News vs. sub-news: how the game works
For example, in faking medical reality
Let’s start there…
by Jon Rappoport
March 30, 2015
News is defined, within the media industry, as stories being reported as they’re happening.
Troops invade Libya. Germany protests over US spying. Car crash in fog in Indiana. President states plan to restructure jobs program.
That’s news.
Sub-news is any number of reports, statements, interviews that occur outside the news cycle, or express a summing-up of a problem.
In a half-sane media landscape, certain sub-news statements would become the basis for extensive investigation by media outlets. Sub-news contains, from time to time, a great deal of juice. It’s provocative, even astonishing.
But overwhelmingly, sub-news is left lying on the side of the road like discarded garbage. Why? Because it threatens established interests. Furthermore, the media outlets who could magnify sub-news are aligned with those established interests. Joined at the hip.
For example, here’s a staggering piece of sub-news:
On January 15, 2009, the NY Review of Books published a devastating quote from a woman who, for 20 years, was an editor at one of the most prestigious medical journal in the world:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” —Marcia Angell, MD, “Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of Corruption.” NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.
For any ambitious medical reporter, the quote could have been the jumping-off point for an investigation aimed at taking down medical journals and the whole peer-review system that underpins medical publishing.
But nothing happened. No dots were connected. The quote was left hanging in mid-air like a Hindenburg whose explosion had been indefinitely postponed.
Here is another Hindenburg quote of a similar nature, also published in the NY Review of Books (May 12, 2001, Helen Epstein, “Flu Warning: Beware of Drug Companies”):
“Six years ago, John Ioannidis, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, found that nearly half of published articles in scientific journals contained findings that were false.”
Here’s another quote from the same article:
“Last year, GlaxoSmithKline’s diabetes drug Avandia was linked to thousands of heart attacks, and earlier in the decade, the company’s antidepressant Paxil was discovered to exacerbate the risk of suicide in young people. Merck’s painkiller Vioxx was also linked to thousands of heart disease deaths. In each case, the scientific literature gave little hint of these dangers.”
And finally, here is yet another statement from Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine:
“A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies [that praised the drugs] were published. But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome.”
It turns out that the informational pipeline that feeds the entire perception of pharmaceutical medicine is a rank fraud.
Relentlessly investigating that pipeline, over the course of a year or two, would uncover scandals that would rock the foundations of the medical cartel.
But no. The sub-news is cast aside, ignored, left to rot in the sun.
Forgotten.
To the terms “news” and “sub-news,” we could add, in parallel, “major consensus” and “minor consensus.” Major consensus is manufactured. It attempts to block out the sun.
People who encounter sub-news within the mainstream are often driven to distraction, when they expect major revelations to follow—and nothing happens. They can’t figure out what’s going on.
They need to realize their confusion is entirely proper and natural; and they should move on from there to challenge the builders of news and major consensus. They should become relentless.
From their ranks can be born the new generation of real reporters.
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.
Shared on FB. Good article.
The alternative media are the REAL media. The Elites figured this out. This is why they have tried for years to control the internet.
Now, what they call “ironically”, the “Net Neutrality”, has passed into law. Watch out! They will do everything to shut down every bit of truth.
Shared on FB and data-based in case I need to show this to others in the future. Thanks for your service, Jon!
Here is another of your articles that is so on-target and addressing an issue so important it would be difficult to exaggerate its true importance; and you achieve this in a short essay. This is one I have to print for my long term files. You are my “go to” man for any “public announcements” on any medical issue. I know I can trust you to cut through the propaganda fog and give us the straight scoop.
Keep on speaking truth to corruption, Jon. You are one of the very few “sub-news” reporters who fearlessly speak the truth, in this area especially.
Mark J Bassett
THANK YOU, JON!
Well put, my friend. It took a thirty-year journalism veteran to bring this to the forefront of today’s information war. And so eloquently, too!
– Rev. Dragon’s Eye
Everything is measured by its built in obsolescence. Humanity is fast approaching the expiration date…time for the new transhuman models.
“Garbage in, garbage out.”…I think!
The smartest person I know, just arrived at the big convent to see his grandfather for the next week.
And spring break….”yeaah…no school…hope it burns down”.
Our (my grandson and myself) first topic of discussion was inspired by his rather informed question “Why are they trying to stop apples from bruising, Papa?…if they stop apples bruising, are they still alive.”
“Think outside the box, collapse the box, and take a fucking sharp knife to it.”
― Banksy, Wall and Piece
Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.”
― Banksy
always read uir stuff, mahalo Jon
I would like to know by what mechanism the New York and L.A. Times have managed to completely avoid mentioning the likely role of psych drugs in last week’s event in France. Are reporters told in advance not to say a word in criticism of psych drugs? Are they told that anti-psychiatry writers are just religious kooks and conspiracy theorists?
The violence engendered by psych meds has been subnews since at least as far back as 1990, but has not, to my knowledge, been reported on as an aspect of the bizarre and hideous crimes committed by people taking them or who just stopped.
Meanwhile Jon Rappoport, David Healy, Peter Breggin, and a handful of others have been blowing the whistle for years…while people around the world go mad, a dose at a time, and with new victims being created everyday by a pharma-brainwashed doctor’s scrawl on a little white piece of paper.
Right on Jon -the truth comes out! Sub-news is suppressed and censored! There are negative studies on the safety of vaccines, fraud within the CDC and criminal level cover-ups with vax makers – all never making the news on the alphabet soup networks.
For example, while researching vaccines I “stumbled” upon a sub-news story last year that never got a peep from mainstream media. The main story: ENTEROVIRUS 68. It affected over 1000 kids, primarily teenagers, resulting in some deaths and hundreds of hospitalizations, including many of these in serious condition with Polio-like paralysis.
The sub-news story that was never talked and the clincher: According to reports, verified by medical researchers investigating the victims, NOT one person was UNVACCINATED. All the affected children had full or partial immunization for MMR, Polio and influenza:
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/mysterious-virus-spreading-across-u-s-and-canada-and-primarily-affecting-vaccinated-children_092014
Imagine the “no unvaccinated child being affected” part included in the headlines of the “official” news version. Many parents would have finally gotten a clue and realized that these toxic vaccines compromise and interfere with our natural immune system leaving us vulnerable to other and more virulent viruses.
Of course, last fall at the peak of this Enterovirus, the CDC was fear-mongering us to point of ad nauseam with the Ebola false flag. Just how convenient was that?
Jon,
You are no doubt aware of Kristina Borjesson’s book, INTO THE BUZZSAW, Leading Journalists Expose The Myth Of A Free Press. In it, mainstream reporter Phillip Weiss writes:
“When I started, reporters didn’t identify with lawyers or city councilmen, they identified with the middle class, and with underlings. Being aggressive and contemptuous with authority were valued attributes. Today, those attributes strike people in the profession as unseemly and vaguely dangerous… Today, the big media corporations are Atlases of the international economy… News executives have one eye on the stock price… This new role has made them temperamentally conservative, sober, and afraid of deep controversy. As a result, it hasn’t been the same being a reporter.”
Of course, I suspected as much. But to hear it from the lips of a working member of the corporate press made quite an impact on me back in 2004. Much like your Elite Anchor series had on me a few years ago. It corroborated and articulated what I suspected for a long time to be.
Weiss came up in the seventies and experienced this toxic paradigm shift as it happened before his own eyes. At that time, he says newspapers were considered “manufacturing”. Journalism was actually considered a blue collar trade! Now these so-called “journalists” have more in common with the people they are “covering”.