What really happened to Paul Pelosi?
There have been a lot of rumors and conspiracy theories about the attack. We put them to rest.
In case you missed it …
A father of seven who was raided by the FBI was found not guilty of federal charges. He was accused of assaulting an abortion worker, but says he was pushing the worker away to protect his son.
Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse are demanding answers from Meta on the company’s decision to reinstate former President Donald Trump to Facebook and Instagram. They say the anti-censorship move is “inexplicable.”
TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew will testify before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to address concerns regarding the Chinese Communist Party’s influence over the app.
Dear Friends —
When Paul Pelosi was attacked at home by an intruder last October, it was like a Rorschach Test for people on both political sides.
Liberals were sure the attacker was a MAGA nut job, while conservatives were hoping for a homeless San Francisco meth addict.
As more details were released, we ended up with a terrible amount of wrong information surrounding the story. Everyone from the cops to the mainstream media to the armchair analysts posting on social media added wrong bits of information to the story.
Now that the body cam video has been released, I’m sharing my own video where I go through the events of the evening and address the most popular conspiracy theories.
Was Paul Pelosi attacked by a gay lover? Why was there glass outside the house if the attacker was smashing in a window? Why did we hear there was more than one hammer? Were the cops negligent?
Take a look at my analysis and let me know what you think as well.
I spend a lot of time criticizing the legacy media for screwing up, and they well deserve it. They certainly made mistakes this time around, but some on the conservative media side went way beyond “mistakes,” making us all look bad.
Still, it’s a great case study and lesson for us all about today’s media and politics.
— Ken
Thanks Ken! Fair is fair, bad reporting and misleading statements on both sides is not useful if one wants to restore trust.
I for one am not giving money or viewership to those who are extreme in their commentary (Souza, Trump…). I have become very selective in who I listen and subscribe to; voting with my support or withdrawal of support if you will.
Nice job, Ken. The good-faith mistakes the media made -- and corrected/retracted -- aren't even in the same ballpark as the cynical conspiracy theory-mongering of right-wing commentators. Honest mistakes are inevitable when details come trickling out in piecemeal fashion. Using an assault on an elderly man to score political points is just venomous.
Now that the facts are clear, pay attention to the commentators who were promoting conspiracy theories. See if they admit they were wrong and post corrections/retractions like responsible media outlets did. That will tell you who's trying to give you the facts and who's trying to distort them.