Subject: Why I DO NOT watch
network news
To:
To:
naturalnews.com printable article
Originally
published May 4 2013
Every
television newscast is a conspiracy
by
Jon Rappoport
(NaturalNews)
Focus on the network evening news. This is where the staging is done well.
First,
we have the image itself, the colors in foreground and background, the blend of
restful and charged hues. The anchor and his/her smooth style.
Then
we have the shifting of venue from the studio to reporters in the field,
demonstrating the reach of coverage: the planet. As if this equals
authenticity.
The
managing editor, usually the elite anchor, chooses the stories to cover and
their sequence.
The
anchor goes on the air: "Our top story tonight, more signs of gridlock
today on Capitol Hill, as legislators walked out of a session on federal budget
negotiations..."
The
viewer fills in the context for the story: "Oh yes, the government. We
want the government to get something done, but they're not. We want to
government to avoid a shutdown. These people are always arguing with each
other. They don't agree. They're in conflict. Yes, conflict, just like on the
cop shows."
The
anchor: "The Chinese government reports the new flu epidemic has spread to
three provinces. Forty-two people have already died, and nearly a thousand are
hospitalized..."
The
viewer again supplies context, such as it is: "Flu. Dangerous. Epidemic.
Could it arrive here? Get my flu shot. Do the Chinese doctors know what they're
doing? Crowded cities. Maybe more cases all of a sudden. Ten thousand, a
hundred thousand."
The
anchor: "A new university study states that gun owners often stock up on
weapons and ammunition, and this trend has jumped quickly since the Newtown, Connecticut,
school-shooting tragedy..."
The
viewer: "People with guns. Why do they need a dozen weapons? People in
small towns. I don't need a gun. The police have guns. Could I kill somebody if
he broke into the house?"
The
anchor: "Doctors at Yale University have made a discovery that could lead
to new treatments in the battle against Autism..."
Viewer:
"That would be good. More research. Laboratory. Germs. The brain."
If,
at the end of the newscast, the viewer bothered to review the stories and his
own reactions to them, he would realize he'd learned almost nothing. But
reflection is not the game.
In
fact, the flow of the news stories has washed
over him and created very little except a sense of continuity.
It
would never occur to him to wonder: are the suestions the typical viewer never considers.
government have the Constitutional right to
incur this much debt? Where is all that money coming from? Taxes? Other
sources? Who invents money?
Is
the flu dangerous for most people? If not, why not? Do governments overstate
case numbers? How do they actually test patients for the flu? Are the tests
accurate? Are they just trying to convince us to get vaccines?
What
happens when the government has overwhelming force and citizens have no guns?
When
the researchers keep saying "may" and "could," does that
mean they've actually discovered something useful about Autism, or are they
just hyping their own work and trying to get funding for their next project?
These
are only a few of the many questions the typical viewer never considers.
Therefore,
every story on the news broadcast achieves the goal of keeping the context
small and narrow---night after night, year after year. The overall effect of
this, yes, staging, is small viewer, small viewer's mind, small viewer's
understanding.
Billions
of dollars are spent by the networks to build a reality the size of a room in a
cheap motel.
Next
we come to words over pictures. More and more, news broadcasts are using the
rudimentary film technique of a voice narrating what the viewer is seeing on
the screen.
People
are shouting and running and falling in a street. The anchor or a field
reporter says: "The country is in turmoil. Parliament has suspended
sessions for the third day in a row, as the government decides what to do about
uprisings aimed at forcing democratic elections..."
Well,
the voice must be right, because we're seeing the pictures. If the voice said
the riots were due to garbage-pickup cancellations, the viewer would believe
that, too.
How
about this: two-day-old footage of runners approaching the finish line of the
Boston Marathon. A puff of smoke rises at the right of the screen. A runner
falls down in the street. The anchor is saying: "The FBI has announced a
bomb made in a pressure cooker caused the injuries and deaths."
Must
be so. We saw the pictures and heard the voice explain.
We
see Building #7 of the WTC collapse. Must have been the result of a fire. The
anchor tells us so. Words over pictures.
We
see footage of Lee Harvey Oswald inside the Dallas police station. The anchor
tells he's about to be transferred, under heavy guard, to another location.
Oswald must be guilty, because we're seeing him in a police station, and the
anchor just said "under heavy guard."
Staged
news.
It
works.
Why?
Because
it mirrors what the human mind, in an infantile state, is always doing: looking
at the world and seeking a brief summary to explain what the world is, at any
given moment.
Since
the dawn of time, untold billions of people have been urging a "television anchor" to "explain the
pictures."
The
news gives them that precise thing, that precise solution, every night.
"Well,
Mr. Jones," the doctor says, as he pins X-rays to a screen in his office.
"See this? Right here? We'll need to start chemo immediately, and then we
may have to remove most of your brain, and as a followup, take out one
eye."
Sure,
why not? The patient saw the pictures and the anchor explained them.
After
watching and listening to the last year of news, the population is ready to see
the president or one of his minions step up to a microphone and say,
"Quantitative easing...sequester..."
Reaction?
"Don't know what it is, but it must be okay."
Eventually,
people get the idea and do it for themselves.
They see things, they invent one-liners to explain them. They're their own
anchors. They short-cut and undermine their own experience with vapid summaries
of what it all means.
"Here
are the photos. Just look at these photos. Don't look at any other photos.
These are the killers. Here's what it means: we're going to send in SWAT teams
and rout you out of your homes at gunpoint, we'll search your homes, no
warrants, and you're going to comply, and when it's over and we've caught them,
you'll cheer."
"Sure.
Okay. We will."
About
the author:
The
author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon
was
a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of
California.
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 emails at www.nomorefakenews.com
About
the author:
The
author of an explosive new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon
was
a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of
California.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment