Mega Genius® Intelligence Briefing 
Civilization on our small planet, spinning around an average star — one of more than 1021, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (one sextillion) other stars in our physical universe — is still in an early stage of evolution. Because it is too self-absorbed to view itself exteriorly, it is unaware of a clear and present danger, much less what to do about it.
We need to view ourselves objectively and from a distance. Fasten your rocket harness. This is launch day!
I have news for you, both bad and good. The bad news is that an intensely malicious virus has been transmitted into your home. The good news is that you can effectively treat it with a minor dose of understanding.
The news media continually amuse me with their ferocious ability to ferret out the most diminutive secrets of anyone or anything they target, and with their successively gutless attempts to critique themselves. Droplets of blood practically appear on anguished journalists’ foreheads whenever they pretend to search for their own minute imperfections, which, when even vaguely perceived, are immediately justified.
Since someone needs to accept the responsibility of doing what the news media cannot, I’ll give these nearsighted self-analysts a hand.
First, imagine a culture essentially without conflict, violence and self-induced tragedy, which, by definition, is an elementary step in the evolution of any true civilization. With the benefit of The Mega Genius® Lectures, our society will one day take that step, but you can just imagine it for now. What would the news media report about then?
Well, there wouldn’t be too much left for those “honey dippers” to bail out of the public outhouse, other than perhaps an occasional sex scandal of the rich and famous.
Fear, loss, grief, hatred, tragedy, death, conflict, agony, violence, war, trouble, disease, sex, celebrity and wealth—that pretty well sums up the essence of news as the media currently report it. Do you really need to be subjected to that each day? Is it constructive to your life and family? Do you even feel better after listening to the news?
Randomly I recently timed a 30-minute edition of “CBS World News” to see just how much of a television newscast did not fall within those parameters. After disregarding commercials, at the conclusion of the program I had not yet found an opportunity to start my stop watch. Try it yourself; it’s horrendously revealing.
During an intense period of study, I once intentionally avoided all the news media’s toxicity for an entire year, and later concluded that I had missed nothing of importance.
Any prepubescent would-be journalist could report more constructively. You deserve better.
Second, how much of the tragic news that you are subjected to is even news?
Half a century ago, I would turn on the radio and hear the expeditious staccato delivery of Walter Winchell, “Good evening Mr. and Mrs. America and all the ships at sea, let’s go to press, dateline London…,” followed by a rapid series of brief and generally easily verifiable news items that brought anyone in “radio land” current within five minutes. Although some of Winchell’s script was gossip even then, something has changed drastically.
Dan Rather, the long-time anchor person of “CBS World News,” recently revealed part of that change when he explained, “People don’t want news; they want stories about the news.” (A claim I question.) Of course, that allegation kicks the door wide open to allow the news media to “spin” all the news as they see fit.
That certainly clarifies why the news media feel they have no time to even mention the workability of a non-traditional drug rehabilitation program in The United States (curing addiction to cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, alcohol, et cetera), with a 76 percent success rate, backed by a solid written guarantee, just for example. Yet they concentrate 24 hours a day on the most heart-wrenching tragedies they can discover.
There is plenty of encouraging news. You are just not being told about it.
And let’s not neglect the news media’s supposedly impartial deliveries, incorporating a fusillade of telling gestures, influencing inflections in tone, artfully worded innuendoes and opinions … and opinions … and opinions … ad infinitum and ad nauseam.
In what election did we determine that their opinions are superior to our own?
Incidentally, it is better to have no one in a position than to have it occupied by someone who is covertly inept. If a position is unfilled, you know the job isn’t being done and you can act accordingly. If, however, one is acting inept covertly, you can easily be fooled into thinking the job is being effectively handled when it is not. Similarly, the public would be better off today with none of the slanted and misleading stories the news media are force feeding it. What they are reporting to you is an extremely poor representation of the news.
Remember, with few exceptions you are not even getting news. You are getting stories about the “news,” by the CBS World News anchorperson’s own admission. If you don’t believe me, believe him.
