Why Doesn’t the Mainstream Media Claim Hillary’s Ill-Health Was “Fake News”?
by Jon Rappoport | No More Fake News
Why aren’t major media now highlighting Hillary’s ill-health as a “vicious fake news item” that was spread around by many sites, including the loathsome and ever-popular Drudge, during the presidential campaign?
Surely, it had to be one of the most damaging claims that helped defeat her. Who wants a president in the White House who can’t walk upright, who falls down, who needs to be helped up stairs, who has to take time off to rest, who has a physically impaired brain, whose judgment is suspect, whose very life is teetering on the edge.
Those charges were super-viral messages that traveled around the world on the Web thousands of times, replete with photos.
Fence-sitting voters, faced with one piece after another about Hillary’s failing health, could easily have opted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, or stayed home on Election Day. Some of them could even have cast a vote for Trump.
Read the current mainstream stories about “fake news” torpedoing Hillary’s bid for the presidency, and try to find one that highlights, front and center, the accusation of ill health as a horrific piece of gossip that truly sank her boat.
***You mean to tell me not one reporter now remembers how important that charge was at the time? All these sharp journalists have selective amnesia on the very same subject?
Or…Hillary’s health issue is being purposely exiled from permitted talking points now.
In the echo chamber of bouncing stories that makes up the fake consensus generated by big media, that item is verboten.
Russia did it? Putin cost Hillary the election? James Comey cost her the election? Julian Assange cost her the election? Fake news in general did her in? Fine. No problem. Those items are on the list of talking points.
But ill health? Front and center? No. That’s out of bounds.
Because bringing it up now would re-open the door to all sorts of persuasive medical opinion and other assessments from some quite smart people. And that opinion would be: yes, she is in ill-health. And on those grounds alone, it’s a lucky thing she didn’t win the election.
The fake story about the Russia-hack keeps on moving these days, despite a lack of evidence; it’s a dead man walking. There is nothing to keep it alive, except the media’s determination to push it like manure over a vast field.
But the story that has evidence to back it up, the most corrosive story about Hillary—her health—is missing in action. How interesting.
Here is a conversation between a reporter and his editor that would never take place, because both people understand the rules of the game and need no prompting:
Reporter: Boss, I’ve got a great idea. Let’s add to the list of fake-news charges against Hillary that she was in ill-health. I mean, that was a big one. Remember how she seemed to collapse after the 9/11 Memorial, and they had to pour her into the van like a bag of protoplasm?
Editor: No. That’s not on our list of talking points.
Reporter: Talking points? I didn’t see them.
Editor: Doesn’t matter. I saw them. Hillary’s health is off-limits.
Reporter: Why? Because she’s really sick?
Editor: There is no “really”. There is only what we say there is. If we bring up the health thing now, it’ll come back to life and everybody and his brother will weigh in on it. It’s counter-productive.
Reporter: Counter-productive to what?
Editor: To two things. The first one I won’t mention because who knows who’s listening? The second one is: counter-productive to you and I picking up our paychecks every week. Got it?
Reporter: Got it. Enough said. I’ll do another piece on Putin and his Russian hackers.
Editor: And make it a good one. The Putin story is so damn thin people are laughing at us already.
Bottom line: the actual fake news is coming right out of the major media, and is limited to their shared and agreed-upon talking points.
To boil it down further: “We will say THIS but we won’t say THAT.”