Published on June 20, 2024, 1:02 am

The Biden administration and its staunch defenders continue to make questionable claims about alleged “cheap fake” videos. At face value, one might believe that there’s nothing of concern—Biden is articulate and coherent, and the issue appears trivial. However, a closer inspection reveals the inadequacy of their argument. These discrepancies stem from various sources, some surprisingly friendly towards Biden—including emanating directly from the White House itself—which lend more credence to the counter-argument.

Even more telling is the response—or rather lack thereof—of his press secretary when pressed about these clip complications. Her hesitation and refusal to definitively affirm President Biden’s state of soundness raises further doubts about this matter.

Despite attempts by team Biden and certain sectors of media to draw a veil over these contentious points ahead of important presidential debates and Election Day, it’s hard to overlook specific details. In at least one instance surrounding a contested “cheap fake” video clip, even the official White House transcription could not fully capture what was conveyed by President Joe Biden during a mass amnesty event he held on Tuesday.

Biden seemingly forgot the name of his Secretary of Homeland Security during this event; an awkward silence followed before he struggled to verbalize his point. A subsequent examination of the official transcript only deepens these uncertainties as even they lacked clarity in transcribing what had been spoken: “and thanks to all the members of Congress and Homeland Security Secretary — I (inaudible) — I’m not sure I’m going to introduce you all the way — (laughter) — but all kidding aside”.

Over time it has become evident that tactics have been employed by Biden’s team—stealth edits or changing words in transcripts—to ensure consistency in perception despite occasional hiccups in speeches delivered by him. However, these modifications—a staggering 148 corrections made between January and April this year alone–serve only to validate critics’ concerns regarding articulated coherence, not disprove them.

Rather than dedicating resources to downplay these edits in the so-called “cheap fake” videos as minor technicalities, the mainstream media could better utilize this time probing why there are so many adjustments made to official transcripts in the first place. This might shed light on a more deliberate attempt at deception—a potentially significant story concealed by the orchestrated uproar over the video content.

In keeping with past behaviour, it is anticipated that media’s responses will follow predictable patterns—presenting a scenario of rinse and repeat—but the real trusted news from a Christian worldview would persist in digging deeper into these matters to ensure transparency and accountability.

Understanding how misinformation is spread will strengthen our ability to decipher real news from cheap fakes while remaining guided by ethical and religious values.