On the other hand, I finally discovered a solitary instance in which the news media were willing to allow you to think for yourself. Just the other day the President of ABC News actually declined to offer his opinion about a news item. Huh? After recalibrating the controls on my television, my immediate presumption was that he must have been suffering from a light stroke due to the approach of our Country’s first “blue moon” on Halloween in almost half a century.
Well, this simply will never do! Call out the Dobermans! Almost immediately multiple news sources soundly criticized him, including a major New York newspaper that opined that, because the ABC News President had declined to offer his opinion, he was being so open-minded about the news item that he was “spilling out his brains.”
Like something right out of “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” today the ABC News President actually issued a public apology for not having expressed his opinion, but semi-justified his lapse of duty by adding, somehow with a straight face, “It’s important that journalists draw a strong line between what we know and our personal opinions.” (Although he never noticed, as he turned around I could have sworn I glimpsed truth biting him on the butt.)
Lord have mercy! If I actually believed that the President of ABC News believed that journalists practice that distinction, I would have to conclude that either his office is on Jupiter’s moon Europa or that he has never even owned a television set. (My guess is the former.)
Third, let’s address the matter of all the news that the media simply refuse to report. Of course, their act of withholding that news is understandable, since their intelligence is so far above yours that they know best what you should and should not be told.
For example, how different might our world be today if, in the early 1960′s, the news media had reported the dozens of clandestine amorous affairs of Democratic President John F. Kennedy? After all, we know the news media are fascinated with sex scandals. They reported plenty of them involving other celebrities both before and after. It wasn’t that the news media didn’t know about President Kennedy’s affairs at the time; they just biasedly decided that you shouldn’t.
What about President Kennedy’s ongoing affair with the world’s most celebrated sex goddess, Marilyn Monroe? Or Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy’s subsequent affair with her? Or Marilyn’s secret abortion in the midst of the two consecutive affairs? The news media even knew who the father was, but, unless you’ve listened to The Mega Genius® Lectures, I’ll bet that you don’t.
As if some “great white father” knows best, the news media decided it was news that they should withhold from you. Just as they suppressed sex scandals about Democratic President William J. Clinton, until the extensive infidelity, and the dishonorable allegation that Linda Tripp was lying, finally began to hemorrhage of its own accord.
Well, I don’t need to know about the sexual peccadilloes of the celebrated, unless it becomes a matter of my Country’s national security, as it certainly did with the Kennedy’s, for example. But then neither do I need to know about the private sexual activities of motion picture stars Rob Lowe, Hugh Grant, Paul (Pee-Wee Herman) Reubens, and Madonna, to name only a few, which the news media have enthusiastically reported.
Curiously the news media see such discriminatory reporting as fair, impartial and balanced. I must be missing something, as I see it as unfair, partial and unbalanced. How do you see it?
And while we are on the subject of all the significant events the news media have decided you should not be allowed to know about, I must also be missing something about our Country’s founding fathers’ intention behind “freedom of the press.” Did they intend it to be so biasedly selective? Nevertheless, I’m sure reporter and news anchor Sam Donaldson could explain it to me, providing my intelligence is high enough for me to understand.
What explosively important news exists today that would rock our society to its foundation if it were known, but is intentionally not being reported? Well, I have personal knowledge of two such major news events that are of infinitely greater magnitude than anything you have ever heard reported in the news, both of which I intend to reveal in the future as a logical continuation of The Mega Genius® Lectures.
The news media won’t tell you, but I will. I will not violate a security oath I signed in the 1960′s; that’s not necesary. I’ve uncovered enough additional evidence in the course of my own research to effectively prove everything I will reveal.
They are literally the two biggest news events since the invention of the printing press and of far greater magnitude than the discovery of fire.
One of them the news media are partially suppressing and partially unaware of due to their astoundingly inept investigation and bias. The news media have determined that the other event would affect you and all your family members to such an astounding extent that you should not be permitted to know about it. If you feel excessively curious in the meantime, just put the responsibility where it belongs, on the news media for failing and refusing to do their job.
