemorating those who exemplified the concept of service by putting their life on the line for us, and honouring those who gave up their tomorrows for our todays. Let's use them as our example to serve.

If more inspiration is required one need not look far: let’s remember the words of two of the finest leaders of our time: Margaret Thatcher believed "There’s no such thing as entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation." And of course, JFK most famously said, "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country."

Soon the festive season will arrive; a season of generosity and benevolence. In the name of service, I challenge us. Offer to volunteer, no matter where: an animal shelter, home for the homeless, seniors or veterans. The most important gift we can give is our time. I challenge us all to donate — instead of selling that surplus coffee maker on Kijiji, let’s donate it to Mission Services or Goodwill or the Salvation Army. I challenge us to be compassionate: give the panhandler enough cash for a warm meal but also ask them their name, wish them well and shake their hand.

I believe we can make Canada better. To find common ground with our neighbour and to unite our country rather than divide it. To apply our leadership and service; to live with compassion, tolerance and patience — but most of all to be proud of Canada and everything we once stood for.

We Canadians live in the greatest country in the world with almost unlimited resources, a tolerant and diverse people, and an educated population who can aspire to the greatest heights. We should be prepared to serve our country and be proud to do so. And our leaders must share this vision. "If not us, who? If not now, when?" Because, as Satchmo has told us, in spite of it all … it is a wonderful world.

I thought the last line was kind of lame, but I understand the sentiment. Take out the reference to Queen Elizabeth and a few others which Americans wouldn't get, and Lt.-Gen. Maisonneuve's address would make a fine campaign speech for... errr... whoever you think could deliver it with a straight face and be believed.

Belated New Year's greeting from one of Walt's agents

Agent 34, who has been out of touch for some time, let us know that he is still "out there", by sending along this lovely (and respectful!) New Year's greeting from the late great Hunter S. Thompson, Doctor of Journalism.

VIDEO: Together at last: Rex Murphy and Jordan Peterson

Rex Murphy, sometimes quoted and often recommended by Walt, is one of Canada's premier journalists. Jordan Peterson calls him "tough, truthful, politically correct, and possessed of a singular style and character." Like Don Cherry (although he might not like the comparison), he was "deplatformed" by the Canadian Broadcorping Castration some years ago for being too opinionated (on the wrong side, of course), too nationalistic, too politically incorrect... too truthful. Canada's National Post is the only lamestream media outlet which still carries his columns.

I'm pleased to see that Mr Murphy now has his own video channel - RexTV. Last week he interviewed Dr Jordan Peterson, the University of Toronto clinical psychologist who has become even more famous than Rex for speaking to power, calmly and rationally, the truth about the modern state of education, politics, identity, and the (((controlled media))). Those are just some of the subjects they cover in this discussion. It runs nearly an hour and every minute is worth watching.



You will have noticed that for much of the interview, Dr Peterson is suffering considerable emotional distress. It's hard for us, his fans, to see him choking up, and verging on tears. But one must admire his courage in putting himself "out there" in spite of everything. He deserves our support and our prayers.

Jordan Peterson has his own YouTube channel, by the way. Walt recommends it highly.

Canada's liberal propagandists to get $600 million reward

First the funny stuff. Today, on its Toronto page, CTV News has a story headed "Police issue arrest warrant for suspect in violent attack on teen girl and her mother". (The suspect's name is Harry -- originally Hari -- Rajkumar. Can you say "Diversity is our strength!", boys and girls?) Here's a screen grab of the suspect description.

Evidently CTV, like the rest of the Canuck meeja, can't afford proofreaders any more. That Canadian newspapers and even TV networks are struggling is not news. Even the state-run (and taxpayer-funded!) CBC is crying stinking fish, laying off "workers" (but not execs, of course) and begging for (a) subscriptions and (b) government handouts.

The gentlemen and ladies (and those who aren't sure) of the fifth estate got their wish for (b) on Thursday when the gliberal government of Prime Minister Just In Trudeau announced, in its fall budget statement, that it would dole out C$600 million ($450 million in real money) to publishers and joournalists, to keep such organs as the Toronto Star from having to lay off more staff or even close its doors for good. Good news for the ink-stained wretches, not so good for taxpayers.

