How Stories Shape Truth More Than The Facts These Days
People distrust news today, scanning for “bias,” “agenda,” “fake news.” But hand them something written 300 years ago and suddenly the bias doesn’t exist. Take Paul Revere’s ride. While it did happen, the story we know isn’t based on Revere’s own testimony. His fame rests mostly on Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s 1861 poem, which exaggerated the details for dramatic effect.
Or look at the Battle of the Alamo. Everyone knows about it, but few know what it truly stood for. As Mario Salas often points out, the narrative was reshaped afterward to serve political and racial goals.
Who Controls The History?
History and journalism share a common occurrence where a story is less about “what happened” and more about what people wanted you to feel about what happened. It’s the constant tug-of-war between subjectivity and objectivity, where political bias and ideology creep in no matter the time period.
That doesn’t mean history is fake, or that the news is fake. My point is that we should read it less like a camera and more like a diary. It’s always a balance between myth and evidence and the real work is learning to tell the difference: cross-checking sources, weighing perspectives, noticing who benefits from the version of the story you’re reading and who’s behind it.
Burning The Books vs Curating The Vibe
Right now, we’re living through a bizarre new censorship regime because Trump and his administration know they can’t control the facts. All they can do is control the story and try to keep you from feeling anything about it.
This isn’t “burn the books” censorship we’re facing, it’s “curate the vibe” censorship. They can’t erase information anymore, not when everyone carries a camera in their hand. What they can control is the frame.
- Government spin: Look at the Epstein files. Everyone knows Trump and Epstein had ties. There are pictures, letters, even checks but even Lawmakers in both parties are still fighting to force the Trump administration to release all the federal files on Jeffrey Epstein.
- Media framing: Conservative and right-leaning cable outlets run the same stories as everyone else but with different emotional tones. One clip sparks outrage, another shrugs it off. Same event, different feeling.
- Social media algorithms: Information is rarely outright deleted (if you stay within guidelines). Instead, they boost some posts, bury others, and unleash bots to steer your emotions—manufactured outrage here, numbness there.
- Historical precedent: During the Red Scare, the facts of who was a communist sympathizer weren’t hidden. They were often well known with the lone advocacy from people like Edward Murrow to help them combat the public scrutiny. But what mattered was how stories were told such as fear mongering hearings, sensational headlines, being ostracized.
Trump’s pressure on the press is just another reminder that the past and presents shows us the same patterns, and human nature hasn’t changed. However, if we can sustain that balance, between myth and evidence, then both history and news remain useful.
Until then, good night and good luck.
