|
by Jon Rappoport
January 21,
2017
from
JonRappoport Website
Notes on the
end of the
news business
as we know it.
It's personal.
This article goes to many places. I think you'll find a place that
works for you.
I've been investigating and reporting on deep medical fraud for 29
years. I've been around the block a few hundred times. I've spoken
with scientists who work for the government and universities, and
the media operatives who support them. I know the game.
If Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is, indeed, given the green light by
President Trump to investigate vaccine safety, he's going to need a
truck and a chain and DOJ threats of prosecution to drag key CDC
scientists into the light and elicit specific statements from them.
Even then, the odds are these scientists will keep repeating the
party line:
Kennedy could run up against an organized wall of silence -
scientists refusing to speak with him, on the basis that he isn't
qualified to make judgments in their "field."
In that case, he will need subpoena power, for starters.
Many years ago, I interviewed Jim Warner, a White House policy
analyst in the Reagan administration. He had been trying to obtain
medical-research information from the federal National Institutes of
Health.
He told me he was given
the absolute cold shoulder:
"If ever I've been tempted to believe in
socialism, science has disabused me of that. These guys [at NIH]
assume that it's their show. They just assume it."
Arrogance par excellence. Scientists rebuff the White House with a
yawn.
Fortunately, Kennedy is a relentless investigator. He understands
how science is corrupted and paid for.
And the ace in the deck is
this:
there is already enough evidence in the open record to refute
the CDC's claim of vaccine safety.
Trump has blazed a trail of rejecting major media.
As a result of
his merciless attacks, press outlets are going mad pushing numerous
outlandish fake stories. They're ripe for further incursions on
their territory.
In the past, this was the pattern:
-
an outsider enters the scene and
accuses the government of vast fraud
-
media operators assemble their
usual cast of sordid characters, who dismiss the charges
-
everybody goes
home and the story dies
But that's not working anymore. Media pomposity is exposed as
fakery. Millions of people see through the ruse.
The media emperor is naked. He can prance around and around, but his
fundamental nakedness keeps compounding the joke.
Truth be told, as their financial positions sink into dire red ink,
press operations are trapped.
Why...?
Because they are partners with the high-level criminals whose
activities are the very stories the public wants to know about.
Reporting on these crimes in great depth, day after day, would
resuscitate the newspapers and broadcast networks. But that will
never happen.
For example, these crimes:
And a hundred more
issues...
Expose these down to the core, and people would buy newspapers off
the rack like they buy coffee and beer and video games and cell
phones and gasoline and underwear and toilet paper and lipstick and
fast food.
The Times would
have to schedule extra press runs just to keep up with the demand.
Its financial bottom line would soon look like Christmas.
You could talk to the publisher of the New York Times and
present him with an ironclad plan for pulling his paper out of its
deep financial hole, based on covering true stories like those
above, and you would find no joy, because he would rather go down
with the ship than go up against
The Matrix.
The Times and other hoary media outlets live by the rule of limited
hangout. In intelligence parlance, that means admitting a small
piece of the truth in order to hide the rest.
"We'll show you a
tree in the forest, but not the forest."
I know how it works,
because as a reporter I've been there. I've approached editors of
various media outlets with stories that crack the trance, and I've
had those stories tossed back at me.
"We're just not
interested," they say.
"This isn't our kind
of piece."
Or: "Well, we already
covered that."
But they didn't cover
it...
They did a limited
hangout on it. They ran a story that exposed one tiny corner of a
whole bloody mess.
I say this - as simple fact - if any intelligent, aggressive, truly
independent investigator were the managing editor of the New York
Times, and if he were given free rein, he would have that paper back
in the black in a year.
He would have it roaring
on all cylinders. He would have people fighting each other in the
streets to grab the last copy off the newsstand.
Journalism schools all
over the country would close down in shame. Because he would be
running stories that would crack the whole rotting edifice of
cartel-control along many fronts, and he would be filling up a
planned vacuum of truth with fire.
A decade ago, here is what a working reporter for a major paper told
me:
"We know what stories we can't cover. Nobody needs to prep us.
