Americans have fewer TVs on average than they did in 2009

And the number of households with no TVs at all grew.


Source: Arstechnica.com
Megan Geuss
February 28, 2017

Americans went from having an average of 2.6 TVs per household in 2009 to having 2.3 TVs in 2015, according to survey data from the US Energy Information Agency (EIA).

The data comes from the agency’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), which has been conducted periodically since the 1970s to understand American energy use. The 2015 survey included 5,600 respondents who were contacted in person and then given an option to follow up by mail or online. A fine-detail report on the survey results is due to be released in April 2017.

The latest data shows that in 2015, 2.6 percent of households had no TV at all, a jump from the previous four surveys in 2009, 2005, 2001, and 1997 in which a steady 1.2 to 1.3 percent of households didn’t own a TV. The 2015 data also showed that the number of people with three TVs or more dropped in 2015. That year, 39 percent of households had more than three TVs, whereas 44 percent had more than three TVs in 2009.

Interestingly, the number of households with one or two TVs increased in 2015 to 58 percent, from 54 percent in 2009.

The EIA doesn’t go into what has caused this shift, but it does note that “younger households tend to have a lower concentration of televisions per person and a higher concentration of portable devices such as laptops and smartphones. Older households are more likely to have higher concentrations of desktop computers.” (Anecdotally, the Ars staff seems to agree that having one or two really nice TVs for family viewing as well as auxiliary devices for streamed media is preferable to having several just-okay TVs.)

The government surveys TV use because it’s a component of a household’s overall energy consumption. According to the EIA, about 6 percent of all electricity consumption in US homes comes from TVs, cable boxes, DVRs, video game consoles, and other peripheral equipment.

As TVs get bigger and higher in resolution, they can demand a lot more electricity, too. Last September, the Natural Resources Defense Council hired a third-party research firm to study TV energy use and found that several TV manufacturers were building their TVs to narrowly pass federal energy use tests, while consuming much more electricity if any of the TVs’ baseline settings were changed.

Read More at: ArsTechnica.com

Harvard-Harris Poll: Majority says mainstream media publishes fake news

TruthFact
Source: TheHill.com
Jonathan Easley
May 24, 2017

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the mainstream press is full of fake news, a sentiment that is held by a majority of voters across the ideological spectrum.

According to data from the latest Harvard-Harris poll, which was provided exclusively to The Hill, 65 percent of voters believe there is a lot of fake news in the mainstream media.

That number includes 80 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of independents and 53 percent of Democrats. Eighty-four percent of voters said it is hard to know what news to believe online.

“Much of the media is now just another part of the partisan divide in the country with Republicans not trusting the ‘mainstream’ media and Democrats seeing them as reflecting their beliefs,” said Harvard-Harris co-director Mark Penn. “Every major institution from the presidency to the courts is now seen as operating in a partisan fashion in one direction or the other.”

President Trump has railed against the “fake news” media, casting the press as the “opposition party” and opening the White House to once-fringe outlets, to the frustration of the mainstream press.

The president’s critics have accused him of using the “fake news” moniker for any story that casts him in a negative light.

Many conservatives believe the media has dramatically loosened its reporting standards when it comes to Trump, taking an anything-goes approach and running with anonymously sourced material that it would never print about a more traditional Republican or Democratic administration.

A cottage industry of conservative media critics has sprung up online to draw attention to the salacious details about Trump that spread across social media or are aggregated countless times before they’re revealed to be mischaracterized or untrue.

The net affect is that Trump’s image, and public trust in the media, are at all-time lows.

Trump’s job approval rating is at 45 percent approval and 55 percent disapproval in the latest Harvard-Harris survey. Gallup’s annual survey on public trust in the media — conducted before the election — found that only 32 percent trusted the press.

However, the Harvard-Harris survey found that 60 percent of all voters believe Trump is treating the press unfairly. Only 48 percent said the media is treating Trump unfairly.

“Voters show concern about direct attacks on the media by the president even when they have questions about it,” Penn said.

