By Iron Tiger
There exists an audio tape of a previous President, railing about how military types propose attacking another country. In that tape, you hear him fumbling through a box, withdrawing papers, and showing them off to his guests. While doing so, he allegedly admitted he could have had those documents de-classified, but now that he was no longer president, he couldn’t. The News Industry says that’s a smoking gun. That it’s now an open and shut case. That former president is dealing in classified documents, and he knows it to boot. Lock him up! Throw away the key, and they shout at every camera they can find. It’s over! It’s done! The walls are closing in! Or so they say. But is it as clear-cut as they want you to believe? Perhaps. But what if I were to tell you there’s a little more to the story that might be a whole lot more, depending on which version of events eventually gets verified?
Turns out there’s another version of events. In that other version, that same former President pulled a copy of the New Yorker out of the box and was referring to an article by that same magazine alleging that the former president had planned to attack another country, and that same former President was countering the article, claiming the military adviser who was the source for this article was actually the one who was recommending the attack. Furthermore, this other version of events states that the reference to being able to declassify then, but not now was a lament that he could have proven that it wasn’t him that wanted the new proposed war, but the very guy who was accusing him now. But now it was too late.
There is no video. Just two versions of events upon which consumers of news must rely. Who do we believe? Who do we trust? Typically, whom one believes in situations such as these tends to be determined by the personal political views one might hold. I spent a week looking for a video of this event so I could try and verify which version was the truth. I don’t believe one exists, but I will tell you, the papers that he waves around in the recording don’t sound like ordinary papers to me. To my ears, it makes sense that it is indeed a magazine, but that is my own interpretation of events based on the limited information I have available to me. However, over the years I have become skeptical of the news industry in general because they often only tell you what it is they want you to know and leave out any details that might poke a hole in the narratives they want you to accept. In that way, they try to exercise control over the public by limiting the information they provide. If one doesn’t check the same story across multiple sources, one is likely only getting a partial picture. And this is especially relevant in situations such as these because we don’t really have a complete picture available to look at here. Just two unverifiable versions of the same story.
And yet there is still one detail I have withheld from you, dear reader, until now… it turns out this event, and this recording is not a part of the current indictment against the former President. While the former President is having to fend off allegations of mishandling classified documents, one would think this little detail might sway news consumers considering which version of events to believe and leaning against the former President. And so, it gets left out of most reports.
This is the game the news industry plays. They say the devil is in the details, but how do we spot the devil if it’s left out of the story?
