Posted on 02/08/2015 5:09:24 PM PST by Reverend Saltine
by Jon Rappoport February 8, 2015 http://www.nomorefakenews.com
“Millions of people have become little news broadcasters and anchors, relaying pictures and text about their parties, picnics, family gatherings, updating their breaking stories, narrating the story lines of their lives. All they need for a complete imitation of the networks is sponsors.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
It's not only the content of news that is embraced, it's the style, the manner of presentation---and in the long run, the presentation is far more corrosive, far more deadly than the content.
The imitations of life called anchors are the arbiters of style. How they speak, how they look, how they themselves experience emotion---all this is planted deep in the brains of the viewers.
Most of America can’t imagine the evening news could look and sound any other way.
That’s how solid the long-term brainwashing is.
The elite anchors, from John Daly, in the early days of television, all the way to Brian Williams and Scott Pelley, have set the tone. They define the genre.
The elite anchor is not a person filled with passion or curiosity. Therefore, the audience doesn’t have to be passionate or filled with curiosity, either.
The anchor is not a demanding voice on the air; therefore, the audience doesn’t have to be demanding.
The anchor isn’t hell-bent on uncovering the truth. For this he substitutes a false dignity. Therefore, the audience can surrender its need to wrestle with the truth and replace that with a false dignity of its own.
The anchor takes propriety to an extreme: it’s unmannerly to look below the surface of things. Therefore, the audience adopts those manners.
The anchor inserts an actor’s style into what should instead be a relentless reporter’s forward motion. Therefore, members of the audience can become actors shaping “news” about their own lives through Facebook.
The anchor taps into, and mimics, that part of the audience’s psyche that wants smooth delivery of superficial cause and effect.
From their perch, the elite television anchors can deign to allow a trickle of sympathy here, a slice of compassion there.
But they let the audience know that objectivity is their central mission. “We have to get the story right. You can rely on us for that.”
This is the great PR arch of national network news. “These facts are what’s really happening and we’re giving them to you.” The networks spend untold billions to convey that false assurance.
The elite anchor must pretend to believe the narrow parameters and boundaries of a story are all there is. There is no deeper meaning. There is no abyss waiting to swallow whole a major story and reveal it as a hoax. No. Never.
With this conviction in tow, the anchor can fiddle and diddle with details.
The network anchor is the wizard of Is. He keeps explaining what is. “Here’s something that is, and then over here we have something else that is, and now, just in, a new thing that is.” He lays down miles of “is-concrete” to pave over deeper, uncomfortable, unimaginable truth.
The anchor is quite satisfied to obtain all his information from “reputable sources.” This mainly means government and corporate spokespeople. Not a problem.
Every other source, for the anchor, is murky and unreliable. He doesn’t have to worry his pretty little head about whether his sources are, indeed, trustworthy. He calculates it this way: if government and corporations are releasing information, it means there is news to report.
What the FBI director has to say is news whether it’s true or false, because the director said it. So why not blur over the mile-wide distinction between “he spoke the truth” and “he spoke”?
On air, the anchor is neutral, a castratus, a eunuch.
This is a time-honored ancient tradition. The eunuch, by his diminished condition, has the trust of the ruler. He guards the emperor’s inner sanctum. He acts as a buffer between his master and the people. He applies the royal seal to official documents.
Essentially, the anchor is saying, “See, I’m ascetic in the service of truth. Why would I hamstring myself this way unless my mission is sincere objectivity?”
All expressed shades of emotion occur and are managed within that persona of the dependable court eunuch. The anchor who can move the closest to the line of being human without actually arriving there is the champion. These days, it’s Brian Williams---or it was, until his “conflations” and “misremembrances” surfaced.
The vibrating string between eunuch and human is the frequency that makes an anchor “great.” Think Cronkite, Chet Huntley, Edward R Murrow. Huntley was a just a touch too masculine, so they teamed him up with David Brinkley, a medium-boiled egg. Brinkley supplied twinkles of comic relief.
The cable news networks don’t really have anyone who qualifies as an elite anchor. Wolf Blitzer of CNN made his bones during the first Iraq war only because his name fit the bombing action so well. Brit Hume of FOX has more anchor authority than anyone now working in network television, but he’s semi-retired, content to play the role of contributor, because he knows the news is a scam on wheels.
There are other reasons for “voice-neutrality” of the anchor. Neutrality conveys a sense of science. “We did the experiment in the lab and this is how it turned out.”
Neutrality implies: this is a democracy; an anchor is no more important than the next person (and yet he is---another contradiction, swallowed).
Neutrality implies: we, the news division, don’t have to make money (a lie); we’re not like the cop shows; we’re on a higher plane; we’re performing a public service; we’re like a responsible charity.
The anchor is the answer to the age-old question about the people. Do the people really want to suck in superficial cause and effect and surface detail, or do they want deeper truth? Do the people want comfortable gigantic lies, or do they want to look behind the curtain?
The anchor, of course, goes for surface only.
The anchor is so accustomed to lying and so accustomed to pretending the lies are true that he wouldn’t know how to shift gears.