The Trump administration has been dogged by an unprecedented string of government leaks in recent weeks that have played out in the major newspapers, including media stories about the president asking fired FBI Director James Comey to pull back from an investigation and another about how he revealed classified information about a terrorist plot to Russian diplomats during an Oval Office meeting.

At hearings on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, former CIA director John Brennan and director of national intelligence Dan Coats expressed deep concerns with the leaks, which were printed in the New York Times and Washington Post, respectively.

Seventy-four percent of voters say the leaks are a serious matter that should be investigated, including 84 percent of Democrats.

However, 62 percent say that journalistic organizations that publish information — even if it is received illegally, through hacking — should be protected by law.

“It is very clear in the poll that overwhelming majorities of the country take leaks and potential political unmasking of members of the Trump campaign in wiretapped conversations merit full and even independent investigation,” Penn said.

The Harvard-Harris online survey of 2,006 registered voters was conducted between May 17 and May 20. The partisan breakdown is 36 percent Democrat, 32 percent Republican, 29 percent independent and 3 percent other. The poll uses a methodology that doesn’t produce a traditional margin of error.

The Harvard–Harris Poll is a collaboration of the Harvard Center for American Political Studies and The Harris Poll. The Hill will be working with Harvard-Harris throughout 2017. Full poll results will be posted online later this week.

Read More At: TheHill.com

Netflix bans “The Red Pill” movie because it contains too much TRUTH

Image: Netflix bans “The Red Pill” movie because it contains too much TRUTH
Source: NaturalNews.com
Tracey Watson
May 18, 2017

Let me start out by saying that I have no political agenda. Like most of you, I’m just a regular, straight-down-the-middle person living my life. That said, I am open-minded and believe that getting different perspectives and listening to many viewpoints is important in shaping my own views. The world would be a bleak place, indeed, if we were all forced to accept only one side of any given equation. And yet, that is what we are increasingly being bullied into doing, as evidenced recently by the totally over-the-top reaction by many to filmmaker Cassie Jaye’s documentary The Red Pill.

In the movie, Jaye, an investigative journalist and self-proclaimed feminist, decided to go down the rabbit hole of the Men’s Rights Activism (MRA) movement, described by Urban Dictionary as “an organization of men and their women allies who draw attention to the ways in which misandry (anti-male attitudes and actions) and gynocentrism (women-privileging) harm men.”

The film sets out to examine what MRAs really stand for, what they believe they’re fighting for, and what their attitudes really are towards women.

In spite of the movie’s huge commercial success, Netflix has refused to air it. In theaters in Canada, Australia and the U.S., feminists have come out en masse to protest viewings, and independent theaters have been under huge pressure not to show it. [Related: Discover what else they don’t want you to see at Censored.news.]

CBC News recently reported that theater patrons and sponsors in Canada have threatened to stop doing business with theaters that dare to go ahead with scheduled screenings.

Gavin McInnes of Rebel Media calls this type of pressure “economic terrorism,” and makes the interesting point that many of the people who protested so vehemently against the film have never even seen it.

McInnes argues that many recent documentaries have been very biased toward one particular viewpoint, and some like An Inconvenient Truth, have been scientifically flawed and totally one-sided, yet have been accepted as fact and allowed to mold the thinking of many.

On the other hand, with The Red Pill, Cassie Jaye does “what true journalists should do,” she insists. “You set out with no agenda and you don’t end up where you thought you would.”

And judging by the content of the trailer, that is just what Jaye does. While providing the perspective of the MRAs, and highlighting some of their most pressing issues, she also speaks to prominent feminist activists and journalists to get their take on those issues.

The interviews Jaye conducts for the documentary highlight issues like men having virtually no rights when it comes to custody disputes, and the fact that if a woman should decide to abort her baby, her spouse or partner would have no say in the matter. The documentary also highlights the fact that 93 percent of workplace fatalities affect men, and that 4 out of 5 suicides are men. [Related: Men have to pay more at the pharmacy now as a “gender inequality tax”.]

As one of the interviewees notes, men are suffering, but, “Society doesn’t want to hear their pain. We value female life more than we value male life.”

