Well, this is funny — and a little too representative of today’s so-called mainstream media.
So CNN was asking two guys who know nothing about the case to speculate about an unconfirmed alleged audio from an unidentified man.
The experts both expressed their strong doubts that the audio was real.
After the first guest says it’s most likely a hoax, and might just be a Howard Stern prankster, he allows, more out of politeness than conviction, “But it could be real.”
And it could very easily be fake. No one knows, which is the point.
If you haven’t heard the audio in question, it’s here. And here.
The sound is suspect for several reasons.
- The public doesn’t know who recorded the audio.
- No one on the recording reacts to the supposed gun shots.
- There are at least ten audible “shots,” more than any autopsy of Michael Brown has revealed (Officer Wilson may have missed some, but police will know from the number of shell casings at the scene, testimony, etc).
- Did I mention that no one on the recording reacts to what we’re to believe is ten gun shots just outside?
- The shots are really loud, almost as loud as the voice, even though they’re fired outside and at some distance.
- And no one on the recording reacted to them.
Perhaps hearing a hail of gunfire is normal in that neighborhood when you’re video sex chatting someone?
We know that whoever made the recording is capable of recording their video sex chat sessions.
Downloading and dropping the gun shot sound effect into a timeline of saying “You’re so pretty!” is trivial. It takes seconds.
I’m not saying that that’s what happened here. We don’t know. That’s the point.
But it could be real! That’s the new standard at CNN.