Leaks, fake news, and hidden agendas

Leaks, fake news, hidden agendas

Analyzing mainstream news anti-logic

by Jon Rappoport

May 4, 2018

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.

After all, how would this headline look? TRUE CONTENT OF LEAKED EMAILS SINKS HILLARY CLINTON. Or this? HILLARY COULDN’T REFUTE CONTENT OF LEAKED EMAILS AND SO SHE LOST THE ELECTION.

Those headlines would attract millions of clicks. Why weren’t they printed? 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.

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

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, by covering up the vaccine’s connection to autism. Thompson admitted the study was cooked. 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.

You can find examples of government actors spying on Trump—in these instances, the press decides to focus on the WHAT, the content gained from spying; and downplays the WHO, the people who green-lighted the surveillance.

There is no logic in the mainstream approach to leaks and leakers. The WHO and WHAT are decided on the basis of serving official interests and agendas—and repressing the public interest.

The NSA, with its gargantuan reach into the lives of the population (including government officials), has enough content to keep the press busy for the next 50 years reporting leaks; but the NSA decides when, and for what reasons, to hold back what it knows. Or to leak bits and pieces through cut-outs.

A seasoned reporter, who obtains a leak from a trusted source, doesn’t ask pressing questions about exactly who the source is fronting for.

The leaks-game is played over and over, and the rules of the game are shifted, depending on unrevealed agendas. Who do we want to expose this time? Who do we want to come out looking like a winner? Who are our friends at the CIA supporting?

Editors are there to keep reporters in line and correct oversights. Not in so many words, an editor would let a reporter know: “You picked the wrong source this time, Bob. Your guy is telling a story we don’t want to promote. Find a different source with a better take, in line with our agenda to attack (fill in a name).”

That’s what the editor means. But he might simply say: “Bob, that source of yours…I don’t trust him anymore. I’ve been hearing odd things about him. Don’t use him for this piece.” The reporter gets the message.

This technique of casual ad hominem criticism and rumor even extends to the realm of science. In 1987, a prestigious molecular biologist, Peter Duesberg, “leaked” what many virologists privately knew: the evidence for HIV as the cause of AIDS was full of gaping holes. Duesberg published a paper in the journal, Cancer Research, exposing the con.

Overnight, a whisper-campaign against Duesberg spread through the research community. “We always knew Duesberg was an odd duck. He likes publicity. He hates authority. He runs his mouth off. He doesn’t care about evidence. He’ll take a contrary position just to stand out.”

The game of leaks, sources, and fake news takes many shapes.

Welcome to mainstream news.


The Matrix Revealed

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


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.

11 comments on “Leaks, fake news, and hidden agendas

  1. Eliza Ayres says:

    Reblogged this on Blue Dragon Journal and commented:
    Lamestream news…let’s not report the REAL news, just gossip, propaganda, and lies…

  2. Ron Hollis says:

    Not only the Who? or What?, but also the Why? and the What for?

  3. John says:

    Selective reporting, selective outrage, selective justice. All part of the illusionary world of the globalist puppeteers and their useful idiots within the leftist media The people without an ounce of integrity or virtue doing the virtue signaling. It is an inverted reality, a world upside down spinning and making anybody who dares to think for themself very dizzy.

    Society is now crumbling as the media tries to take down a duly elected president through a massive and unrelenting propaganda campaign. All this madness in motion while completely ignoring the blatant facts and evidence regarding the weaponization of multiple US intelligence agencies which were used for political gain against Trump, his campaign and all of us.

    We should all be outraged and demand justice for those who betrayed our trust. The whole Obama/Clinton gang along with their sychophants within the highest levels of government agencies and the ” mainstream” media are taking many of us for fools. The ignorant drones who have bought into the totalitarian police state technocracy and who embrace this “in your face” tyranny are rooting for their own country’s destruction.

    How many lives need to be destroyed in order to protect the legacy of a totally corrupt Obama presidency and how much more destruction to our nation must we go through in order to keep the deep state swamp afloat? When is enough enough?

    The IG report, it was coming in January, coming in Apri, now coming in weeks? How many documents are being doctored as we speak? How many times can Rod Rosenstein stall the release of this documentation which Congress has been demanding to see for a year now?

    Will we have to wait for snopes to fact check it for all of us? What a total joke and charade this society has become. Many fools with corrupt souls buying into leftist utopian false promises are bankrupting this nation of any of its worth. God what we have become. The enemies of free men occupy so many facets of our society now. God how could we have ignored this for so long?

    “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”-Marcus_Tullius_Cicero-

  4. Kevin Japanangka says:

    Ham’s Curse rules ALL the news, from anywhere, at any time. ALL the news is merely gossip!

    • From Quebec says:

      At one time, the MSM had no competition. But now, with the Internet and numerous alternative media, they have competition and they do not like it.

      So, now they are trying to shut down sites like Infowars and others. But, we will win this war and the corruption will be expose world wide.

  5. Larry says:

    And then there’s the matter of how Russia’s nuclear energy arm (via Russian company Uranium One) gained control of 20% of U.S. uranium on our soil during the Obama administration.

    Uranium is a strategic mineral, used to build nuclear bombs. If a guy were feeling a bit reckless, he might describe this debacle as COLLUSION with the Russians.

    I couldn’t care less if the Russkies drop Facebook on our lap(tops).

    Nukes are another matter.

  6. Abe says:

    What if Trump would appoint “Stormy Daniels” to Special White House “Drug Industry Liaison???

  7. Theodore says:

    Someone Call Sally Yates and the Special Counsel Because We Have a Logan Act Violation…

    https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/05/04/someone-call-sally-yates-special-counsel-logan-act-violation/

    ^ Funny article about John Francois Kerry, the ketchup gigolo.

  8. Detail aside, I agree with you here wholeheartedly Jon.

    I said as much in this article:

    https://ozziethinker.wordpress.com/2018/02/25/prophecy-prediction-and-consensus-view-preconditioning-for-spirited-souls/

    “…Newspapers so regularly jump the gun on judgemental statement, people have become obliviously desensitised to their deceitful practices. When hundreds and hundreds of unrelated headlines deliver the same basic corrupt message over and over (Hitler’s Mein Kampf comes to the surface again), a cultivation of truth-of-sorts is brought into being. Deceitful corruption transforms into truth because no one challenges the singular original message (which is established through its repetition). This is partly because newspapers (all referring to near identical sources) create the illusion – the public voice. Thousands of newspapers can’t “all” be wrong, surely? As there is invariably a solitary fire source for each aggressively billowing smoke stack, “thousands” of reports in different newspapers in reality boil down to one voice, one view, one replicated propaganda pitch….”

    Best
    OT

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

w

Connecting to %s