Dr. Warren Farrell refers to a “big hole in the area of compassion for boys and men,” and Paul Elam, president and founder of A Voice for Men, notes that the anti-men message is a subtle subtext in statements like “stop violence against women,” rather than simply, “stop all violence.”

In her video diary, Jaye looks really confused and says she’s unsure if the MRAs are simply “duping” her to convince her of their out-there theory that “men are discriminated against, and women have the advantage.”

The trailer also shows her listening to many feminist voices, including that of Katherine Spillar, executive director of the Feminist Majority Foundation, who insists that it is indisputable that women are still oppressed physically, financially and economically, and that in the political and business halls of power, men are advantaged over women.

All in all, the trailer certainly depicts a balanced, thought-provoking documentary that shows both sides of the issue. It’s hard to understand what all the furor is about. But then, perhaps Harry Crouch, president of the National Coalition for Men summed it up best when he said, “We just don’t seem to respect each other for who we are.”

Watch the documentary, and decide for yourself.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Mainstream media conspiring with Google to rig all search results and silence dissenting views… Google becomes “Fake Search”

Image: Mainstream media conspiring with Google to rig all search results and silence dissenting views… Google becomes “fake search”
Source: NaturalNews.com
Jason Veley
March 18, 2017

What does Google have in common with traditionally liberal news networks like MSNBC, ABC and CNN? On the surface, nothing much at all – the former is an Internet search engine and the latter are a couple of national broadcasting corporations with political hosts and commentators. If you dig a little deeper, however, it becomes clear that both the search engine and the liberal news networks have something in common after all, and it has to do with a vicious assault on the freedom of speech.

Last month, it was revealed that Google was going to begin tagging articles that come up in search results as either true or false. The effort, as the company explains, is meant to curtail the amount of inaccurate information, or “fake news,” being spread around the Internet. “With thousands of new articles published online every minute of every day, the amount of content confronting people online can be overwhelming,” Cong Yu of Google and Justin Kosslyn from fact-check partner Jigsaw said in a joint statement. “And unfortunately, not all of it is factual or true, making it hard for people to distinguish fact from fiction.” (RELATED: Google rewrites algorithm to manually crush independent media because mainstream media’s lies can’t compete with the truth on a level playing field.)

The Internet search engine’s fight against fake news was first confirmed in a BBC News interview with Google’s chief executive, Sundar Pichai, just days after the presidential election. “There have been a couple of incidences where… we didn’t get it right,” Pichai explained, referring to the spread of fake news across the search engine platform. “It is a learning moment for us and we will definitely work to fix it.”

Like adding fuel to a raging fire, the mainstream media indirectly assists Google in the quest to purge fake news from the Internet by constantly talking about it. If you think about it, the term “fake news” was really first introduced by the media and certain cable news networks during the presidential election. Even today, they continue to urge all of us to be wary of fake news, and insist that something must be done to curtail it. In this way, the media and Google work together as a machine, of sorts, with liberal networks providing the fuel and Google turning the gears.

While the spread of false information is certainly not something that should be encouraged, the real problem here is how one defines fake news, and who is defining it. Indeed, what may be considered fake news to a liberal may be considered real and legitimate to someone who is more conservative. When Google says that it is going to begin flagging articles that appear in search results and label them as either true or false, the immediate questions that should be asked are, one, what methods are used in their fact checking, and two, who specifically is verifying the information behind closed doors?

The thing about progressivism is that it works in a very slow, incremental fashion. While today liberals and Google may claim to only be targeting fringe websites such as white nationalist blogs or articles advocating anti-Semitism, tomorrow they could very well be targeting more traditional sites like the right-leaning Breitbart.com, Conservative Review or Fox News.

As any constitutionalist or liberty-loving American will tell you, this is absolutely an assault on the freedom of speech. Google and the mainstream media have essentially worked together to set in motion a national constitutional crisis, which they will continue to tell us is in our best interest because after all, they’re only trying to make sure that you get factual information. This is how modern day liberals operate – by telling us that all of these changes are for the good of the people, when in reality they are nothing but detrimental.

