The first draft of history and the eventually written account increasingly bare no resemblance to one another

Hmmmm.  I regard myself as a reasonably sophisticated reader.  I read broadly.  I read in depth in selected fields.  I have a wide range of friends with whom I have many conversations on many topics.  In my profession, I am blessedly exposed to many people, many clients, many problems.  And I try and practice both generous and skeptical reading simultaneously (frequently unsuccessfully, but I certainly try).

GenSkept reading?  Read a person's argument as generously as possible.  Try and restate their argument better than they did themselves.  Make their argument, whether you agree or not, as plausible as possible.  And then, read it skeptically.  What are the evidentiary gaps, where is there a lapse in logic, what are the second order ramifications which call into question the first order assumptions.  Again, whether you agree or not.  

It is striking, when you do this for a while, how few consequential problems have clear and definitive answers.  You eventually come around to the profound truth of Hamlet

There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

GenSkept is in overdrive in these days of partisanship and professional failure in academia and news media.   Sources in which you used to be able to repose at least some trust have bankrupted their reputations.  

With Trump's polarizing personality the examples of hard untruthful propaganda are legion.  The press, academia and institutional government are in a life and death battle for their sinecures and gravy train positions against a brutalizing barbarian.  Neither side looks good.

I long ago came to the conclusion that with Trump, you had to focus on what he accomplishes and not so much on the mechanics of the sausage making.  Bringing troops home, forcing allies to carry more of the burden of policing the world, rebalancing the economy so that everyone benefits especially the lower ends of the working class, bringing peace to troubled regions, improving border control which improved job prospects for poorer Americans, reforming Federal agencies, departments and policies so that they serve the interests of the majority rather than a privileged minority - these are all good things.  It has been a breath of fresh air compared to the institutional laziness, corruption and sycophancy of the establishment of recent decades.

His mannerisms and personal attacks and taunting - unpresidential, sure.  But perhaps the bitter price to pay for the real accomplishments which benefit everyone.  I have even come around to a different view of his preferred tactic of an eye for an eye.  Most times you win by picking your battles.  Trump has always seemed unfocused.  If you attack him, he attacks you.  Indiscriminately.  And with great relish.  

But I am questioning even that criticism after nearly four years.  With the unremitting and overwhelming adversity from the establishment parties, from the deep state, from the mainstream media, and from academia, could any other tactic have worked?  Ann Althouse refers to it as "civility bullshit".  Her view is that any demands for civility are always merely tactical efforts to gain relief and tactical advantage.  Hence journalist criticisms of Trump for being unpresidential and incivility are "civility bullshit".  He is being effective and they are wanting to disarm him.  I think there is merit to that argument.

All a long prologue to a surprise discovery which, even practicing GenSkept, I discover I have fallen for a longstanding media disinformation campaign.  This is the charge that Trump mocked a handicapped reporter back in the 2016 campaign.  I saw the clip then.  I saw the criticism.  It looked plausible.  The criticism of him was repeated everywhere all the time.  I saw one or two reposts making the point that Trump is an expressive and extemporaneous speaker accustomed to physical exaggerations.  It seemed a pretty weak rejoinder.  

So for the past four years, the mockery of a handicapped reporter has been for me one of those unpleasant sticking points about his behavior during that campaign.  

Effectively GenSkept as I think I am, apparently it is not enough. 

Neoneocon disabuses me.  The accusation has all this time been materially debunked and I did not know.  From The Big Lie that keeps on giving: Trump and the disabled reporter by Neoneocon.  I won't repeat the evidence.  It is all there in her post.  

The fakes and deceptions keep emerging.  You always learn something when reading two or three decades later about something you lived through.  There is always a material gap between the first draft of history in the mainstream media and a full and balanced account of it that can only be produced in hindsight.  But these days, it doesn't really seem like a gap.  It is a Grand Canyon between the largely fictional first draft and what will likely eventually be revealed.  

I guess I must now be prepared to revisit my view of Trump and the seemingly petty and vile dispute with the Gold Star Family in 2016.  Seemed overwhelmingly wrong.  What am I going to discover about that, given time?  Hard to believe that it was all distorted, but at this point, the media has taught me to never say never.