The problem is greater than a mere 600 mill added to Canada's soaring deficit. As Postmedia's Andrew Coyne points out (to his credit), in "Liberals' $600M aid package for news media will irrevocably politicize the press", it is hard not to see the massive handout as a less-than-subtle attempt to buy off what's left of the independent press, and co-opt them into the liberal/Liberal propaganda machine... as if the dominance of the CBC and the Red Star weren't bad enough.

But (I hear you ask), didn't the government say that the recipients of the pieces of silver would be determined by an "independent panel of journalists"? Oh yes... a panel chosen by the government in the same way and for the same reasons as the "independent" senators now being packed into the Red Chamber. Mr Coyne writes, "I don’t actually think the government will appoint a group of card-carrying Liberal hacks to this 'independent panel.' They won’t need to."

Indeed. Walt predicts that those appointed to the "independent" panel will be reliably "progressive" journalists of a pinkish hue, like CBC propagandists Rosemary Barton, Paul Hunter and Keith Boag, and CTV's Evan Solomon. Not appointed will be Rex Murphy, Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and Gavin McInnes. Lifetime pct .989.

"To hell with it," mr Coyne concludes. "To hell with all of it. No newspaper publisher should have anything to do with this plan. And no journalist worthy of the name should go anywhere near that accursed panel."

Further viewing: "Trudeau gives $595M to media — but The Rebel isn't for sale", video by The Rebel's Ezra Levant. Running time 7:25.

Walt's Crappy Journalism Award - Canadian division

I have an intense dislike for the Toronto Star (aka "Toronto Red Star"), the newspaper that's so politically correct that it makes the New York Times and WaPo look like Republican rags. It used to boast of the largest circulation of any Canadian newspaper. Then it tried a paywall, which it quickly abandoned because, errr, nobody's willing to pay for a steady drip-drip-drip of "progressive" editorials disguised as reportage, written by the kind of people to whom Canada's Prime Minister is forever apologizing.

However... I've entered the Star in the latest round of my Crappy Journalism sweepstakes not for its incessant propaganda for liberalism, but for the dismal quality of its editing and proofreading. And I'm making the assumption that they do still have people, or maybe one person, somewhere in the basement of 1 Yonge Street, who actually looks over articles before they're posted or printed. I could be wrong about that, as witness this remarkable "Correction" from today's fishwrap.

Walt's Crappy Journalism Award - African division

Walt enjoys reading articles from the Zimbabwean press, not just for the unusual content -- men copulating with donkeys or chucking spears at cattle poachers -- but for the thrill of seeing self-styled reporters losing their tenuous grip on the English languge. Sometimes, though, it's just what passes for "reporting" that makes me LOL. Here is part of an interview with a spokesthingy for the Civil Aviation Authority of Zimbabwe, posted today on the Zimbabwe NewsDay website.

NewsDay (ND) business reporter, Mthandazo Nyoni caught up with CAAZ general manager, David Chawota (DC) [like he was trying to run away and hide? Walt] on the state of Zimbabwe’s civil aviation industry among other issues. Below are the excerpts of the interview:

ND: Government is in the process of unbundling CAAZ into two entities. One entity will be responsible for regulatory issues while the other will be in charge of commercial operations. How are these entities going to operate?

DC: Yes, CAAZ is going to be unbundled into two entities, one entity will be responsible for regulatory issues while the other will be responsible for commercial operations.

That brilliant Q&A puts Mr Nyoni in the lead for this year's Crappy Journalism Award (African division). Thanks to Agent 3 for passing it along.

You call this journalism? - Fox 59, Indianapolis

The previous post, about the kirpan fight at the Sikh gurdwara in Greenwood IN, came from the Fox 59 website. Fox 59 covers Indiana like the dew, and its "reporters" are paragons of American journalism, as she is practised these days. Browsing the site, Ed. found the following story, which we republish in its entirety, exactly as written by the Fox newshounds.

Victim identified in fatal shooting at Indianapolis strip club

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. — A man died after a shooting at an Indianapolis strip club early Wednesday.