At the end of the Roman Empire, when the whole structure was coming apart, a brilliant and devious decision was made. The Empire would proceed according to a completely different plan. Instead of continuing to stretch its resources to the breaking point with military conquests, it would attack the mind.
It would establish the Roman Church and write new spiritual law. These laws and an overriding cosmology would be dispensed, in land after land, by official “eunuchs.” Men who, distanced from the usual human appetites, would automatically gain the trust of the people.
These priests would “deliver the news.” They would be the elite anchors, who would translate God’s orders and revelations to the public.
By edict, no one would be able to communicate with God, except through these “trusted ones.” Therefore, in a sense, the priest was actually higher on the ladder of power than God Himself.
In fact, it would fall to the new Church to reinterpret all of history, writing it as a series of symbolic clues that revealed and confirmed Church doctrine (story line).
Today, people are believers because the popular stories are delivered by contemporary castrati, every night on the evening news.
If these castrati say a virus is threatening the world; and if they are backed up by neutral castrati bishops, the medical scientists; and if those medical scientists are supported by public health bureaucrats, the cardinals; and if the cardinals are given a wink and a nod by the President, the Pope; the Program is working.
And the news is spread to the people…
On September 24, 2014, the New York Times blasted out an article estimating that Ebola cases, worldwide, could reach 1.4 million in four months. Now, in February 2015, the same official sources who handed that figure to the Times report that, worldwide, Ebola cases have reached 23,000.
Not a problem. The television anchor can absorb and deflect all contradictions, as if they never existed. It’s another aspect of his little bit of magic.
Reality is a psyop.
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 http://www.nomorefakenews.com
News anchors in the old days were hired for what they knew, combined of course with the ability to speak, and the best ones were sort of odd-looking: Murrow, Huntley, Brinkley, Cronkite.... Most had worked their way up through newspapers and radio. You might disagree with their opinions, but the blatant opinion was generally kept out of the actual news, and you always had to respect their expertise. Now it’s pretty boys (and girls) reading from teleprompters. End of rant.
Good until “At the end of the Roman Empire...”
It was ‘Bread and Circus’ that provided the news to the subjects. One went to the forum and gossiped, while enjoying the ‘free’ entertainment.
Today we have advertising paid for with government subsidized consumer spending- it’s the exact same thing.
This is McLuhan restated: "The medium is the message." It is shown to be an axiom by watching TV broadcast in another language from another nation...turn down the volume and...it really doesn't matter what they're saying. They have laid hold of your attention, and that's all they want.
I’m a “trained” newsreader (took the course in the Army) and I’ll do it for only half of what they pay Brian. LOL
Good one by Mr Rappoport!
Ping to this one; Mr. Rappoport gets into the psychology of persuasion....
Ah, the good old days . . .The good old days, when you and I didn’t see behind the curtain. It sank in to me during the Carter Administration (and I’m old enough to remember Edward R. Murrow) that “the news” was biased. I spent decades trying to sort out why that was so - and about 10 years ago I was hit by a blinding flash of the obvious.It was clear to me that the newspapers of the founding era and up to the Civil War were about the opinions of their printers. That was no secret at the time. And of course I knew that modern journalism claimed to be objective - and that it was no such thing. But I struggled, laughably now, to understand what had changed from the early days of journalism to make journalism so different. The answer is a plain as the nose on my face. It dates back in origin to the 1840s. In 1844 Samuel Morse demonstrated a telegraph line between Washington DC and Baltimore. In 1848 the first wire service, the New York Associated Press (later simply “the Associated Press”), was founded.
The AP was aggressively monopolistic, and as late as 1945 it was found by SCOTUS to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. But that is beside the point that, even if there were 5 big wire services, the inherent tendency of wire services as such is to unify reporters. The AP “wire” - and any other for that matter - is a virtual meeting of the journalists who contribute to it and draw from it. The result has fully vindicated the famous dictum of Adam Smith:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of NationsThis analysis says that after a century and a half of virtual meetings, journalists must be conspiring against the public by now. And we know that journalism, claiming to be objective, is a left-wing propaganda entity. What makes the journalistic “conspiracy against the public” leftist?My explanation is that classical liberalism was expressed by Theodore Roosevelt in 1910 when he gave his famous “man it the arena” speech, saying that “It is not the critic who counts.” Well, what is leftism but the precise opposite of that? What is the precise opposite of that? I submit that the precise opposite of “the credit belongs to the man who . . . does actually try to do the deeds” is, “you didn’t build that.” Journalists are superficial, negative, cynical critics - just like all leftists. Journalists and leftists are inherently simpatico.
vato, you are rite; read that s____t in the 70’s maybe and zero has changed
that’s funny as hell :)
The elite television anchor: narrator of reality (the psychology of persuasion.)
Check out article.
Thanks, WildlHighlander57.
It’s more so.
Right, and there were true investigators like Drew pearson who had a daily syndicated news column. His assistant and Guy Friday was none other than a former FOX news anchor Brit Hume
These posters about Brian are really funny, and point out the hypocrasy using irony (humor). Great stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
![”Image](http://i37.tinypic.com/xqf1br.jpg";)
