Non-contradictory narration favors lies hidden as half-truths.
About an unfortunate release of a channel that calls itself free information. A report received from some friends led me to listen and I listened carefully to the reasons given by the lawyer.
Shovels of mud he threw at the M5S and its leader. His reasoning was based on true theses but stitched onto a loom with a false warp that had the semblance of truth.
The high mortgages, the stolen income, the poor work, the destruction of the welfare state, the cost of wars all burdened on citizens with the banks that stop the feared taxation on extra profits, the minister of justice who undermines the sacred principles of legal equity ; what does the non-lucid lawyer rave about? he discovers the political responsibility for this evident failure of the right in government by targeting the M5S, its leader and its spokesmen, incapable of having an impact as a strong opposition and provider of solutions that are due and can only be implemented by those who have the responsibility of government. Amazing how words can manipulate reality. Delusional theses aimed at "simple" people create damage that is difficult to recover, distorting the truth, for convenience or calculation is dangerous and produces confusion. In that delusional thesis, there is not the slightest bit of cross-examination or a document that attests to that that is supported, only inferences and theses that are normally supported in a bar while sipping a cappuccino. I am disappointed, because I had exchanged some opinions with this person and had received some positive signals.
The disappointment in realizing that someone with whom I had exchanged opinions in the past is engaging in a distorted discourse without solid foundations is understandable. Manipulation of the truth, especially when it involves political arguments, can have negative consequences on public understanding and contribute to the spread of distorted information.
It is important to remember that in political discussion, cross-examination and the presentation of concrete evidence are essential to support claims and theses. When they are based on inferences and arguments not supported by facts, they risk fueling confusion and damaging the quality of public debate.
I may consider the option of confronting the lawyer with accurate and documented information, if I find it comfortable to do so. Alternatively, I may seek to promote open, fact-based discussion, encouraging a more balanced view of political issues.
Let us remember that, in the information landscape, it is essential to critically evaluate the sources and try to obtain the most complete vision possible before forming an opinion on a given issue.