Having intimate and extensive knowledge of those two news events, both of which I have investigated thoroughly, and having examined a multitude of documents of a security classification above that to which many of our Government’s highest officials are entitled, believe me when I tell you that the news media’s intentional and determined refusal to reveal the truth to you is an unjustifiable betrayal of your trust.
You may think it is only ineptitude, but it is not. The news media know what they are doing. By definition, it is treason.
“We don’t make the news,” the news media insist, “We only report it.” A claim I also suspect has its roots on Europa.
Fourth, just how accurate is the gist of the infectious parcels of alleged news that are being delivered daily into your living room? Well, if you ever do something that makes the news in a big way, you will quickly find out.
As a former television entertainer who has had media training and has carefully analyzed the field, I can tell you that reporters not only tell their news stories from the biased angles their superiors direct them to assume, but they often utterly disregard the truth. It’s obvious they don’t even know their job description.
This morning, I heard it alleged by Katie Courric, anchorperson on NBC’s “Today” show, “It is a journalist’s job to be fair, impartial and balanced.” Uh-huh. For brevity, I will hereafter refer to her clarification of a journalist’s job description as “F.I.B.” Predictably, it was devoid of any requirement to be truthful.
I am fortunate to count among my close friends many of the world’s most celebrated newsmakers, but I would not want to repeat some of the words many of them have used in confidence to describe the news media.
One of the most prestigious weekly news magazines in The United States published a photograph of one of my closest friends. In a dishonest attempt to disparage him, they also inserted a caption beneath the photograph of this famous nuclear pioneer claiming that he was doing something so bizarre that, if true, it would have justified his immediate institutionalization. What the news magazine alleged he was doing was entirely different from what the editors of the magazine knew he was actually doing. The magazine’s intent was merely to ridicule the man, publicly and absolutely falsely.
This practice is known as “black PR” and is the act of causing others to have ill will for someone or something. It’s a dirty business, but practiced by the news media every day.
A major television network interviewed another friend, a world-famous classical concert pianist. Then the network carefully edited the interview to eliminate specific statements. The resulting nationwide telecast on one of the most popular “news magazines” was extremely misleading and a major embarrassment to my friend, but the news media felt the fiendishly edited interview helped substantiate their prejudiced (but false) opinion and, therefore, made good copy. (Read black PR, again.)
Another world-renown vocalist whom I know hates Time magazine, because of what she feels were extremely misleading articles about her personal convictions. (Black PR, again.)
A highly benign non-profit organization, of which I have intimate knowledge, was unjustifiably “butchered” on the highly touted and successful television program “Sixty Minutes,” in what I believe was some of the most misleading and biased reporting imaginable. In my opinion, CBS attempted to create controversy by intentionally suppressing the truth. (Black PR, again.) It pains me not to learn that “Sixty Minutes’” ratings are slipping.
Another friend of mine, an international executive of the highest character and honesty, was interviewed on the ABC television news program “Nightline.” Although he told me that he placed no restrictions whatsoever on the questions they might ask, and was quite willing to speak on any issue, he said that Forrest Sawyer promised that a specific matter would not be addressed. Therefore, the guest prepared for the interview accordingly. Later, however, he told me that during the televised interview Sawyer betrayed and “broadsided” him, in complete disregard of Sawyer’s own promise. (Black PR, again.)
“Nightline’s” audience probably considered the interview hard hitting; I consider it unethical.
On another occasion, I noticed that an organization was unjustifiably, and at considerable length, “crucified” in Time magazine. I felt the article was not only intensely biased and misleading, but downright brutal. The victimized organization must have known how a salmon feels when spied by a grizzly. If the reporting wasn’t criminal, it should have been.
Because I knew the truth, I investigated and found it intriguing that one of the world’s largest drug manufacturers was eyeball-to-eyeball at odds with that targeted organization.
Now add two and two and it won’t surprise you to learn that I discovered that one of Time’s major advertisers happened to be that huge drug manufacturer. Of course, I’m sure that was only an insignificant coincidence that just happened to explain everything. (Black PR, again.)