Perhaps we should begin calling Google “fake search,” since they seem to be so interested in purging the Internet of anything that is false or illegitimate.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

Strategic-Culture.org

BBC.com

Mainstream Media Publication Boston Herald calls for government-run execution squads to MASS MURDER naturopaths, scientists and journalists who oppose mercury in immunizations


Source: NaturalNews.com
Mike Adams
March 12, 2017

In the latest lunatic, insane example of “vaccine rage” now being pushed by the criminal vaccine industry and its corporate-run media prostitutes, the Boston Herald’s entire editorial staff has openly called for what are essentially government-run execution squads to mass murder scientists, naturopaths, chiropractors and journalists who question the safety of injecting children with mercury, a brain-damaging toxin still found in flu shot vaccines administered to children and expectant mothers.

Expressing any concern at all about the toxic, brain-damaging ingredients in vaccines “ought to be a hanging offense,” says the entire Boston Herald editorial staff in this shockingly violent article which espouses the murder of naturopathic physicians and scientists such as myself. According to the Boston herald, we should all be hanged to death after being identified and rounded up.

It is precisely this kind of genocidal, “journo-terrorism” rhetoric that typifies the vaccine industry, which revels in the mass murder of black babies who are disproportionately impacted by vaccine-autism risks, according to the CDC’s own scientist Dr. William Thompson.

“In what can only be described as irresponsible and dangerous hate speech, someone from the editorial staff at the Boston Herald suggested, in an article published on their site on Monday, that ANYONE suggesting people research vaccines and their safety, or caution others about them, should be …HANGED TO DEATH,” reports Health Nut News.

With their call for the mass murder of naturopaths, journalists and scientists, the Boston Herald demonstrates the dangerous mental illness that’s actually caused by vaccines themselves — I’ve dubbed this brain damage disease “Vaccine Rage” — due to the continued use of brain-damaging metals like aluminum and mercury in vaccines, which the CDC confirms are deliberately formulated into vaccines injected into children. Thanks for the effects of Vaccine Rage, the Boston Herald’s editorial staff has now devolved into a murderous nest of domestic terrorists who are openly an unabashedly calling for the government to run execution squads that target the very people seeking to protect children from vaccine violence.

Natural News has already contacted the Boston Police and will soon be filing a detailed criminal complaint with the Boston FBI.

Vaccine Rage is a new mental disorder among vaccine violence victims who seek to murder anyone who isn’t vaccinated

What the Boston Herald lunatics are demonstrating is a serious mental disorder that I’ve dubbed “Vaccine Rage.” This disorder describes individuals who have been victims of vaccine violence — literally brain-damaged by mercury, aluminum and formaldehyde — who then seek to commit acts of terrorism and violence against anyone who hasn’t been damaged yet by vaccines. This zombie-like behavior is actually a mental illness epidemic because it spreads from one person to another as people are forced to be vaccinated, causing them to suffer from the same Vaccine Rage that their friends display.

Victims of vaccine violence become enraged because of the effect that heavy metals exhibit on human neurology. The scientific literature provides overwhelming evidence that heavy metals are not just linked to violence but also to autism. For example, a study published in Biological Trace Element Research summarized in this Science Daily article reveals that toxic metals are linked to a significantly higher incidence of autism in children. Another scientific study published in Environment International reveals that childhood exposure to lead dust causes extreme violence — including aggravated assault — decades later.

Boston Herald’s editors…

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Facebook Shuts Down Pro Le Pen Posts As French Election Nears

FakeNews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
April 16, 2017

Well, sure. Wouldn’t you? The woman is running for the presidency of France. She wants to reverse the tide of immigration in her country, so she must be a racist, and whatever she says or whatever anyone else says in support of her is, automatically, fake news, mindless, evil, and the population must be protected from that infection. This is how free speech works. It’s free unless it could do harm, unless certain minds might be taken in by it, and apparently Facebook is stepping up to the plate. Mark Zuckerberg is long overdue for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Zero Hedge: “The first round of French elections will be held on April 23rd, prompting Facebook to shut down pro Le Pen accounts, which they deem to be ‘fake’.”

