Thursday, May 9, 2013

Every television newscast is a staged event

Dees Illustration
Jon Rappoport
Activist Post

Focus on the network evening news. This is where the staging is done well.

First, we have the image itself, the colors in foreground and background, the blend of restful and charged hues. The anchor and his/her smooth style.

Then we have the shifting of venue from the studio to reporters in the field, demonstrating the reach of coverage: the planet. As if this equals authenticity.

The managing editor, usually the elite anchor, chooses the stories to cover and their sequence.

The anchor goes on the air: “Our top story tonight, more signs of gridlock today on Capitol Hill, as legislators walked out of a session on federal budget negotiations…”

The viewer fills in the context for the story: “Oh yes, the government. We want the government to get something done, but they’re not. We want to government to avoid a shutdown. These people are always arguing with each other. They don’t agree. They’re in conflict. Yes, conflict, just like on the cop shows.”

The anchor: “The Chinese government reports the new flu epidemic has spread to three provinces. Forty-two people have already died, and nearly a thousand are hospitalized…”

The viewer again supplies context, such as it is: “Flu. Dangerous. Epidemic. Could it arrive here? Get my flu shot. Do the Chinese doctors know what they’re doing? Crowded cities. Maybe more cases all of a sudden. Ten thousand, a hundred thousand.”

The anchor: “A new university study states that gun owners often stock up on weapons and ammunition, and this trend has jumped quickly since the Newtown, Connecticut, school-shooting tragedy…”

The viewer: “People with guns. Why do they need a dozen weapons? People in small towns. I don’t need a gun. The police have guns. Could I kill somebody if he broke into the house?”

The anchor: “Doctors at Yale University have made a discovery that could lead to new treatments in the battle against Autism…”

Viewer: “That would be good. More research. Laboratory. Germs. The brain.”

If, at the end of the newscast, the viewer bothered to review the stories and his own reactions to them, he would realize he’d learned almost nothing. But reflection is not the game.

In fact, the flow of the news stories has washed over him and created very little except a sense of continuity.

It would never occur to him to wonder: are the 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 the researchers keep saying “may” and “could,” does that mean they’ve actually discovered something useful about Autism, or are they just hyping their own work and trying to get funding for their next project?

These are only a few of the many questions the typical viewer never considers.

Therefore, every story on the news broadcast achieves the goal of keeping the context small and narrow—night after night, year after year. The overall effect of this, yes, staging, is small viewer, small viewer’s mind, small viewer’s understanding.

Billions of dollars are spent by the networks to build a reality the size of a room in a cheap motel.

Next we come to words over pictures. More and more, news broadcasts are using the rudimentary film technique of a voice narrating what the viewer is seeing on the screen.

People are shouting and running and falling in a street. The anchor or a field reporter says: “The country is in turmoil. Parliament has suspended sessions for the third day in a row, as the government decides what to do about uprisings aimed at forcing democratic elections…”

Well, the voice must be right, because we’re seeing the pictures. If the voice said the riots were due to garbage-pickup cancellations, the viewer would believe that, too.

How about this: two-day-old footage of runners approaching the finish line of the Boston Marathon. A puff of smoke rises at the right of the screen. A runner falls down in the street. The anchor is saying: “The FBI has announced a bomb made in a pressure cooker caused the injuries and deaths.”

Must be so. We saw the pictures and heard the voice explain.

We see Building #7 of the WTC collapse. Must have been the result of a fire. The anchor tells us so. Words over pictures.

We see footage of Lee Harvey Oswald inside the Dallas police station. The anchor tells he’s about to be transferred, under heavy guard, to another location. Oswald must be guilty, because we’re seeing him in a police station, and the anchor just said “under heavy guard.”

Staged news.

It works.


Because it mirrors what the human mind, in an infantile state, is always doing: looking at the world and seeking a brief summary to explain what the world is, at any given moment.

Since the dawn of time, untold billions of people have been urging a “television anchor” to “explain the pictures.”

The news gives them that precise thing, that precise solution, every night.

“Well, Mr. Jones,” the doctor says, as he pins X-rays to a screen in his office. “See this? Right here? We’ll need to start chemo immediately, and then we may have to remove most of your brain, and as a followup, take out one eye.”

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

After watching and listening to the last year of news, the population is ready to see the president or one of his minions step up to a microphone and say, “Quantitative easing…sequester…”

Reaction? “Don’t know what it is, but it must be okay.”

Eventually, people get the idea and do it for themselves. They see things, they invent one-liners to explain them. They’re their own anchors. They short-cut and undermine their own experience with vapid summaries of what it all means.

“Here are the photos. Just look at these photos. Don’t look at any other photos. These are the killers. Here’s what it means: we’re going to send in SWAT teams and rout you out of your homes at gunpoint, we’ll search your homes, no warrants, and you’re going to comply, and when it’s over and we’ve caught them, you’ll cheer.”