According to Indianapolis Metropolitan police, officers were dispatched in response to a disturbance at Senate and Morris around 3 a.m. They arrived to find a man dead from a gunshot wound in a parking lot near Lenny’s Gentlemen’s Club at 255 W. Morris St.

Employees said a number of people were involved and the disturbance spilled outside. A 43-year-old man fired a shot and was detained for questioning, police said.

The victim was identified by the Marion County Coroner’s office as John T. Doe, 21.

Investigators are trying to piece together what led to the shooting and were interviewing several witnesses about the case. IMPD said the crime scene was contained to the business.

IMPD said the case is currently classified as a death investigation.

Why sticking our noses in the affairs of the Third World is a bad idea

Since it's Sunday morning [early too! Ed.] I'll start with a text. This is from the chapter entitled "Recovery", in Butterfly Mind, by Patrick Brown (Anansi 2008). (More about the author and the book later.)

Intervention almost never works out as predicted, and it is almost never executed with sufficient thoroughness and commitment. The decision to intervene, either for humanitarian reasons or because a regime has become intolerable, are often made haphazardly, and the results almost always are disappointing. Those decision deserve care and attention proportional the blood and treasure lost when bad decisions are made.

I have been in Afghanistan many times since the Taliban left. I have watched a growing number of foreign nation-builders and peacekeepers lose their lives in the dusty hills of a country that once again produces 90 percent of the world's heroin.

NATO countries that are still willing to provide troops insist on à la carte deployment, picking and choosing where their forces are deployed and what they do. Countries that have put their troops in harm's way, like Canada and Britain, are naively stirring up a hornet's nest. Pacifying Afghanistan and improving its living standards rapidly would have taken much larger numbers of well-equipped troops, and an intensive and expensive development effort.

Those words were written in 2008, before the US-led "intervention" in Afghanistan had officially failed, yet the author refers to it (in the last quoted sentence) in the conditional past -- "would have taken". The conditions for success were never met, perhaps never could have been met. Six years after Patrick Brown wrote those words, even the greatest apologists for Obama's war have no choice but to describe it as a failure.

Thus endeth the lesson... Sad to say, the lesson has still not been learned by the Prez and other Leaders of the Free World (TM). If it were otherwise, why would be, at this very moment, making the same mistakes in Iraq and "the Levant"?

The failure of Western intervention in Afghanistan was hardly unique. During the 1980s, Patrick Brown was a foreign correspondent, reporting on the collapse of Communism, revolutions, wars and humanitarian disasters in East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Lebanon, East Timor, Burma, Cambodia and Korea. Western meddling, he observes, never solved the problems it set out to. Too frequently, our intervention only made things worse. As an interviewee told him, "WE have to solve our problems by ourselves."

There is more to Butterfly Mind than a potted history of Western failures in the third world. Patrick Brown is a recovering alcoholic. He speculates on the link between alcoholism and journalism. Perhaps journalism drives one to drink. Or perhaps alcoholics become journalists because it's a natural métier for garrulous drunks.

With professional help, Mr. Brown won -- or is winning -- his battle with the bottle. The beginning of his recovery coincided with his move in 1989, to China, where he now makes his home. In Butterfly Mind, he skillfully interweaves his personal story with his observations of Western engagement (to use the latest buzzword) with the Third World, and draws comparisons and parallels with the policies and politics of Communist China.

He writes of the efforts of several Chinese "freedom fighters", including several of those profiled in Out of Mao's Shadow, reviewed here a month ago. He concludes that if change -- regime change and/or social change -- is to come to China, the Chinese will have to bring about that change by themselves, without "help" from the West.

Patrick Brown wishes the Chinese good luck. Walt agrees and extends the same wish to the writer himself. And Walt recommends Butterfly Mind -- good reading as we approach the Chinese New Year.

So, there's a new bad English fad

So... since when has it become acceptable to start a sentence with "So..."?

Examples: "So... the stock market was up nearly 100 points today, in spite of large losses in the energy sector." That sentence was uttered by a supposedly educated business commentator on a TV newscast. But you hear it in everyday conversation too: "So... I'm walkin' down the street, eh, and this really big guy bumps into me..." Perhaps the speaker was not so well educated. [Certainly a Canuck! Ed.] Walt has even seen it in print (on the Net) in a post on a forum for... wait for it... English teachers! "So, I found a job in China, but now I changed my mind..."