Our editors know, too. Otherwise, they'd never get to be editors."
A player in a non-profit group once told me I could have a job with
a paper on the east coast.
In a roundabout way, he hinted at what
they were looking for. In five minutes, I saw the handwriting on the
wall. Essentially, the editor was searching for a reporter who would
cover politics in Central America.
The stories would have to
favor the repressive governments in power.
The basic cover was:
these leaders were fighting the good fight against Communism. The
death squads they were sending out, in cooperation with the CIA,
were freedom fighters.
And of course, any
mention of cocaine trafficking as a means for obtaining weapons was
off-limits.
None of this was spelled out. But the message was clear. They wanted
a propaganda specialist. If I, as an up and coming reporter, decided
to play ball, I could advance up the ladder.
Apparently, some travel was necessary. But I knew I could turn out
reams of copy without ever leaving my apartment, because I grasped
the fundamental angle I was supposed to pursue. Needless to say, I
turned down the offer.
It was the first time I fully realized how easy the job of reporting
could be. Assemble a list of reliable sources (who would support the
mandatory point of view), walk right into a prepared group of
corporate and think-tank allies, pull down copy from wire services,
and re-write stories in a way that bolstered the idea that American
Empire was really "spreading democracy" to the less fortunate.
A walk in the park...
Twenty years later, I saw the same overall pattern in hundreds of
major-media stories - but the point of view and the mandate had
changed. Now it was all
about Globalism.
The covert op was the
takedown of America, in order to squash the last vestige of
political freedom and integrate the nation in "a new economic
order."
However, over the mountains, a new dawn was rising: the Internet.
Independent media outlets. The resistance.
It was immediately obvious that, unless someone could shut this new
creature down, major media would have no way to challenge the
invasion. Independent news sources would gradually wreck MSM
financial bottom lines.
Fronting for Globalist princes, Big News would see their bias
exposed time and time again. The blowback on them would be enormous.
Trapped and corned like rats, they would attack, but their efforts
would only compound their problem.
Then a populist named
Donald Trump strolled on to the scene. He knew
major media were suffering great losses. He knew online media were
in the ascendance.
He had people like
Steve Bannon (Breitbart) who were bringing him up to speed. He
saw how
Matt Drudge was obliterating traditional news
sources, even while (selectively) linking to them.
A revolution was in
progress...
Trump had the right stuff for this situation, because he didn't care
about offending people. He was mercurial, reckless; an opportunist.
He could fly by the seat of his pants. He realized where and how, in
America, the Globalists were causing great damage.
Trump accelerated the fall of major media from their thrones.
People around the world, untold millions, thought to themselves,
"Trump is finally
giving major media what they deserve."
Giving the major media
what they deserve is a force to be reckoned with, because there is
no effective response to it. Nothing works.
Who can lead the fight to
preserve mainstream news? Answer: mainstream news.
That isn't going
to go anywhere, because more and more people are rejecting the
mainstream wholesale.
Think of major media as a ship. In full view of the passengers, the
captain has just steered it into a shore of high rocks. The craft is
beginning to tilt, and it's taking on water.
As the passengers
scramble to safety on the beach, the captain is yelling,
"Don't leave, come
back, everything is all right, I didn't do anything wrong, it's
your fault, you're too stupid to understand the correct
principles of navigation!"
Translation:
"I'm committing
suicide. Go down with me."
As a reporter starting
out in the 1980s, one of my first glimpses of trouble involved a few
of the papers I was writing for:
they were definitely
on the political Left, but at the same time they were
businesses. You only had to look at the ads choking the pages to
see that.
They were capitalist
enterprises. But they would never fully admit that. They were
operating under a self-induced, self-serving delusion about
fundamental economics.
Eventually, larger
publishers bought them out, and a few of the old guard made
significant dollars on the deals.
It was an old story about
socialists getting rich.
This contradiction plagues every major media outlet today. They
claim to serve the public interest, but they want to be rich. Their
reporters want very nice salaries. And this is all in the service of
Globalism, which aims to bankrupt economies and drive populations
into the arms of technocrat planners of societies.