“Sure. Okay. We will.”

Pictures, explanation, obedience.

The staging of reality, the staging of news; they’re the same thing.

Jon Rappoport is the author of two explosive collections, The Matrix Revealed and Exit From the Matrix, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at


This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.


NickelthroweR said...

I am considered an "expert" in audio and audio production and I've worked for at least 1/2 of the Fortune 500 at one time or another over my long career. I can tell you, as an insider, that the staging goes far beyond anything anyone here can imagine.

Everything is scripted - everything.
Everything is staged - everything.

Every word, image and sound serves one purpose - one master and that purpose is to "sell".

Think of the unbelievable amount of infrastructure necessary to beam television and radio into your home. You think that a few commercials pay for that? If that were true then how come I can't just watch a few commercials at the doctor's office and get a free checkup? All that equipment, sound stages, technical crew, actors, satellites, broadcast towers, etc and it all comes to your home for free????

Wake up.

Anonymous said...

I threw out my TV years ago.

ShootyMcBang said...

Thanks for this insightful article!!!

ska55124 said...

I don't watch TV news, as the saying goes, cant trust them as far as I can throw 'em.

Unknown said...

Now get the average person to believe what you have known for years! They are experts at brainwashing and convincing. The best way to de-program yourself, is to totally stop watching TV. Some folks have, but most still watch.

Anonymous said...

Something amazing happened when conspiracy-minded folk started saying that the Sandy Hook shooting was a government/media hoax: People started shooting them down by saying, "If it was a government 'psy-op' as you call it, it wouldn't have all these sloppy holes in it that you say expose it as a psy-op! If it was scripted, it would have been pulled off perfectly, without a hitch!"

Isn't that amazing? They're actually saying "The story has sloppy holes, the narrative makes no sense, and I believe it, damn it!"

RKae (Can't use my WordPress because you're using OPenID. STOP USING OPenID!)

Anonymous said...

poison for the soul and spirit for sure. I still watch movies which are just as effective social engineering tools, but I now pay attention to them, from the anti-Christian (not just anti-Christian, but the social engineering to build animosity against them), to occult/nwo symbolism, to just plain 'ol calling what was once evil good and calling what was once good evil.

Anonymous said...

People make a big deal out of polls that show most people don't trust the corporate MSM but you know the real problem isn't that people trust the MSM as I personally don't know a single person who isn't aware of what a joke the media is here.

The issue is that while a large portion of our society doesn't trust the MSM they still rely on it for information as they refuse to actively seek out alternative media sources.

It doesn't matter if 90% of Americans don't trust the corporate media if 90% of that 90% still only gets it's (dis)information from the corporate sources that pervert it from the first word written/spoken.

It's not enough for people to simply not trust the corporate MSM but they need to actively shut them off and stop listening to or watching them at all, if not actively demonstrating against their perversions of reality for secret and/or nefarious agendas.

At the very least they should include alternative media sources while also viewing the MSM take on things.

I actually know someone who admits to not trusting the MSM but also refuses to seek out alternative media and only gets info from the MSM.

When asked why he will rely on people/corporations he doesn't trust instead of alternative sources he could only say - "because those alternative media conspiracy theory nut jobs can't be trusted"(paraphrasing).

So you don't trust the MSM but still get all your info from them - but you don't trust the alternative media so you won't give them a second of your time.

How does that make sense?

Basically his view is - Better the devil I do know that lies to me than the devil I don't know that MAY lie to me(but I don't actually know since I won't review their actual views).

The news/media really is like a cult/religion to itself - even those who are not "true believers" can't bring themselves to disown the faith completely because of the stigma that comes with it(becoming a "conspiracy theorist").

Growing up Christian I've seen that many times, but I've honestly at this point probably seen it more from the media cult than the actual religion.

It's always fun when you get someone who loves T.V to shut it off for a month or two and then when they go back to it everything they used to love and literally 'live for' every day has gone from basically idol worship to "meaningless retardation"(to quote one such individual).

I can occasionally stomach the news casts themselves just to be objective and get the other side of things, but other than that there is only one T.V program I can watch that doesn't make me literally sick from the stupidity of it(literally I can't force myself to watch most crap, it makes me cringe like an extremely sour taste in my mouth).

I think the phrase "regularly scheduled PROGRAMMING" is all one needs to hear to understand the true nature of the "idiot box", and if they don't grasp it then they have already been programmed too much to think for themselves.


Anonymous said...

This last week or so has been mind-boggling in the world of sports. A basketball player comes out as "gay" and he's "courageous." Meanwhile, some NFL coaches say that Tim Tebow is a headache because of the "cult" around him and all the hoopla. Gee, suddenly they don't want a player who has some popularity and name recognition. It's suddenly a BAD thing!

Anonymous said...

Bombs did not explode at the Boston Marathon: all the parents and teachers and cops are faking it at Sandy Hook?