“In addition to outright bans, the company [Facebook], in conjunction with French media, are running ‘fact checking’ programs — designed to fight ‘fake news’, heightening their efforts around the elections — which spans from 4/23-5/7.”

France must be purified. Only then can media function.

Immigration, you have to understand, isn’t an issue. There is nothing to debate. Immigration is a fact, wholly beautiful, and anyone who wants to limit it is speaking against love, flowers, and the proposition that the sun rises every morning.

Facebook is providing a public service. Just as Mussolini made the trains run on time in Italy, FB is making the news run on time—the real news.

Fake news should be shut down. Free speech only concerns what isn’t fake. Yes, I’m beginning to see the light.

After fake news is purged, then we can have free speech.

Aha. Yes.

Somehow, I must have missed this when I studied the 1st Amendment. James Madison, who wrote it, made this note: “Except for fake news.”

The guiding principle should be: if you’re not sure whether an item or issue or report is fake, don’t talk about it, don’t write about it, don’t express an opinion about it, until the authorities have cleared things up, until they’ve decided whether it’s fake or real.

Mark Zuckerberg is providing us with an easy way to check. If he and his people censor a post, it’s fake. Ignore it. Remain silent.

And if you’re French, don’t vote for Le Pen, unless you want a faker as your president.

Things are basically simple. They really are. If you know how to follow the signs and the warnings and the people in charge.

For example, right now I can sense an errant thought creeping into my mind: a corporation based in the US is colluding with the French government to influence an election in France. But I reject that thought. I denounce it. I urge everyone to denounce it. Pretend I never uttered the thought.

Please. I beg of you.

It’s fake.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

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.

US anti-propaganda legislation ‘Orwellian, plain and simple’ – Lionel

Source: RTAmerica
February 9, 2017

In one of his last acts as president, Barack Obama signed the Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill, proposed by Senator John McCain (R-Arizona), which allocates $160 million to the US State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) to counter foreign propaganda. Legal and media analyst Lionel, of Lionel Media, joins “News with Ed” to help us understand what’s going on.

Why Is The Deadstream Media Ignoring These GMO Studies?


Source: ActivistPost.com
Derrick Broze
January 26, 2017

Despite new research indicating health concerns and conflicts of interest related to Genetically Modified foods, the corporate media has, once again, remained silent. 

In late December, a series of studies and news stories went largely unreported and ignored by the corporate, deadstream media. These reports covered blatant conflicts of interest between the biotechnology corporations promoting genetically modified or engineered products and the researchers and politicians guiding legal policy. There was also the issue of a new study that shows negative health affects with rats who ingest genetically engineered food.

This study, Effect of genetically modified corn on the jejunal mucosa of adult male albino rat, which was published in the journal Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology, showed that rats fed GM Bt corn MON810 suffered serious damage to the surface mucous membranes of the jejunum, an important part of the small intestine. The signs of damage were apparent after only 90 days, according to the researchers.

The study used Monsanto’s MON810: Ajeeb YG, a genetically modified version of Ajeeb,  a local species of corn grown in Egypt. The GM version was created by Monsanto for the Egyptian market. The rats who were on the GM corn  consumed MON810 corn as 30% of their diet. The control group had the same amount of non-GMO corn. The GM group experienced damage on the finger-like structures within the intestine known as villi. These villi are responsible for absorbing nutrients from food. The researchers found them to be distorted and flattened. They also found signs of inflammation, disturbed mucosal glands, and congested blood vessels.

“Consumption of GM-corn profoundly alters the jejunal histological [microscopic] structure,” the researchers concluded.

Despite this astounding study, there has been little to no mention of its conclusions in the independent or corporate media. The study alone is not hard evidence that the same results will be found in humans, or even necessarily that the genetically modified corn is the sole reason for the damage, but it does absolutely warrant further investigation. Especially in light of growing concern around conflicts of interest.

In late December, researchers with France’s National Institute for Agricultural Research announced stunning findings in their study of potential conflicts of interest within the biotechnology industry. Published in the journal PLOS One, the study found that nearly half of studies on genetically modified crops were found to have conflicts of interest. The study, Conflicts of Interest in GM Bt Crop Efficacy and Durability Studies, also concluded that GM studies with conflict of interest had an increased likelihood of drawing conclusions which favored genetically modified or engineered foods.

