Washington Post-CIA Connections Destroy Post’s “Election Hack” Claim

QuestionEverything2
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
December 12, 2016

“The CIA says” is never a great way to start a sentence. But that’s the basis of the latest charge that Russia hacked the US presidential election.

Members of Congress have now been secretly briefed by the CIA on “the Russian affair,” and media, led by the Washington Post, are running with the story that Russia influenced the US election on the side of Trump.

Until and unless the denizens of Langley decide to show specific and convincing evidence for their claim, this is disinformation.

It’s easy to assemble a circumstantial case. But each case has to be judged on its own merits, and the devil is in the details. If we aren’t privy to those details in the “Russian affair,” no judgement is possible. Of course, major media outlets don’t seem bothered by that. They’re happy to cite the CIA as an authority—conveniently ignoring the fact that people in the intelligence field are taught to lie. It’s their stock in trade.

You might remember the Washington Post’s role in defaming and destroying Gary Webb, who, in 1996, published a series of articles in the Mercury News about the CIA seeding black Los Angeles neighborhoods with crack cocaine. The Post basically asked the CIA whether the charge was true, and when the Agency denied it, the Post attacked Webb as a “fake news” reporter. The same Washington Post is now leading the campaign to tie the Russian government to Hillary Clinton’s defeat. And the Post, once again, is using unproven statements from the CIA to back up their claim.

I could go on and on about the Post and its historic CIA ties. But now, right now, the owner of the Post is Jeff Bezos, who also owns Amazon. And Amazon has a $600 million contract to provide the CIA cloud computing services (more here and here).

Boom.

Ordinarily, that would be called a fatal conflict of interest, whenever the Post opens up its yap about the CIA in any context.

However, mainstream news outlets, the very big ones, don’t go around criticizing each other’s ownerships; so the Bezos-CIA relationship is conveniently ignored and left “in the past.”

An honest lead paragraph on the current Russia-CIA-Trump allegations in the Post, however, would start this way:

“Our paper is owned by Jeff Bezos, and Jeff is making $600 million to provide the CIA with computing services, so take everything below with a grain of salt the size of Langley.”

Going one step further, Amazon and the CIA are both in the data-collecting business. What are the chances that Amazon, in the interest of “national security,” has been sharing its massive customer data with the CIA and other US intelligence agencies?

This should lead to another conflict-of-interest statement from the Washington Post: “As you read any article in our paper, keep in mind that our owner may be data-mining you and passing the information to the CIA. Have a nice day.”

Am I being too hard on Amazon? Do they have the basic guts to stand up to the intelligence community and resist its demands? Here is what author Norman Solomon had to say about that in 2014 (Huffington Post):

“Amazon’s trajectory into the CIA’s spooky arms may be a bit more than just corporate eagerness to land a lucrative contract. In late 2010 — amid intense public interest in documents that WikiLeaks was posting to illuminate U.S. actions overseas — Amazon took a notable step. As the Guardian reported at the time, Amazon ‘pulled the plug on hosting the whistleblowing website in reaction to heavy political pressure.’

“It didn’t take much for Amazon to cave. ‘The company announced it was cutting WikiLeaks off … only 24 hours after being contacted by the staff of Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate’s committee on homeland security,’ the Guardian noted.”

Let’s see. In 2010, Amazon cuts off WikiLeaks, proving its willingness to cave to the intelligence community.

In 2013, Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, buys the Washington Post.

In 2016, during the presidential campaign, WikiLeaks releases tons of email data exposing Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, and associated players.

In 2016, after Clinton loses, the CIA—now Amazon’s business partner…

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.

Washington Post now admits its “fake news” story relied on… get this… a FAKE news source

Image: Washington Post now admits its “fake news” story relied on… get this… a FAKE news source
Source: NaturalNews.com
Mike Adams
December 8, 2016

A few days ago, I wrote about how the Washington Post was committing “credibility suicide” with its obviously fabricated Craig Timberg story accusing Natural News and 199 other websites of being “fake news” sources controlled by the Russian government. Now, after the discredited paper has been threatened with lawsuits by several of the websites named in the WashPost’s cited source, they’ve all but admitted their entire story was surely fake to begin with.

Wednesday evening, the Washington Post added an editor’s note to the top of their story which essentially admits the Washington Post slandered and defamed 200 websites by reporting fabricated, false news derived from sources that even they no longer think are legitimate. Without offering any direct apology or retraction of their blatantly false and extremely irresponsible “fake news” story, Washington Post editors have now added this “weasel words” half-apology:

Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list.

In other words, the same Washington Post that relied heavily on the discredited fake news group “PropOrNot” as its primary source for the story is now admitting PropOrNot can’t be trusted at all. The editor’s note is “in effect admitting the entire story may have been… ‘fake news’ and conceding the Bezos-owned publication may have engaged in defamation by smearing numerous websites – Zero Hedge included – with patently false and unsubstantiated allegations,” writes Zero Hedge, one of the sites defamed by the Post.

