It always blew my mind (well, weirded me out) that once a verdict was delivered in a court case, that the news coverage immediately pivoted to cementing the winning side’s version as gospel. I mean, I get it. The victors write history, right? One side instantly becomes canon.
But it always niggled at me - how can we ever know for sure, that every single detail is true? Can we take it wholesale? Isn’t it possible that some of those details theoretically were wrong? Could not some of the other side’s version be accurate?
It’s all speculation - crafting a narrative, after all. (Case in point: the father of the man who assaulted Chanel Miller, bemoaning the consequences of his offspring’s “20 minutes of action”. The courts in the Gisele Pelicot case choosing to use the phrase “sex scene” over “rape”. Dave Grohl characterising his affair’s outcome as a baby “born outside of my marriage”.)
I always wondered how testimonies and recollections could vary so wildly. But shows like The Affair and books like Daisy Jones and the Six tackle this with delicacy and illustrate just how differently people can experience and recall the same thing.
If memories are indeed like JPGs (I can’t remember where I first heard this concept!) - fragile, prone to degradation each time they’re accessed, just rattling around your brain in between those times - no wonder they’re susceptible and malleable. (The flipside of this is really beautiful; the power of hypnosis, the potential to reprogramme past hurts and pains, etc.)
All this to say, while I reckon there are definitely some things that are just straight up wrong - no contest - neutrality, objectivity, and truth are no longer words I can see as black and white.
Runtime: 9 mins 31 secs, or, enough time to light a candle and give your new IPL device a whirl
