This week preceding we received news Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings, 33, died in a fiery car accident in Los Angeles.
In a very few days, so many versions of the story emerged, I'm left wondering, as with Bradley Manning, if Hastings is dead or alive.
All of the stories can't be true. If you tried to chase down the facts on the Benghazi embassy/consulate/outpost attack, you know what I'm saying. I read 15 or 20 different articles about Benghazi offering at least 10 versions of the story that were equally convincing, but so different they couldn't all be true, if any were true.
Could Hastings still be alive? It would come as no surprise.
Check it out: WhatDoesItMean.com presented this article dated June 20, 2013, claiming Hastings was assassinated under President Obama's legalized hit list program as retribution for destroying the illustrious careers of Generals McChrystal and Petraeus, which is on its face a specious assertion.
The article offers cogent support, including this article from Infowars.com describing "facts" leading up to the accident and about the accident itself.
Both articles want you to see the video purporting to be that accident. If it is, the whole story structure falls apart. Both articles say the car didn't hit a tree, that the car's front end is intact, but the rear is obliterated as if it had been struck by a missile. At three minutes into the video, the fire is out enough finally to show the car. What you see is a burned vehicle pointed at and next to a tree. Everything in front of the firewall is destroyed. The rear end of the car is intact, directly contradicting these articles' statements.
In this case, the mainstream media's story that Hastings' car struck a tree seems more factually accurate than the account offered by alternative media. Mainstream media doesn't insinuate there are covert forces or dark secrets about it. I don't believe that version, either. How can anyone believe anything one might read anywhere these days?
These websites get millions of views each day. This site gets a solid five to 10 views a day, and this week finally broke 7,000 total views. Considering I don't advertise it at all, I think that's pretty good. I might make inadvertent mistakes, but I'm not trying to intentionally mislead you and present fake news. Even though I read these sites, I do so with lots of doubt. These guys call Alex Jones "the king of alternative news."
What are we, blind? I laughed at this lame bullshit. Infowars.com just joined my dreaded list of prior restraint, black hole websites, and experience tells me sites that engage in prior restraint in comments regularly present phony, factually unreliable news.
Will we get the real story about Benghazi or Michael Hastings? Don't hold your breath—honest to God.
