When cellphone cameras and video became ubiquitous and police body cams became the norm, video revealed much of what had been adamantly denied. Cops sometimes did bad, and sometimes horrible, things. Those who slept comfortably knowing that all police officers were mutations of Andy Griffith had a rude awakening, judges included. But the aftermath of the Hamas terrorist attack suggests that the “truth” videos once revealed have both spoiled people and given people an excuse not to believe any source if they can’t see it with their own eyes.
But there’s more: Even if they do see it, they still don’t have to believe it because of deep fakes, contextless video and the now-ubiquitous “aftermath” video which supposedly proves that an unseen preceding narrative is proved by what’s left behind.
To this moment, there are passionate believers who refuse to accept that “atrocities” were committed against the Israelis, and that any claims of rapes, burnings, beheadings of babies are mere Zionist propaganda designed to make people hate Palestinians, who are the real victims here. Their proof? Where are the videos? Hamas took many videos of their freedom fight and they show them treating children with kindness and only a few beheadings here and there, none of which involve babies. See? No video, it never happened.
Reporters say so. Meh, lying liars with their “moral clarity” to sell. Elected officials say so. Meh, they can’t tell you the time without lying and it’s all “fake news” anyway, unless we want it to be true. The Red Cross says so. Meh, greedy money-grubbers trying to scam donations so they can buy new curtains. If there’s no one to be believed, then you’re free to believe whatever suits your cause. And without video, no one can prove your wrong. Doubting requires no video. Doubting requires no proof.
But even when there are images, it doesn’t change the calculus. After all, images can always be faked. They could be from ten years ago. They could be edited. Or just complete fabrications. We have the technology.
Watching one of the talking headettes on MSNBC yesterday, she stated that the Gaza Ministry of Health said that 2400 Palestinians were killed, mostly women and children. The congressman in a box on the screen responded, “you do realize that the only government in Gaza is Hamas, and that the “official” sounding Ministry of Health is just Hamas propaganda, right?” No. No she did not. She thanked him for informing her. It was the end of her hour, and so the next headette took over, starting her segment with “The Gaza Ministry of Health said that 2400 Palestinians were killed, mostly women and children.” The congressman was no longer in the box to explain.
To be fair, neither you nor I are on the ground in Israel or Gaza, and thus are in no position to assert from personal experience what happened. We didn’t see it, just as we don’t see most of what passes for the news. We have to trust someone, believe something, or we wander through the wilderness in a state of constant doubt, never knowing what or whom to believe.
Video was supposed to save us from our slavish reliance on the media and reason to inform us that no cop ever beat a black guy and no Hamas terrorist ever beheaded a baby. Now that “but for video” is gone, what are we to believe?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
We were supposed to have a group of professionals to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. We even protected them in the Constitution.
But they were more interested in living out their college sophomore passions and agendas (very much like certain college letter signatories), than considering that a sliver of a video is a sliver of an event; thay maybe lawyers lie; and that Michael Brown might not have been murdered. In fact, they passionately argued their profession demands reporting Michael Brown was murdered, facts being tedious context that distracts from their reality.
So they traded objective credibility for cocktail party invitations (lately very much on the former MSM and both sides of the partisan spectrum alike) and left a hell site bird app as the only forum where sanity can be sifted.
AI is a threat, but only to the extent its abuse is allowed by those who are supposed to defend the truth. But that might not get clicks from those seeking validation over information.
Does anyone actually go to any cocktail parties? Diplomats, maybe.
Optimistically, these circumstances place tremendous value on credibility. Perhaps some news organizations will recognize this opportunity and redouble their commitment to journalistic integrity and jettison strategies like blurring the line between news and opinion, sensationalism, and outrage farming.
And perhaps they will recognize a multi-segment market opportunity for outrage and fear, redouble their commitment to gish gallop plausibility, and make their graphics even more whiz bang and their music cues even more Hollywood.
Sadly for democracy, I’m guessing your scenario is far more likely.
I was impressed by BBC’s careful analysis of the video aftermath of the alleged attack by Israel on a convoy of refugees fleeing Gaza City. Lots of work to establish the video was current and not faked. Zero evidence as to the actual source of the munitions that caused the damage.
Is the correct title “headette” or “headrix.” I assume this is your way of commenting on the disproportionate number of women who bring absolutely nothing of value to the table at MXNBC other than their gender and woke credulity, and yet get their own show anyway.
Stop rationalizing away your dissemination of possible propaganda/disinformation (beheaded babies). It hasn’t gone unnoticed that you’re now leaving that bit out of the list of attrocities. Thanks.
It’s unclear whether or how many babies were beheaded although there is no question that they beheaded adults. After all, murdering babies by shooting, burning, dismembering or otherwise is totally less barbaric.
How is it possible you aren’t institutionalized for your terminal psychosis? What sane person thinks “we didn’t behead babies, but only burned them to death” makes you look good?
My observation: A significant number of people give a quick perfunctory acknowledgment of the Hamas barbarism _ and then cry about Israeli war crimes.
One would have to be exceedingly simple minded to not see the swelling of antisemitism. Perhaps that’s why the response to the Hamas atrocities appears so dismissive to me.
Is there any place for genuine discussion about Israel’s misdeeds in the current situation? Or are we just to drop back to that great Anerican excuse of “They hate us for our freedom”?
There is a place for that discussion: a sophomore critical studies classroom. Just not among reasonable or knowledgeable people.