$10,000 reward is still active for the identities of the PropOrNot organizers

By the way, Natural News has announced a $10,000 reward for the identities of the PropOrNot organizers, and we’ve been informed that two research groups are working on obtaining that information.

Despite the Washington Post’s admission that their original story relied on an obviously fake news source, the $10,000 reward is still being offered and Natural News intends to publicly name the PropOrNot organizers, then sue them for defamation. We further intend to name the Washington Post and Craig Timberg as co-defendants in that lawsuit.

For all we know, Craig Timberg at the Washington Post is the journo-weasel behind PropOrNot

The Washington Post’s “editor’s note” is a particularly pathetic attempt to try to weasel out of responsibility for the story, claiming the paper “did not name any of the sites” even though it relied on the PropOrNot website lists as its primary source for its story. By this reasoning, the Washington Post asserts that it can quote any shady source it wants, without any verification whatsoever, and then disclaim any liability for the defamation, loss of reputation, emotional damage and other harm caused to its intended defamation targets. For all we know, Craig Timberg himself ginned up the “PropOrNot” group so he could quote it in his own fabricated story (and then distance himself from the shady group if anyone called “bulls##t” on the Post).

The realization that this is how the Washington Post pursues “journalism” is a disgrace to the entire profession of journalism and an admission that the Washington Post has abandoned any semblance of journalistic integrity. The paper, by refusing to fire Timberg, retract the story and apologize to those affected by its shoddy reporting, is doubling down on its own well-deserved credibility suicide. As the entire world watches, a once-respected paper has transformed into a presstitute tabloid “fake news” rag right before our very eyes… and then defended its tabloid-style reporting by claiming it never said its sources could be trusted, wink wink. Seriously? This is what passes for journalism at the Washington Post now? Frankly, the National Enquirer does far more research on its sources before publishing stories.

In grokking this admission by the Post, all I can say is “Wow.” However, I will extend an olive branch of sorts to the Washington Post by promising that if the Post retracts the story and issues a prominent front-page public apology to those independent media publishers that were defamed by the Post’s shoddy reporting, I will direct my legal team to drop any further action against the Post. (Our reward and lawsuit against PropOrNot, however, shall continue.)

From this day forward, the Washington Post is synonymous with “fake news”

Zero Hedge adds the following comments about the Post’s fabricated story in the context of all the accusations of “fake news” currently making the media rounds:

As The Washingtonian notes, the implicit concession follows intense and rising criticism of the article over the past two weeks. It was “rife with obviously reckless and unproven allegations,” Intercept reporters Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton wrote, noting that PropOrNot, one of the groups whose research was cited in Timberg’s piece, “anonymous cowards.” One of the sites PropOrNot cited as Russian-influenced was the Drudge Report.

The piece’s description of some sharers of bogus news as “useful idiots” could “theoretically include anyone on any social-media platform who shares news based on a click-bait headline,” Mathew Ingram wrote for Fortune.

But the biggest issue was PropOrNot itself. As Adrian Chen wrote for the New Yorker, its methods were themselves suspect, hinting at counter-Russian propaganda – ostensibly with Ukrainian origins – and verification of its work was nearly impossible. Chen wrote “the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labelled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier.”

Criticism culminated this week when the “Naked capitalism” blog threatened to sue the Washington Post, demanding a retraction.

Now, at least, the “national newspaper” has taken some responsibility, however the key question remains: by admitting it never vetted its primary source, whose biased and conflicted “work” smeared hundreds of websites, this one included, just how is the Washington Post any different from the “fake news” it has been deriding on a daily basis ever since its endorsed presidential candidate lost the elections?

Do I even need to say that if you believe anything the Washington Post ever publishes again, you’re being suckered by a “fake news” propaganda publisher that now admits even it can’t trust its own sources… but doesn’t think that’s a good reason not to publish the story anyway?

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Vegan sites part of ‘fake news propaganda’?

Source: RTAmerica
December 6, 2016

ionel of Lionel Media joins RT’s Ed Schultz to discuss the absurdity of Washington Post’s claims that sites promoting veganism and other apolitical topics are part of fake news propaganda, much of which it alleges is promoted by Russia. Lionel predicts an uptick in civil liability and libel suits in the wake of WaPo’s condemnation of alternative perspectives.

Google/Facebook Now Targeting “Fake News Sites”; I’ve Been Doing It For 15 Years

QuestionEverything2
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
November 16, 2016

Only I’ve been doing it for real, here at NoMoreFakeNews.com. That’s the difference. Google and Facebook are up to something else. They’re attacking truth emanating from the alt media.

