I saw a fully mature mule deer buck jumping on a trampoline, captured by what appeared to be someone’s backyard security camera. After several bounces, the deer intensified his bounce, executed a near-perfect front flip, and dismounted with a flawless landing onto the lawn. He then casually strolled away, seemingly minding his own business.
The caption said, “They are getting good at this.” Initially, one might suspect that the commentator was referring to the deer population and their gymnastic and aerobatic skills. However, after further reflection, the technology that created the illusion was, in all likelihood, the actual focus of the comment. It is challenging to distinguish fact from fiction these days.
As we wrap up 2025, the theater surrounding readily available media and the technology that enables it will be among the historical milestones we reflect on in the future.
The game has changed. On a positive note, the conspiracies surrounding media agendas, spin, and misinformation campaigns have been repeatedly validated. Less than two decades ago, the common belief was that if it was published, it was probably true. This is no longer the case in the mind of a discerning citizen. The downside of media sources promoting the agendas of their owners, financial backers, and advertisers is that the same discerning citizen faces tough choices when seeking to be informed about actual events.
At an early age, I was taught the adage commonly attributed to Edmund Burke, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” This concept has resonated with me and served as a driving force in both my personal and public policy-making.
In my own eclectic thought process, I connect this ‘action’ philosophy to the often-modified statement by George Bernard Shaw, “Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach,” which originates from his 1903 play “Man and Superman.” My favorite variation is carried on by [not Woody Allen, but] Douglas Preston, which is “Those who can’t do, teach, and those who can’t teach, critique.”
During my tenure as a university-level fine arts student, I found it natural to despise those who criticized without being skilled enough to replicate the task being cited or offering an implementable solution to the critiqued dilemma. I vowed not to exhibit such weakness or cowardly behavior in my own life at that pivotal moment in my education.
The net result of internalizing these two philosophies is an understanding that individuals forego their rights and deliberations when they choose to abstain from action. Apathy when action is required is a choice to become an accomplice to evil. In the context of Thomas Paine’s statement, “lead, follow or get out of the way”— through inactivity, you have removed yourself from the fight, and your thoughts and opinions should no longer be considered of consequence.
Furthermore, it is a weak and cowardly practice to criticize without offering a solution to partner with the critique. Providing a viable, implementable solution to a problematic situation is statistically improbable without being genuinely informed and having thoroughly researched the topic. To be a respectable leader, teacher, or critic, one must dedicate oneself to becoming a subject matter expert (do the work) and provide feedback that can be fact-checked and replicated. Thomas Sowell once stated:
“The beauty of doing nothing is that you can do it perfectly. Only when you do something is it almost impossible to do it without mistakes.
Therefore, people who are contributing nothing to society, except their constant criticisms, can feel both intellectually and morally superior.”
Often, I see critics and influencers, particularly on social media platforms, who generate viewership and fan followings through critical commentary on those who are attempting to lead. These statements are often subjective and primarily based on partial truths, mingled with opinion. This massive collective of critics and their messaging should be treated judiciously. Suppose the content originator has not offered a basis of auditable facts and is not offering a legal and implementable solution to the problem cited. In that case, their opinion loses its significance, and the source should be flagged if the receiver’s overall goal is to discern the truth.
Now, back to the aerialist stag and the conscientious truth seeker: how do you navigate these minefields of misinformation and personal agendas in modern media?
The first stage is to understand that every media outlet, platform, and influencer has incentives. These incentives may include, but are not limited to, financial, political, ideological, or algorithmic motivations. The journalistic purist is not well-suited to this environment, and independents seeking objectivity tend not to win in any of the categories mentioned above, thereby making them invisible and short-tenured in the profession. When evaluating your source, consider its ownership, funding, associated advertisers, and any known partisan or philosophical alignments. Nikola Tesla stated:
“When you understand every opinion is a vision loaded with personal history, you will start to understand that all judgment is a confession.”
Follow the money trail or potential for the originator to find some manner of personal gain (which could be as petty as attention or perceived popularity). Doing so will generate a filter that reveals the histories, and the confession will come into focus.
Secondly, seek out the primary source. The overwhelming majority of viral outrage collapses when the original source is brought into focus. This fact is accentuated when considering official documents, transcripts, studies, and bills. Read the actual government staff reports, watch the meetings, and listen to the debates or conferences. When you do the work and become a person of action, you begin to follow the path of liberty, self-reliance, and critical thought analysis. Independent thinkers are challenging to fool, but it takes work to reach that status.
Another trick is to consider multiple angles. Read the original report, then a left-leaning take, a right-leaning take, and an independent take. The common threads in all four will likely point to the factual truth.
It is advantageous to learn the common tricks and traps. These may include headline clickbait that doesn’t match the article, selective video editing, AI-generated content, anonymous sources with no corroboration, incomplete or unsubstantiated statistics or datasets, and photos from a different event or date. The presence of any of these elements should raise suspicion about the source and their motives.
Over time, if you put in the work, you will build a network of sources that you favor as ‘factual.’ Please remember that all sources are fallible; treat them as trusted but verify. If, at any point, you find yourself feeling immediate outrage or a sense of victorious vindication, you may assume you have been manipulated. Generating a powerful and polarizing emotional response is the primary goal of modern media.
With all of this in mind, why should you trust Heber Valley Life? Well, run us through the tests and see what you find. I have created a brand, fully aware of these trends, as a countermovement. Stay skeptical; we must earn your trust. I encourage you to read everything we publish and listen to our weekly podcasts. If we are doing our jobs over here, you should feel warm, uplifted, and more deeply connected to the fantastic community that we call home.
I genuinely appreciate your ongoing support. It is needed. Have yourself a based and magical winter season in the Heber Valley.