My guess is that there has been so much criticism, on WWW and elsewhere, of the use of "like" as a "pause word" that people who wish to sound as if they've advanced beyond primary school have settled on "so" as a "higher-class" alternative. They must think "So..." sounds better than "Like...". It doesn't! So, let's stop using "So..." at the beginning of a sentence to signify, "Hey, I'm gonna talk now."

While I'm at it, may I plead, yet again, for the teaching of English vocabulary in journalism schools. Will those who write for the lamestream media please stop using words of whose meaning they are unsure! Examples:
"wrestle" for "wrest" - "The Iraqi army is trying to wrestle Tikrit back from ISIS"
"fulsome" for "full" - "A more fulsome report is expected tomorrow"

As Walt sees it, the problem is that "writers" no longer feel any need or to desire to be readers, first. They don't know less common words, like "fulsome" and "wrest", because they haven't read them, properly used, in the works of people possessed of vocabularies of more than 1000 words.

No, I'm not talking only about 19th-century writers, although Charles Dickens would certainly have known the proper meanings of "wrest" and "fulsome". There are plenty of modern writers, on both sides of the Atlantic, who have great (in the senses of "large" and "excellent") vocabularies. Looking at my bookshelf, I see: William F. Buckley, Bill Bryson, Graham Greene, Studs Terkel and of course Hunter S. Thompson. HST might not have used a word like "fulsome", but I'm sure he knew what it means.

Moral: Read first, then write.
Footnote: I except (not "accept") newsreaders from my criticism. They are only bingo-callers and meat puppets. They read only the autocue. The less-than-literate clods who write what's on the autocue are the real villains.

Teenaged African rapist to be "canned"

Walt's agent in Zimbabwe -- who refuses to take a number and thus must be referred to only as SeeZee -- sends the following report from the online edition of NewsDay, which we republish verbatim.

A HARARE teenager yesterday was lucky to escape a prison sentence for raping a six-year-old girl after the court ordered that he be canned for the crime.

Regional magistrate Fadzai Mtombeni convicted the teenager for contravening the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. The 13–year–old boy from Waterfalls had denied the allegations of rape, but was convicted due to overwhelming evidence.

“The accused to receive a moderate corporal punishment of six strokes with a rattan cane to be administered in private at Harare Remand Prison by a designated prison officer,” ruled Mtombeni.

Allegations against the boy were that he had sexual intercourse with a neighbour’s daughter without her consent. It was the State’s case that on March 8 this year, the complainant was playing with two friends. It is alleged that one of the friend’s sisters then called the two and they went away leaving the complainant alone.

The accused then called the complainant who responded and they went into a nearby maize field where he laid her down under a tree surrounded by maize stalks. He then removed the girl’s panties and had intercourse with her.

When the complainant went back home, she asked her father for some water to bathe and the father referred her to the mother. When the mother was just about to bathe her, she discovered that she was bleeding. When she asked her what had transpired, the complainant refused to speak. She then took her to the police where the girl finally opened up and disclosed what had happened, leading to the arrest of the accused person.

Such is the state of "journalism" in a country which once had one of the highest literacy rates in the Dark Continent. Of course that was in the bad old days of colonialism.

"Incidents" vs "incidence" -- what's the difference?

There is a general election going on (not "ongoing") in Zimbabwe today. Walt, being a former resident, is following the bumbling ["voting", surely! Ed.] closely, checking the tweets and online reports. He has just read the following:

"201 people have voted at Msiteli Secondary School in Bulawayo by midday. There are no major incidences recorded."

Walt is now huffing and puffing around the cabin, nearly apoplectic about the tweeter's misuse of the word "incidence". If it were just one product of the Zimbabwean education system, it wouldn't be so bad, but we are sick, sore and tired of hearing supposedly educated "journalists" in North America and Britain confuse "incidence" -- inevitably pluralized as "incidences", as above -- and "incidents". Let's straighten this out.

An "incident" -- singular -- is an individual occurrence or a happening. Thus, if a cop shoots an unarmed civilian at the corner of Jane and Finch, that's one incident. If another cop shoots another unarmed civilian at the corner of Yonge and Shuter [there really is such an intersection. Ed.], that's another incident. One incident plus one incident makes two incidents.

