The Left does not report facts. It weaponizes usable stories. If the event fits the template—racism, colonial guilt, white villainy, police evil, MAGA menace, victimhood mythology—it gets blasted worldwide before evidence arrives. If the facts later contradict the story, the correction whispers while the original lie keeps marching. Smith is right: the errors always lean the same way, flatter the same worldview, and serve the same politics. That is not journalism. That is narrative laundering. The public is not losing trust because institutions make mistakes. The public is losing trust because the mistakes look intentional, protected, and profitable.
The pattern is becoming harder to ignore: major narratives are often embraced with certainty before key facts are established. From the residential-school graves controversy in Canada to Jussie Smollett, Covington Catholic, and the COVID lab-leak debate, early narratives frequently shaped public opinion long before the evidence was fully known. Critics argue the real problem is not isolated errors, but a system that rewards ideological storytelling over careful fact-finding. When narratives drive conclusions instead of facts driving narratives, public trust erodes—and accountability is rarely part of the correction.
Well said. Time and truth. But also, freedom of speech is important in the process. The more fear and terror levied against those who strive to expose the truth, the slower it surfaces. Enough extreme suppression and the truth may be there, but it won't matter.
It's not so much the truth being ignored or left out as those who influence what others think about said subject. Narratives by any other name are propaganda, or the more palatable moniker, public relations.
Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see. Soon enough, with AI, even that will be completely untrustworthy.
The problem is that the news media pushes these narratives which lodge in most people's minds. Even if the story is corrected later (usually with much less, if any, fanfare) the narrative persists.
To this day, many people believe Kyle Rittenhouse transported a gun across state lines and killed two black people with it during The Worthless Criminal riots. This is not true. Because of this lie, Mr. Rittenhouse has difficulty entering colleges to which he applies because The Mob gets wind of his applications and riots accordingly.
"Citizens can forgive honest error. What they find much harder to forgive is the growing suspicion that many of the people charged with informing the public have decided that persuasion is more important than truth."
I've been saying for years: When someone who is "honestly mistaken" receives correction -- from facts, from reality, from logical reasoning, from informed individuals, etc. -- exactly ONE of two things will happen:
1. They will cease to be mistaken; OR
2. They will cease to be honest.
A normal, cognitively-functional human being will naturally prefer the first option; it is objectively better to ground one's decisions in fact and observable reality.
So why is it that so many of our institutions insist on #2?
What story do you think is told in the death of Henry Nowak? The Sikh community (and faith) has been part of the British commonwealth for centuries. That community has unequivocally condemned the killer (unlike the typical ethnic/religious groups that are not assimilated), endorsed the justice being served on him and offered their sincere condolences to the Nowak family. This is absolutely the wrong story to be using against the left and non-assimilating immigrants.
The damage is compounded when the right uses the same type of narrative as the left, for the damage is in the narrative structure, not just the content.
The target of the outrage over the Nowak killing is not being directed (or should not be directed, if it is) at the Sikh community or at the killer's family. It is directed at the British police, who failed to recognize and treat the wounded person, thus causing his death. The example was not being used against non-assimilating immigrants. It was not directly against the left, but indirectly it is the left that created the attitude in the British authorities that the minority is always the victim and they looked no further than the stereotype.
As to the right using the same type of narrative as the left, I am hard pressed to come up with any examples comparable to those given in the column.
I've read too many sloppy takes on non-white with a knife. Which of course does not in the least excuse the abysmal performance of British "law enforcement". On either side of the pond there seems to be a real lack of accountability; our side having that beautiful thing called qualified immunity.
Unfortunately condolences serves no purpose except to expose lies. We’re sorry somehow misses the point that the lies continue to grow after being exposed as deception!
What lies about Sikhs in Britain? This didn't involve Muslims or their grooming gangs or other criminal behavior. You do understand the difference, don't you?
The cops in Britain suck, and they are about as likely to be held accountable as those around here. Need some proof of that?
The Left does not report facts. It weaponizes usable stories. If the event fits the template—racism, colonial guilt, white villainy, police evil, MAGA menace, victimhood mythology—it gets blasted worldwide before evidence arrives. If the facts later contradict the story, the correction whispers while the original lie keeps marching. Smith is right: the errors always lean the same way, flatter the same worldview, and serve the same politics. That is not journalism. That is narrative laundering. The public is not losing trust because institutions make mistakes. The public is losing trust because the mistakes look intentional, protected, and profitable.