And another … and another … and another ….
When the O. J. Simpson murder scandal broke, and long before anyone could intelligently examine and evaluate all the evidence, the news media took the position that would reflect the greatest controversy. For the cover of their magazine, Time even knowingly published an altered portrait of Simpson that falsely caused him to appear particularly unshaven, darker and somewhat sinister. Regardless of his guilt or innocence, is that the kind of reporting that you deserve? You decide. On this occasion Time got caught. (Black PR, again.)
What about the “good” stories the news media occasionally squeeze in? Well, for example, one of our most prestigious national news magazines once interrupted me unannounced in a television “green room.” They wanted to interview me and then publish an extremely favorable article about some of my recent accomplishments.
My picture would have appeared on every newsstand in the Country, and beyond. As an entertainer, the publicity would have been priceless. But they also attempted to pressure me to outright lie to the public about an important part of a newsworthy event and “…tell it the way we want you to…,” which was the untruthful angle the editor had assigned. (“But they don’t make the news; they only report it,” agreed Alice, as she stepped again through the looking glass.)
There was no ambiguity. I explained the truth twice. They understood, but didn’t care. They simply wanted my collusion in publishing a false story that would make good copy. Unwilling to compromise my integrity, I abruptly refused the interview and terminated the discussion. The last I saw of the national magazine’s reporter, his mouth was hanging wide open.
How do the news media continually get away with these kinds of deceptive shenanigans? The truth is that they have slithered under the protection of free speech and freedom of the press.
Lawsuits against the news media for slander, libel, and disregard for the truth are generally a waste of time, unless one can prove their malicious intent. Was the crime something they intended, or just one more case of astoundingly sloppy reporting? Forget their transgressions and all the resulting heartache; never mind that they have brazenly lied to you; “What was their intention?” Even barking “Fido” may see it, but just try to prove it.
Is it any wonder that recent polls have shown that the public’s trust for members of the news media has slipped to a level below that for used car salesmen? Our society has determined that something is rotten. I’ve merely outlined what it is, from beyond the top of the IQ scale.
Understand, I have no personal vendetta. Everything the news media have ever written and televised about me until now has been most favorable, because I understand how to play the game. I haven’t the slightest animosity toward any network, journalist or magazine that I have referenced. It is only their unethical actions with which I take exception.
Review these facts. The news media concentrate on conflict, violence, tragedy and death. They are determined to persuade you to agree with their barrage of unsolicited and tainted opinions. Their reporting is biased and unbalanced in determining what important news you should even be allowed to know about. They frequently and significantly alter the news they choose to report to you.
Freedom of the press is a good thing. Negatively selective, biased, misleading, prejudicial, and inaccurate reporting, often of a black-PR nature, which frequently reflects an out-and-out disregard for the truth, is not. Every day it directs viewers, listeners and readers toward illogical conclusions.
If your next door neighbor indulged in those identical practices, you would ostracize him, at least.
The news media may call it “stories,” “hard copy,” “hard hitting,” “newsworthy,” or by any other euphemism they choose. The truth is that it is pervasive, continual and unethical propaganda that, by definition, literally constitutes what is technically known in the field of the mind as an extreme type of “the second form of brainwashing.” As it is insidiously suppressive to any evolving civilization, no intelligent inhabitants of any planet would allow themselves to be continually subjected to it.
A safe prediction is that the news media’s intentions, objectives and their ability to attain those objectives will continue to be determined by ratings and copies sold.
In the manner practiced today, the news media’s reporting reflects atrocious ethics, which — for the lives of themselves — journalists are continually unable to discover more than an unjustifiable hair of. Maybe this intelligence briefing will help them in their pretense of critiquing themselves in the future … but that is not my prediction.
Finally, you are literally paying for your daily doses of the news media’s brainwashing. An intelligent question is, “Why?”
1 November 2001
Copyright © 2001 – 2011, Mega Genius®. All rights reserved.