Jon Rappoport, a long-time independent journalist whose website, nomorefakenews.com has been blaringly and brilliantly articulate since early 2001, has now been pre-empted by fake news about fake news, including the hilarity of proven liar and corporatist Hillary Clinton resurrecting as truth-teller about fake news.
As Mike Adams put it:
“Fake news” hysteria hinges on the laughable assumption that corporate-run media has a divine monopoly on “facts”
And this shift in the corporate world’s reputation, Rappoport says, engenders enormous, matrix-shattering, implications.
I think back to my own wonderings, back in the early 1980s. At the time I was married to a newspaper editor, and kept asking him why all the “news” was “bad news.” I was sure that if we looked around, we would see good news everywhere: of people helping each other, of odd, fortunate coincidences, of major breakthroughs in both technology and consciousness, of courage and bravery in the face of great odds. That this is the stuff we should be reporting on, looking for, amplifying.
But, he told me, advertisers wouldn’t like it, because good news doesn’t sell. That scare stories are what draw readers to read newspapers, not woo-woo ones.
That was only one of my wonderings: for example, I scoffed at the so-called irreducibility of “facts,” and started to call them “factoids” (this was way before MSM news used the term), to signify something radioactive, with a short-half life. And I argued with him about the impossibility of being “objective” about anything; that every point of view was inevitably contaminated/rendered meaningful by the “subjectivity” of the person and/or organization who promoted it.
Even so, at the time I was still thinking in terms of “the news” as some kind of single, unified screen put over “reality.” I hadn’t thought more deeply about how every single person’s point of view generates their own news, their own screen. That there are as many “stories” out there as there are people. In fact, that since everybody’s stories are legion, and multiplying, then truly, we are all of us continuously generating an infinity of “stories” which could be “reported” on. And furthermore, that each “story” has what might be called an arbitrary beginning, middle and end. That we make up the meaning we assign to “reality,” or even, that we create reality — channel energy into form — with our stories. Oh I knew this metaphysically, even then, but I hadn’t applied it to the “news,” whether “bad” OR “good.”
Rappoport takes us deeper into the ontological implications of the ongoing dissolution of the formerly smooth, clear screen that marked the mind-controlling tedium of MSM news. And in that vein, let’s review newscaster Howard Beale’s phenomenal rant, in the prescient 1976 film Network:
Meanwhile, if you want more, listen to 20 minutes of Fade to Black (ca minute 33 to 59) where Rappoport gives his view of how the present fracturing and decentralization of “news” got traction. First, he points to then unknown, independent newscaster Matt Drudge, who broke the Monica Lewinsky story in 1998, after Drudge discovered that Newsweek was sitting on it. Then of course, we all know of the phenomenal independent investigative fervor that still surrounds 9/11. And finally, a story which Rappoport himself, as a long-time journalist reporting on skullduggery within the medical world, brought to the world’s attention: the hilarious, over-the-top fake news surrounding so-called “swine flu.”
BTW: I especially gravitate to Rappoport’s way of dissecting — what would you call it, the physics, the chemistry, the magic wand? — of corporate “news.” See for example his terrific column:
He’s right; we might say that the dissolution of mainstream news takes us behind the curtain to discover the Wizard of Oz, just an old man working a few levers. Can the dissolution of reality as we know it be far behind?
Oh yeah, and meanwhile, check out this breaking story from today. TRUMP VS. THE CIA on what’s really real.