It’s a reverse play on their part. Google will refuse to allow “fake sites” to use their AdSense Program. FB will try to limit “fake” posts.

They’re really getting desperate.

Major media election coverage was so phony it was laughable. Inside their bubble, Hillary was winging her way to victory. She was way out ahead in the polls. Wikileaks and Project Veritas were spooling out devastating revelations almost every day, and the press was studiously ignoring the implications. Why don’t FB and Google go after the NY Times and WaPo and CBS and NBC and ABC and CNN and FOX, if they want to limit fake news? Why? Because all those jokers, including Google/FB, are on the same page. They’re all PR firms fronting for the concoction called Globalism.

And they’re losing.

In mainstream news, everything should begin with the concept of a staged event.

Every television newscast: staged reality

“The news is all about manipulating the context of stories. The thinner the context, the thinner the mind must become to accept it. If you want to visualize this, imagine a rectangular solid. The news covers the top surface. Therefore, the mind is trained to work in only two dimensions. Then it can’t fathom depth, and it certainly can’t appreciate the fact that the whole rectangular solid moves through time, the fourth dimension.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

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.

Actually, those reporters in the field rarely dig up information on location. A correspondent standing on a rooftop in Cairo could just as well be positioned in a bathroom in a Las Vegas McDonald’s. His report would be identical.

The managing editor, usually the elite news anchor, chooses the stories to cover and has the final word on 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. Gridlock is bad. Just like traffic on the I-5. A bad thing. We want the government to get something done, but they’re not. 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 hundred are hospitalized…”

The viewer again supplies context, such as it is: “Flu. Dangerous. Epidemic. Could it arrive here? Get my flu shot.”

The anchor: “A new university study states that gun owners often stock up on weapons and ammunition…”

The viewer: “People with guns. Why do they need a dozen weapons? 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. 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 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 (false) continuity.

It would never occur to him to wonder: are the squabbling political legislators really two branches of the same Party? Does 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 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 thin—night after night, year after year. The overall effect of this staging is small viewer, small viewer’s mind, small viewer’s understanding.

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.

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 mirrors what the human mind, in an infantile state, is always doing: looking at the world and seeking a brief summary to explain what that 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 follow-up, take out one eye.”

Sure, why not? The patient saw the pictures and the anchor explained them.

After watching and listening to a month or two of news planted with key words, the population is ready to see the President or one of his minions step up to a microphone and say, “Quantitative easing…sequester…”

Reaction? “Oh, yes, that’s right, I’ve heard those words before. Good.”

A month later, those two terms disappear, as if they’d never existed.

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.

And then, of course, when the news cuts to commercial, the fake products take over:

“Well, every night they’re showing the same brand names, so those brands must be better than the unnamed alternatives.”

Which devolves into: “I like this commercial better than that commercial. This is a great commercial. Let’s have a contest and vote on the best commercial.”

For “intelligent” viewers, there is another sober mainstream choice, a safety valve: PBS. That newscast tends to show more pictures from foreign lands.

“Yes, I watch PBS because they understand the planet is interconnected. It isn’t just about America. That’s good.”

Sure it’s good, if you want the same thin-context or false-context reporting on events in other countries. Instead of the two minutes NBC might give you about momentous happenings in Iraq, PBS will give you four minutes, plus congenial experts commenting abstractly, employing longer words.

PBS’ experts seem kinder and gentler. “They’re nice and they’re more relaxed. I like that.”

Yes, the PBS experts are taking Valium, and they’re not drinking as much coffee as the CBS experts.

Anchors deliver the long con every night on the tube, between commercials.

Staged.

They’re marketing thin context.

And of course, the “science” promoted on the network news is also derived from marketing efforts at major government agencies, such as the CDC.

The anchor says, “Medical experts are now taking a heavier approach to parents who refuse to vaccinate their children and deny the benefits of vaccines.”

What sits behind that statement?

The announcement of so-called epidemics and outbreaks are part of a strategy for marketing vaccines. It’s obvious.

For example, read this from the World Health Organization Fact Sheet, Number 11, dated March 2014:

“Influenza occurs globally…Worldwide, these annual epidemics are estimated to result in about 3 to 5 million cases of severe illness, and about 250 000 to 500 000 deaths.”

Now consider a “measles outbreak” in the US. 150 cases.

In the matter of worldwide flu, WHO and the CDC choose not to hype and propagandize; but in the case of the measles, it’s suddenly all hands on deck and fear, fear, fear.

Why?

Because it’s time. It’s time to inflate the seriousness of a standard childhood disease. It’s time to focus on “the children.” It’s time, once again, to offset the massive rebellion against vaccination exploding in the US population. It’s time to engender fear. It’s time to attack anti-vaccination researchers. It’s time to take another step in the direction of mandating vaccines. It’s time to introduce…

Continue Reading At: NoMoreFakeNews.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.