We tell ourselves stories in order to live. The princess is caged in the consulate. The man with the candy will lead the children into the sea. The naked woman on the ledge outside the window on the sixteenth floor is a victim of accidie, or the naked woman is an exhibitionist, and it would be "interesting" to know which. We tell ourselves that it makes some difference whether the naked woman is about to commit a mortal sin or is about to register a political protest or is about to be, the Aristophanic view, snatched back to the human condition by the fireman in priest's clothing just visible in the window behind her, the one smiling at the telephoto lens. We look for the sermon in the suicide, for the social or moral lesson in the murder of five. We interpret what we see, select the most workable of the multiple choices. We live entirely, especially if we are writers, by the imposition of a narrative line upon disparate images, by the "ideas" with which we have learned to freeze the shifting phantasmagoria which is our actual experience. – Joan Didion, The White Album

The News is understood to be the Official Story about reality, told honestly, as it happens in real time. We believe in Breaking News. We believe in going live to the devastation. We believe in gravitas and good will. We believe in serious voices, especially those with accents. We believe what we’re seeing is probably important and that’s why they’re showing it to us. We believe the job of The News is to tell us about the most important aspects of our lives. Because we don’t have the time to understand these things for ourselves.

We are told The News is biased toward the truth and we call that objectivity. We treat objectivity as an unreachable goal that is nonetheless worth striving for, or hinting at, or at least talking about sometimes. Because objectivity is unreachable, we have stopped demanding it from The News.

We now correctly perceive all media as biased in some way, but we stop at the left/right, Democrat/Republican biases. We rarely calculate the effects of bias due to political influence or the agendas of media magnates, except insofar as they relate to the left/right, Democrat/Republican bias. We assume that what we’re seeing or reading is a picture of reality. We base our points of debate on perceived differences in our perspectives, in the way we view reality. We are shown, through dramatized bickering on television News shows, that our most significant differences are superficial, assuming we all want the same things. If we are good people, that is.

Varying reinterpretations of reality on The News disputed the necessity of “vaccine” mandates, but agreed that we shouldn’t worry about the legality of mandates or the need to preserve our human rights. The News agreed that, regardless, the “vaccine” was very safe and effective.

In each varying reinterpretation of reality presented by The News, the one constant is the safety and efficacy of the “vaccine,” despite the overwhelming empirical evidence that the “vaccine” is neither safe nor effective. Every story about reality premised on this false claim works to construct one’s own false reality.

In the false reality, very good people accepted that mandates might be legal somehow, even though they’re not. They accepted that regardless of legality, the moral question scientific question of the mandates’ necessity should override the rights of dissenters. They accepted that believing The Science meant saying things like, “If it saves just one life, it is worth it,” just before closing Instagram, rather than examining scientific material and listening to a wide range of experts before making a life-changing decision. With safety and effectiveness taken as a given, and the legal and moral arguments tossed aside in favor of The Science, all that’s left is an unsophisticated and superficial argument about the extent of one’s authoritarianism.

In reality, the “vaccines” are neither safe nor effective. They destroy human immune systems and lead to far worse outcomes across the board. They do not save lives and they have not. Their acceptance did not restore the freedoms stripped from the people.

In the false reality, very good people are debating whether these same “vaccines” should be required for infants. It will give them a lifetime of “protection”, says The News. In the false reality, parents brag on Instagram about “protecting” their children. When their children come down with myocarditis, parents are still grateful that the child’s case of covid wasn’t worse, thanks to the vaccine. It did not prevent their child from getting covid, and it produced a life-threatening heart condition, but it must’ve helped somehow.

In reality, children do not need protection from a disease that cannot harm them and has not. Otherwise-healthy children do not die from covid in reality. In reality, children are dying as a direct result of their parents’ thoughtlessness and neglect.

Historians will not make a distinction between ancient societies sacrificing children to a false god and our modern society sacrificing children to The Science, as told to them by The News, received through a series of screens, dumbed-down enough for anyone to understand it. There is no distinction to be made.

•