The Modern 'Business' Of 'News'

Sometimes it isn't that you - 'we' - don't already know a certain thing, it's just that we haven't confronted it clearly and succinctly, or that consciously yet, so we don't think about its consequences.

How do you suppose CNN, for example, functions? How does it make money...?

Well, their in-house accountants have worked the 'per unit' cost of the type of news 'product' they broadcast, and they consider their style of production part of their brand. They further distinguish different types of story, even down to the nature of the content, and place a kind of a 'viewer appeal' metric onto it. Thus, whatever was in their 'in-house generated' schedule of news appearances has a specific unit cost.

This hard-shell case is what they carry cash in

So then, for example, accredited news reporters produce a story, maybe it is an 'exclusive' which was subject to some kind of agreement between the subject of the story and that reporter, and these items go into a syndicated agents' 'selling sheet.' This will include items that are released through very large agencies such as AP or Reuters. Unless these are already part of the brand agenda and schedule structure, they will never appear in broadcasts and those that do get a bulk or commodity news rate fee paid to whatever large agency had specific 'royalty rights' and these kinds of rights are not genuinely 'royalties' as is meant in the Tax Act or Artists' and Writers' Code or Legislation, but merely 'agreed' royalties already standardized by habitual practice between the large agency providers and various Networks.

And then there comes along some independent reporter who covered something which was 'actual news' as such: he or she found out, for example, that the person detained in Russia under suspicion of being an active foreign spy held literally four separate legal citizen-ships. So now this is not going to be run in any of the Networks because it was not 'their' news.

But if you paid them, to shift their unit costed news blocks out of the way, to be substituted by this 'externally-costed' item, then they would run it, paid for... ...by someone.

And there is a pecking order, an ascending premium rate structure so that the higher 'up' the news item is to be 'placed' the more it is going to cost to get it 'placed' there.

This is the 'Institute for Statecraft' at Number 2 Temple Place in London.
Russia's 'Sputnik News Agency' uncovered this place,
and they are running the pics and story now,
but we have already shown you various places that NO ONE else has ever talked about.

All current news Networks and major Broadcasters - including the BBC, for one good instance - operate this way. With the BBC, there is a government policy agenda filter on all news; so much so, in fact, that it took a recent anonymous hacker to uncover - and then finally the Parliament admitted it was so - that the government has at least one and probably many, organizations that are heavily funded to the tune of millions of pound per year, to produce 'placed' news items.

Ostensibly these previously clandestine organizations are there to provide formally guaranteed factually-based and truthful news, and so the one that was recently named in the UK Parliament, carries the title of 'The Integrity Initiative.' However, this organization is a two-way street between the seemingly privately-funded group known as 'Bellingcat' which produces completely fabricated propaganda disguised as 'independent work and internet research.' Bellingcat was responsible for all of the supportive 'stories' that seemed to underpin what was in the Christopher Steele 'dodgy dossier' which was then 'paid for' at a premium by various US political interest groups.  

So whether it is 'Hakluyt,' or 'Bellingcat,' or 'the Integrity Institute' someone ends up paying for actual items placed and run in whatever magazine, or television program, or newspaper ends up covering the items.

Sometimes, it is the taxpayer that pays, but he doesn't know that the stories are politically-spun or who gets to control the 'spin.'

The bottom-line for you, is this - whatever story you see in any mainstream outlet, has been paid for by someone who believes it is in their financial interest to have that story or narrative told to you. It is not 'news.' And it has never been 'news' maybe for at least since the time of John Major as so cloying a lie as it has now become.