Analyzing mainstream news anti-logic

Analyzing mainstream news anti-logic

by Jon Rappoport

January 17, 2017

Thousands of articles have been written about the so-called Russian hack of the US election. The term “Russian hack” suggests the Russkies actually found a way to subvert the results of voting machines.

But of course, no convincing evidence has been presented to support such a charge. In fact, when you drill down a few inches below the surface, you find this charge instead: Russia hacked into email accounts and scooped up Hillary, DNC, and Podesta emails, and passed them to WikiLeaks, who then published them.

No chain of evidence supporting this claim has been presented to the public, either. But even assuming the assertion is true, an important factor is intentionally being ignored: THE CONTENT OF THOSE LEAKED EMAILS.

In other words, if making all this content publicly available cost Hillary the election, and if no one is seriously questioning the authenticity of the emails, then THE TRUTH undermined Hillary. However, no major media outlet is reporting the story from that angle.


Those headlines would attract millions of clicks. Why weren’t they printed? It’s reasonable to assume big news outlets didn’t want readers to think about the story from that perspective.

Why not? Why was the heavy emphasis put on the hacking of the emails? To obscure the importance of their content: for example, DNC collusion to obstruct and undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders.

“Let’s make the story all about WHO we claim stole the emails, rather than WHAT THE EMAILS CONTAINED.”

When a tape surfaced in which Trump spoke about women who were eager to have sex with famous men, did major media make the story all about who had the tape and who released it to the press? No.

Perhaps you remember this 2009 email-hack controversy. Wikipedia sums it up: “The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as “Climategate”) began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker, copying thousands of emails and computer files, the Climatic Research Unit documents, to various internet locations several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change.”

One of the most revealing elements in the email exchanges: an obvious attempt to sideline scientific critics of global warming. But major media quickly began to reframe the story. It was all about illegal hacking, and investigations were launched to determine the criminal. The contents of the emails were brushed off as “proprietary work product” and “misleading” because “context was missing.”

The case of Edward Snowden was somewhat different. There the media felt compelled to expose the CONTENT of the NSA documents Snowden stole. They also gave considerable space to Snowden himself. To some degree, this was a fait accompli, because The Guardian newspaper was committed, from the beginning, to publishing NSA documents and an analysis of their meaning—so other media outlets followed suit.

Getting the picture?

Big news media decide whether to focus on the WHO or the WHAT, in each case. “Should we give primary coverage to the leaker or what he leaked?”

But that is not a choice you are making. It’s a choice being made for you.

Government agencies and spokespeople leak news to the press all the time. In these instances, the press doesn’t turn around and launch a probe aimed at exposing the WHO and discovering WHY a particular tidbit was passed along for publication. Newspapers and television news departments simply run with the stories.

“Okay, Bob. Here’s a little gem for you. The White House and the Congress are cooperating on this one. In the next few days, a piece of legislation is going to be inserted into a current bill in the House. It’ll establish a working group to combat ‘fake news’ operations that confuse the public…”

Does Bob bite the hand that feeds him? Does he write a story accusing the White House of trying to knock out independent news competitors who contradict official reality? Of course not. Bob plays along.

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Sometimes, both the WHO and the WHAT are censored. Such was the case with CDC whistleblower, William Thompson, who confessed publicly, in August of 2014, that he and colleagues at the CDC committed fraud in a 2004 study of the MMR vaccine and its possible connection to autism. Thompson admitted the study was cooked, to make it seem the vaccine didn’t increase the risk of autism, when in fact it did. The mainstream press put a chokehold on the story. Aside from scattered references, and official denials, the story faded quickly. The leaker and what he was leaking remained in the shadows. Independent news outlets (such as this one) kept the story percolating.