It doesn't add up. It
doesn't work.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be rich and working hard to
achieve it. But claiming, at the same time, that you want the
government to run the economy is a sick joke. A transparently sick
joke, on the order of wealthy celebrities stumping for socialism,
while they hire more armed security and dig bunkers on their walled
properties.
Suppose you could approach a well-known and well-paid reporter for
the New York Times.
And suppose you said
this:
"For years, you've
been writing about the less fortunate and giving back and more
government support for the downtrodden and humanitarianism and
so on...
So I want to know,
would you be willing to donate two-thirds of your salary, for
the sake of equality, to those who need the money? Would you be
willing to sell your co-op and give the money to the poor and
move into a small apartment?"
The duplicitous and slimy
major media are obviously engaged in a long con.
They want their
cake, they want to eat it, and they also want to appear as
architects of "a more humane planet."
They care about a more humane order in the same way an ant cares
about space travel.
They care about serving their bosses, and those bosses have other
bosses who are engineering a future of poverty for all, as a
mechanism of control. That's who's paying reporters their salaries.
Do you know what a tired rich media liberal (fake socialist) looks
like? Of course you do.
You can see one every
night anchoring the national news. Over the years, I've spoken with
a few of these types. In every case, I've gotten the impression
they're sitting on a keg of dynamite. They know how precarious their
position is. They're surprised they've lasted as long as they have.
Their spouting of liberal homilies is transparent.
Where did they go wrong?
Answer: the first day they accepted their first job as a reporter.
That's when they sold out. They knew it then, and under cheesy
layers of vast pretensions, they still know it now. But they can't
turn around. They've made a commitment.
They tell themselves:
"It's business. It's
not personal. This is the business I'm in."
But of course, it is
personal. Everything is personal. We're talking about lives and
minds and souls.
That's what these reporters traded, in the perverse corner of the
marketplace. They chose the rackets, the information mafia, the law
of omerta, the dishonorable underground that lives in the highest
penthouses.
Whatever gloss they lay on, the trap they're in stays in place. And
now, they're sinking and sinking.
I could try to work up pity for them, buy why bother?
Damage is damage, and they've done a great deal of it. A full
confession would make a start, but that's not going to happen.
They're in a race with themselves. How long can they keep erecting
delusions about their work, vs. their growing realization about
those delusions?
It's inescapably personal. It always was.
The night is falling on them, and the rain is coming down, too.
Their mandate is to be on the Inside, but they're on the Outside
now. They're the walking dead. They'll keep walking, but things will
never be the same.
As a long addendum, here is a backgrounder, an article I wrote
headlined, "Howard
Beale, the last sane man on television":
The best film ever
made about television's war on the population is Paddy
Chayefsky's scorching masterpiece,
Network (1976). Yet it stages
only a few minutes of on-air television.
The rest of the film is dialogue and monologue about television.
Thus you could say that, in this case, word defeats image.
Even when showing what happens on the TV screen, Network bursts
forth with lines like these, from newsman Howard Beale, at the
end of his rope, on-camera, speaking to his in-studio audience
and millions of people in their homes:
"So, you listen
to me. Listen to me! Television is not the truth.
Television's a god-damned amusement park.
Television is a
circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats,
storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, sideshow freaks,
lion tamers, and football players.
We're in the
boredom-killing business… We deal in illusions, man. None of
it is true! But you people sit there day after day, night
after night, all ages, colors, creeds. We're all you know.
You're beginning
to believe the illusions we're spinning here. You're
beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your
own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you.
You dress like
the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children
like the tube. You even think like the tube. This is mass
madness. You maniacs.
In God's name,
you people are the real thing. We are the illusion."
Beale, coming apart
at the seams, is a mad prophet.
And because he shines
with brilliance and poetry, he can affect minds. Therefore, the
television network can make use of him. It can turn him into a
cartoon for the masses.
It is Beale's language and the passion with which he delivers it
that constitutes his dangerous weapon. Therefore, the Network
transforms him into a cheap religious figure, whose audience
slathers him with absurd adoration.
Television's enemy is the word. Its currency is image.
Beale breaks through the image and defiles it. He cracks the
egg. He stops the picture-flow. He brings back the sound and
rhythm of spoken poetry. That is his true transgression against
the medium that employs him.
The modern matrix has everything to do with how knowledge is
acquired.
Television, in the main, does not attempt to impart knowledge.
It strives to give the viewer the impression that he knows
something. There is a difference.
Knowledge, once established, is external to, and independent of,
the viewer. Whereas the impression of knowing is a feeling, a
conviction, a belief the viewer holds, after he has watched
moving images on a screen.
Images… plus, of course, in the case of the news, the narrative
voice.
A basic premise of New Age thinking is:
"everything is
(connected to) everything."
This fits quite well
with the experience of watching film or video flow.
Example:
We see angry
crowds on the street of a foreign city. Then young people on
their cell phones sitting in an outdoor café.
Then the marble
lobby of a government building where men in suits are
walking, standing in groups talking to each other. Then at
night, rockets exploding in the sky.
Then armored
vehicles moving through a gate into the city. Then clouds of
smoke on another street and people running, chased by
police.
A flow of consecutive
images...
The sequence,
obviously, has been assembled by a news editor, but most of the
viewing audience isn't aware of that. They're watching the
"interconnected" images and listening to a news anchor tell a
story that colors (infects) every image.
Viewers thus believe they know something. Television has
imparted that sensation to them. That's what news is all about:
delivering a sensation of knowing to the audience.
There is no convenient place where the ordinary viewing audience
can stop the flow of images or the story being told. They are
inside it. They don't have the leverage of a crystallized idea
or the power of reasoning to get out.
They are inside the story. Knowledge thus becomes story.
The viewer is transfixed by the sensation that he is "inside"
watching/experiencing story. This fixation produces a short
circuit in his reasoning mind (if he has one). No time to stop,
no time to think; just watch the flow.
When you take this pattern out to a whole society, you are
talking about a dominant method through which "knowledge" is
gained.
"Did you see that
fantastic video about the Iraq War? It showed that Saddam
actually had bioweapons."
"Really? How did they show that?"
"Well, I don't exactly remember. But watch it. You'll see."
And that's another
feature of the modern acquisition of knowledge: amnesia about
details.
The viewer can't recall key features of what he saw. Or if he
can, he can't describe them, because he was in the flow. He was
inside, busy building up his impression of knowing something.
Narrative-visual-television story strips out and discards
conceptual references. And lines of reasoning? To the extent
they exist, they're wrapped around and inside the image-flow and
the narration.
Ideas aren't as interesting as images. That's the premise.
To grasp the diminishment of language, consider the current use
of the word "text." Suddenly it's become a verb; it means a
process of sending words. It also refers to paragraphs or pages
of writing, as opposed to pictures.
"Text" makes
"writing" seem like nothing more than one functional (and
machine-like) method of delivering information.
And since bone-dry information (e.g., "genetic sequences") these
days is practically considered a synonym for life, when a writer
infuses his words with passion, they automatically become a
"rant."
"Rant" was formerly
applied to describe what a person did when he was totally
unhinged to the point of making no coherent sense.
Image, not the word, is the now preferred means of acquiring
what passes for knowledge.
Retired propaganda master, Ellis Medavoy (pseudonym), once told
me in an interview:
"If you wanted to
try a real revolution, you would produce thousands of videos
consisting of written words on screens, with someone
speaking those words.
You would try to
reinstate language as a medium. Poetry, formal arguments and
debates, great speeches, dramatic readings.
You would go up
against image and try to relegate it to its proper place…"
In the American
colonies of the 18th century, several hundred
thousand copies of Tom Paine's pamphlet, Common Sense, were
distributed among a total population of only 2.5 million people,
and the earth shook.
When a technology (television) turns into a method of
perception, reality is turned inside out. People watch TV
through TV eyes.
Mind control is no longer something merely imposed from the
outside. It is a matrix of a self-feeding, self-demanding loop.
Willing devotees of the image want images, food stamps of the
programmed society.
But now, something is happening. Something different.
It is to be fervently wished that the revolution against major
media will also result in a revolution against knowledge as
nothing more than image.
|