The researchers examined 579 published studies and found that around 40% showed at least one conflict of interest. In these cases the conflict was typically related to someone involved with the study also working as an employee of a GM company or had received funds directly from the company. Given that America is one of the world’s largest consumer of GM foods, it was not surprising to find that our of the 579 studies examined, 404 were American and 83 were Chinese.

“We thought we would find conflicts of interest, but we did not think we would find so many,” Thomas Guillemaud, director of research at France’s National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA) told AFP.

The authors also admit that the study was limited in its scope.  “We used the addresses of authors to identify their affiliations, only one type of affiliation, that relating to employment, was considered,” the researcher wrote. “However, authors may have affiliations to GM crop companies of other types, such as being members of advisory boards, consultants, or co-holders of patents, and this could also have a significant impact on the outcomes of studies on GM crops.”

Again, silence from the corporate media on these conflicts. It should also be noted that other than Activist Post reporting on this, the only other link came from the Times of India, an English language website for news in India. There was one story regarding conflicts of interest that made the deadstream.

In early December 2016, the New York Times released a report that was quickly forgotten or ignored by the masses. The article details how committees associated with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS) were being questioned for their own conflicts of interest. The NAS provides policy guidance to the U.S. government. They distribute this guidance via written reports from scientific committees.

The NAS’s committee on biotechnology has recently been challenged regarding how its members are selected. According to the NY Times:

Critics say that several committee members have financial ties to biotech businesses that could color the panel’s report, expected to be published soon, potentially giving short shrift to health and environmental worries.

By the academies’ own account, two of the scientists already violate the group’s extensive conflict-of-interest policy. The National Academies play an outsize role in the debate because of their stature in the academic community and connections to the federal government.

The NAS is also the organization responsible for a May 2016 study which claimed to have completely debunked any environmental or health dangers related to genetically engineered foods. However, once again, conflict of interest was an issue. Following the NAS study, the environmental watchdog organization Food and Water Watch released their own report pointing to possible influence from the same organizations that stand to benefit from the growth of GM foods. The report, Under the Influence: The National Research Council and GMOs, looks at “far-reaching ties” between the National Research Council, its parent organization the NAS, and biotechnology companies and agricultural corporations.

Food and Water Watch claims that the NRC and NAS:

  • takes millions of dollars in funding from biotechnology companies
  • invites sponsors like Monsanto to sit on high-level boards overseeing the NRC’s work
  • invites industry-aligned, pro-GMO scientists to author NRC reports
  • draws scientific conclusions based on industry science
  • operates at times as a private contractor for corporate research

Food and Water Watch also points to the fact that Monsanto, DuPont and other agribusinesses that produce or support GMOs have donated millions of dollars into the NRC’s parent organization, the National Academy of Sciences. The report also alleges that corporate representatives participate in “high-level decision-making processes at the NRC, including sitting on the board that oversees the NRC’s work on GMOs.”

How are Americans supposed to trust the corporate media, the scientists promoting genetic engineering, and the political bodies if they are completely corrupt and wrapped in conflicts of interest? We can’t. Grow your own food and vacate the unsustainable food systems that promote genetic engineering, factory farming, and pesticide use.

Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the Lead Investigative Reporter for ActivistPost.com and the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com. Follow him on Twitter. Derrick is the author of three books: The Conscious Resistance: Reflections on Anarchy and Spirituality and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 1 and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 2

Derrick is available for interviews. Please contact Derrick@activistpost.com

This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

Watching Major Media Commit Suicide

fakenews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 21, 2017

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: vaccines are overwhelmingly safe; they have no connection to autism or other neurological damage; the science is settled.

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 judgements 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:

* The Federal Reserve/a clandestine private corporation.

* Medically caused death.

* Toxic vaccines.

* Trillions of dollars of missing US government money.

* The power of the Trilateral Commission over US government policy.

* The covert implementation of the UN agenda of destruction in US communities.

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…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
___________________________________________________________

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.