In summary, there is no logic in the mainstream approach to leaks and leakers. These days, the WHO and WHAT are decided on the basis of serving official interests and agendas—and repressing the public interest.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

14 comments on “Analyzing mainstream news anti-logic

  1. Greg C. says:

    The “who” of the story is part of the bigger question of legitimate and illegitimate info. If the story is born illegitimately, without benefit of the marriage of both parents – that is, if the subject and the reporter are not in agreement about if the story should be told – then it is automatically disqualified. Imagine if Watergate were handled this way. Nixon could have said that his White House was “hacked” by Woodward and Bernstein. They did not get their information through approved channels!

  2. elliottjab says:

    Saw the anti-logic immediately on reading first reports of all the non-sense being splashed like latrine detritus over everything – everyone.

    This country is on a very slippery slope indeed and is tilted so far toward self-destruction – can it ever be righted at this point?

  3. John Grieco says:

    Another narrative the mainstream media are ignoring is Kris Kobach’s Interstate Crosscheck program which purged millions of unsuspecting minority and ethnic voters off the voting roles. The GOP Governors from over 20 states have shared this list of millions of names and are accusing them of voter fraud without any investigation or criminal charges, just plain old purge.

    First and last names match, but middle names could be completely different for two people living in different states. There’s no verification of Social Security numbers or any other form of identification. This is a crime against one’s constitutional rights, and when they show up to vote, they are not on the list and are told to use a provisional ballot, which almost never gets counted.

    In Michigan Trump won by only 10,000 votes and during Jill Stein’s recount it was determined over 75,000 voters were purged due to Interstate Crosscheck. The same could have easily happened in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The entire election could have gone blue, but instead, we have a Republican-controlled House, Senate, and White House.

    The entire future of the country and the world were manipulated by this illegal and most certainly immoral program and nobody is talking about it.

    • Greg C. says:

      Yawn. More anti-Trump sour grape allegations without any evidence. “Would have”, “could have”. Illegal? Immoral? By what standard? Is this the standard where you have to accept all votes without verification? Who is to say that anyone was wrongfully denied a vote? You were right to call this a narrative – that’s all it is.

    • dmacko says:

      I am sure that if Hillary and the Democrats could have provided any evidence that there were enough people who were denied the vote to cause her to win, she and her presstitute media would certainly have provided it by now. Did any of these purged voters challenge the action, prove they were eligible and try to vote? If not, why not?

  4. From Quebec says:

    How about the proven fake birth certificate of Obozo

    FULL video proof that Obama’s birth certificate was fake. Document comparison, analysis

    • messianicdruid says:

      One is not required to be an American Citizen to be the CEO of a corporation. The US Government is a corporation. They only pretend to obey the Constitution to keep We The People from _____________________ .

  5. From Quebec says:

    The mainstream media is refusing to cover news regarding the radical group Disrupt J20’s plan to commit violence and acts of domestic terrorism at both the inauguration and Deploraball, says Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe.


  6. Way beyond time that the public interest is put first.
    Thanks, Jon, for another excellent blog.

  7. Larry says:

    And yet another angle, this from brilliant mathematician/physicist James Mccanney (

    “My Paid Cast for january 19th is a MUST LISTEN as major forces are trying to disrupt the inauguration … i show by 3 mathematical methods that HRC could not have gotten more than 45 Million Votes giving a Trump victory in the popular vote of 82 million Trump to 45 million HRC … ”

    Also, after learning that DNC computers HAD NO FIREWALLS, the FBI requested access to protect them from hackers … and were flatly denied.

    The rest is HERstory as was so *accurately* reported in the Lamestream Snooze.

    And speaking of Hilly, she tipped over again while leaving a nice NYC restaurant the other evening, in the company of hubby Bill, Mary Steenburgen and Ted Danson. I believe the incident was witnessed by several “Deplorables” waiting for a taxi.


  8. shsummers says:

    It’s nice to know that if someone were to hack into your phone and were to publish evidence that you were having an extramarital affair, all you would have to say to your spouse is, “but dear…I’m the victim of a cyber crime!”, and all would be forgiven / forgotten. Good to know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.