"Incidence" is the rate or range of occurrence or influence of something, especially of something unwanted, e.g. "the high incidence of heart disease in men over 40".

"Incidence" is a collective noun [like "vacuum cleaner". Ed.], and shouldn't be used in the plural -- incidences -- unless one is speaking of the rates of occurrence of two different things, e.g. "the incidences of both robbery and homicide have increased in integrated neighbourhoods". Even then, it's an awkward construction, best avoided.

Please forward this to all the English and journalism teachers on your mailing list. As if anyone cares, but we pedants can always hope.

For recent j-school graduates, Walt explains English "confusables"

Walt was dismayed -- no, shocked! -- last week last week to see a story in the local Daily Fishwrap headlined "EMS team repels down gorge". Apart from a stern letter to the editor urging him to hire an English-speaking sub-editor, I haven't written anything since.

Do they teach English in journalism schools nowadays, I asked. Do they do any vocabulary-building exercises? Does spelling count? Are any of these things important any more? Or do "journalists" these days rely on their spell-checkers and e-thesauri?

Walt urges journalist wannabes and other aspiring writers to remember that the computer is merely a dumb beast of burden. It does what you tell it, no more and no less. If the spell-checker, let's say, gives you a choice, you still have to know the rules of spelling and grammar to make the correct choice.

So also with vocabulary. You have to know the meanings of words in order to spell them correctly. Is it "know" and "no"? "To" or "too"? Thanks to "text-talk" the trend is now to treat those distinctions as unimportant. If you write "I didn't no that", people will still geddit...right? They won't think you mean "I didn't deny that." Right?

Then there's the matter of contractions. We're talking grammatical contractions here, not the physical kind as in childbirth. But it seems recent graduates of j-school know more about the latter than the former, as we see from the frequent misuse of "there" for "they're" or, even more frequently, "your" for "you're".

As part of our little effort to raise the standards of written English -- or at least prevent them from slipping any further -- Walt will tell you the meanings and proper spellings of these "confusables".

"Your" = possessive, "belonging to you"
"You're" = contraction of "you are"
"Yore" = a long, long time ago, "days of yore"

"Their" = possessive, "belonging to them"
"They're" = contraction of "they are"
"There" = not here, "over there"

People who call themselves writers should know the difference. If you make a mistake writing a comment on one of Walt's posts, Ed. will print it just the way you wrote it, revealing your linguistic ineptitude for all to see.

Jewish lobby to Helen Thomas: GOTCHA!

Helen Thomas has some truly impressive credentials as a journalist and a feminist. Until this past weekend she was dean of the White House press corps. She served for 57 years as a correspondent and, later, White House bureau chief for UPI.

She covered every US president from Eisenhower through Obama, and was particularly noted for her insightful articles on JFK. (She was the one who used to thank him at the end of his press conferences.)

Known as "the sitting Buddha", Ms Thomas was the first female officer of the National Press Club, the first female member and president of the White House Correspondents Association, and, in 1975, the first female member of the Gridiron Club, the oldest and most prestigious journalistic organization in Washington.

All that has ended now. Ms Thomas "resigned" her position on the weekend, thinking it better to jump before she got pushed. Why? Not because of her age. Although she's almost 90, Ms Thomas is sharp as a mouthful of mustard and still capable of turning out good copy.

But she made one mistake. She spoke out against Israel and its recent act of piracy on the high seas. In an interview earlier this month with Rabbi David Nesenoff Ms Thomas said that the Jews of Israel should "get the hell out of Palestine [and] go back home to Poland, Germany, America and everywhere else."

In the world of America media, dominated as it is by Jews, that has to be the worst of all Career-Limiting Moves. To make matters worse, Ms Thomas, in spite of looking a bit like Molly Goldberg in this old file photo, is Lebanese-American.

She's not Muslim, having been raised in the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch. "But," Walt imagines them saying, "hey, she's an Arab and she's an old woman. Let's get her!" And they did.

Moral of the story: If you're intent on a career in journalism in the USA, better not piss off the guys who wear the yarmulkes!