Who can be trusted?
And who exactly are "they"
behind the scenes,
planning and attending meetings,
writing the script?
Why should I trust what "they" say,
whoever they were on Thursday?
And what's the difference between what "they" say
and what "they" determine?
How does anyone know if such reported hearsay is true?
And so what if they made one determination,
but are still investigating another?
How can people not see this smoke over here and those mirrors over there?
And why are they using the generic term, "coronavirus," at this time?
Isn't that the most unspecific and slippery description available?
And isn't the flu, by classification, also the coronavirus?
How is that even meaningful?
And why should anyone trust
a report about how it was not made or modified?
Are these journalists so inept that they have overlooked
who owns its patents?
And what about all of the medical research,
and the data about its modifications?
Why does it matter if it came into contact with people
through an accident at a Chinese lab?
And why all that specific verbiage used to describe it?
Why report it as an accident?
And why is it, all of a sudden,
politically correct to shift public attention
and potential blame to the "Chinese lab"?
Why frame such speculation as though Trump was its primary source?
And who are the alleged "aides" of his, who are also culpable?
Why should anyone trust assertions by mainstream media,
their Hollywoodesque accusers?
And doesn't this shifty rhetoric look strategically planted
to discuss and coordinate
what will be reported nationwide
for all to see and for how it will likely be viewed
so the public knows exactly who they can trust?
Post a Comment