The pattern is becoming harder to ignore: major narratives are often embraced with certainty before key facts are established. From the residential-school graves controversy in Canada to Jussie Smollett, Covington Catholic, and the COVID lab-leak debate, early narratives frequently shaped public opinion long before the evidence was fully known. Critics argue the real problem is not isolated errors, but a system that rewards ideological storytelling over careful fact-finding. When narratives drive conclusions instead of facts driving narratives, public trust erodes—and accountability is rarely part of the correction.
Well said. Time and truth. But also, freedom of speech is important in the process. The more fear and terror levied against those who strive to expose the truth, the slower it surfaces. Enough extreme suppression and the truth may be there, but it won't matter.
MSM employs narratives for eyeballs and profits. Facts are drowned out by the echo chamber.
Read a stack this morning shared by a FB friend and like minded individual. I'll provide the link and this is the title.
Propaganda. The Man Who Manipulated the Twentieth Century
Edward Bernays, and how he shaped the public mind.
https://paperconnections.substack.com/p/propaganda-the-man-who-engineered?r=lqs11&utm_medium=ios&utm_id=97757_v0_s00_e233_tv2_tp1_a1dennhb9zuagv&fbclid=IwY2xjawSRetRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeHvxvCcMIJLO7EFUxuoQpD_HPlHk2xWQREyyz1wwXwDcdDBiJUHFTpkc6QpU_aem_WfHsiH-n7LpeCtzyEuirJw&triedRedirect=true
It's not so much the truth being ignored or left out as those who influence what others think about said subject. Narratives by any other name are propaganda, or the more palatable moniker, public relations.
Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see. Soon enough, with AI, even that will be completely untrustworthy.
Sounds to me like you’re describing a society that is not only doomed to fail, but that will eventually kill itself!
And accountability always lags. Scott Pelley had been peddling narratives for years before his Bravo Sierra bill became due.
The problem is that the news media pushes these narratives which lodge in most people's minds. Even if the story is corrected later (usually with much less, if any, fanfare) the narrative persists.
To this day, many people believe Kyle Rittenhouse transported a gun across state lines and killed two black people with it during The Worthless Criminal riots. This is not true. Because of this lie, Mr. Rittenhouse has difficulty entering colleges to which he applies because The Mob gets wind of his applications and riots accordingly.
"In each case, certainty arrived first and evidence wandered in much later looking confused and underdressed."
Brilliant!
"Citizens can forgive honest error. What they find much harder to forgive is the growing suspicion that many of the people charged with informing the public have decided that persuasion is more important than truth."
I've been saying for years: When someone who is "honestly mistaken" receives correction -- from facts, from reality, from logical reasoning, from informed individuals, etc. -- exactly ONE of two things will happen:
1. They will cease to be mistaken; OR
2. They will cease to be honest.
A normal, cognitively-functional human being will naturally prefer the first option; it is objectively better to ground one's decisions in fact and observable reality.
So why is it that so many of our institutions insist on #2?
This is the short list.
My favorite word is "patience".
What story do you think is told in the death of Henry Nowak? The Sikh community (and faith) has been part of the British commonwealth for centuries. That community has unequivocally condemned the killer (unlike the typical ethnic/religious groups that are not assimilated), endorsed the justice being served on him and offered their sincere condolences to the Nowak family. This is absolutely the wrong story to be using against the left and non-assimilating immigrants.
The damage is compounded when the right uses the same type of narrative as the left, for the damage is in the narrative structure, not just the content.
The target of the outrage over the Nowak killing is not being directed (or should not be directed, if it is) at the Sikh community or at the killer's family. It is directed at the British police, who failed to recognize and treat the wounded person, thus causing his death. The example was not being used against non-assimilating immigrants. It was not directly against the left, but indirectly it is the left that created the attitude in the British authorities that the minority is always the victim and they looked no further than the stereotype.
As to the right using the same type of narrative as the left, I am hard pressed to come up with any examples comparable to those given in the column.
I've read too many sloppy takes on non-white with a knife. Which of course does not in the least excuse the abysmal performance of British "law enforcement". On either side of the pond there seems to be a real lack of accountability; our side having that beautiful thing called qualified immunity.
Unfortunately condolences serves no purpose except to expose lies. We’re sorry somehow misses the point that the lies continue to grow after being exposed as deception!
What lies about Sikhs in Britain? This didn't involve Muslims or their grooming gangs or other criminal behavior. You do understand the difference, don't you?
The cops in Britain suck, and they are about as likely to be held accountable as those around here. Need some proof of that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Kelly_Thomas