This kind of idiotic garbage destroys the chances of real, valid questions, such as 9/11, from being taken seriously. The absurd fantasies of anti-government lunatics might as well be false flag propaganda by the government to discredit the real legitimate claims that the JFK assassination, the Oklahoma bombing, and 9/11 have

The best way to destroy a good idea (such as demanding an impartial investigation of 9/11, JFK, RFK, MLK murders) is to create a crazy idea and then lump them together.

It is my claim that these crazy conspiracy theories are promoted by the same people who want to destroy the credibility of significant evidence of conspiracy. Just as bad money chases out good, bad concepts chase out the good. And who benefits from this: the very people who have something to hide, who can discredit efforts to expose them by making the whole project of "conspiracy theories" look ridiculous.

That's my conspiracy theory: that nefarious forces in government and the private sector are actually promoting all these crazy theories.

If you think the Boston Marathon bombing or the Sandy Hook massacre was "staged, " then why not push this logic and conclude that the idea that they are staged, because it defies common sense, is "staged."

Even if a real massacre happens (history is full of false flag operations and hoaxes of course; all wars are started with them), the image manipulators (like Plato's Allegory of the Cave), put out an official version AND, at some level, a whackoid conspiracy theory so that when people question the govt's official narrative (the Warren Commission, the 9/11 Commission Report, etc), they can be lumped in with the crazies and thus discredited.

Full disclosure: many events in history are results of conspiracies.
To ignore this is naive. But equally naive is to believe that nearly every outrageous event is staged.

Sometimes, shit just happens.

Anonymous said...

@Dale - I agree that many of the seemingly extreme "conspiracy theories" are probably controlled disinformation, and many of the JFK assassination theories are probably the best examples of that(some seem to have been disseminated by "anonymous officials" within the establishment).

However in regards to the notion that events like the Boston Marathon bombing or 9/11 can be completely fabricated I can understand that mindset.

A few points -

- Almost completely controlled mass media;
- A heavily "infiltrated" alternative media and activist community("shills" or "COINTELPRO");
- Professional acting groups portraying fake terrorists and victims(vic-sims) and victim's families for government "training operations";
- A multitude of fake propaganda disseminating Facebook, twitter, Youtube, etc. accounts;
- Billion dollar annual Pentagon PR and military and intelligence psy-ops budgets and projects;
- Intelligence agencies(spooks) with decades of practice at creating fake events and using them for political purposes;
- etc.

It is not outside the realm of possibility that such events could be completely staged.

A perfect example of their ability to potentially completely stage an event was laid out by that former CIA contractor that was in a court case(on the court records) in regards to his being present at the time of the JFK assassination and saying that numerous known "soldiers of fortune"(mercenaries) that did work for the CIA were present.

I can't recall his name at the moment but Jim Fetzer has done some good research on him and shown the court records were I believe the man says it was like a "convention" for mercenaries at the street level "ground zero" of JFK's murder.

I believe Fetzer surmised they were "back-up" to ensure Kennedy was KIA, but it's also easy to control the witnesses when many/most of them are professional paid killers being paid to be there by the assassins themselves.

And if any of those paid killers wants to tell the truth well who the hell is going to believe a murderous, unprincipled mercenary that can be easily smeared?

I do believe that both 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings were real events not completely faked but definitely "staged", but Sandy Hook I am still not sold on as there has been no publicly available physical evidence to show anyone actually died.

Some closed coffins, some tarps on the ground, some fake actor joking around right before doing an interview about his daughter being killed, fake Facebook pages created before the events, a police training operation at the time and witness reports of police setting up tents on scene before the event - and police declaring anyone who objects to their version of events to be essentially criminal.

That's pretty much all of the hallmarks of a completely fake event.

And for me personally the kicker is that virtually all of the families involved(most families in that school) were of wealthy "elitist" Zionist (likely Masonic) backgrounds.

I don't believe that the "theories"(they can hardly even be called that) that the satanic rulers sold these children or ritually sacrificed them have any credibility(certainly no actual evidence), but it would have been quite easy to fake such an event from start to finish with most of the people involved already being part of the upper echelons of the PTB's "social and political order".

I'm still confused how the medical examiner found only rifle gunshot wounds on the alleged victims but the rifle was in the back of the car outside while the alleged gunman supposedly had 2 handguns inside the building.

If there were real bodies to examine you would think such an error would be easily avoidable.

Or perhaps they simply lied about that part for their agenda to go after "long guns" at the time, but then if they lied about that part then what parts can you trust?


Michael Winter said...

If you had a friend or acquaintance that you KNEW was a compulsive liar, how much time would you give him/her? Very little as you know whatever is being said is mostly lies and b.s. WHY listen to MSM when that is the case? It makes no sense at all, but if we are PROGRAMMED to watch it, then people are just following the programming. ONE SOLUTION! Throw out the TV. A good article on this is here on AP. go to

Post a Comment