When You Know What You Saw

It’s infuriating when we are watching a video of an event—clear, unambiguous, right in front of your eyes—only to be told afterward that what you saw didn’t happen. Right now, nearly everyone carries a camera, and video has become the closest thing we have to a shared reality. Yet even with video, the truth can be contested, reframed, or outright denied.

So, what do we do when we know what we saw, but the “official story” insists on something else?

This tension isn’t imaginary. It’s a documented phenomenon we are currently experiencing, and it puts us in a difficult but important position.

Video is powerful because it bypasses abstraction. You don’t need an expert to interpret a punch thrown, a gun fired, or a person pleading. You see it. You feel it. You understand it. (Yes, AI can create doctored, fake videos, but that is another blog for another time.) 

But institutions, governments, corporations, police departments, and political groups have incentives to shape narratives. And sometimes those narratives contradict what we, the public, have already witnessed.

The Reuters Institute notes that public trust in institutions has been declining for years, in part because people increasingly encounter firsthand evidence (such as video) that conflicts with official accounts. Their Digital News Report 2024 highlights how this erosion of trust is amplified when authorities appear to “reinterpret” events that millions have already seen.

When people feel gaslit by institutions, they become angry and skeptical, widening the gap between the public and those in power.

There are several reasons this happens:

·         Damage control: Institutions may try to minimize wrongdoing or liability.

·         Incomplete information: Early statements are sometimes made before full facts are known.

·         Narrative protection: Officials may prioritize a storyline that aligns with their interests.

·         Audience management: Some explanations are crafted to calm tensions or maintain order, even if they conflict with visible evidence.

A Stanford study on misinformation and political cognition found that people often cling to narratives that align with their identity—even when confronted with contradictory video evidence. This applies not only to individuals but also to institutions that have reputations to protect.

If you’ve watched a video and the explanation you’re given feels like a denial of reality, you’re not alone. Many people experience this as a form of gaslighting—an attempt to make them doubt their senses.

Here’s how to navigate that moment without losing your footing:

Trust your eyes—but also trust your process

If the video is clear, unedited, and contextually complete, your perception matters. But grounding your interpretation in additional reporting strengthens your position rather than weakening it.

Look for independent verification

Local journalists, bystander footage, open‑source investigators, and reputable fact‑checkers often fill in gaps left by official statements.

Pay attention to what’s not being addressed

Sometimes the lie isn’t in what’s said—it’s in what’s omitted. If a statement avoids the most damning part of the video, that’s telling.

Recognize narrative manipulation techniques

These include shifting blame, focusing on irrelevant details, reframing the timeline, and casting doubt on the video’s authenticity without evidence. Understanding these tactics helps you stay grounded.

Hold space for complexity without surrendering clarity

Sometimes officials contradict video evidence because they genuinely have additional context. Other times, they contradict it because the truth is inconvenient.

You can stay open to new information without abandoning what you clearly observed.

The bigger issue is competing realities. When institutions deny what people can plainly see, they don’t just undermine trust—they fracture the shared reality that society depends on. Once people feel they’re being lied to, they begin to question everything, and that vacuum gets filled by speculation, conspiracy theories, and polarization.

The solution isn’t to blindly trust video or blindly trust authority. It’s to cultivate a mindset that values evidence, transparency, and accountability.

In the end, your perception matters. If you know what you saw, you’re not obligated to pretend otherwise. But you are responsible for grounding your understanding in context, corroboration, and critical thinking.

Video may not always tell the whole story, but it’s often the most honest starting point we have.

(Tim Herrera is the author of “Public Speaking: Simple Steps to Improve Your Skills” and “Mastering Media: Strategies for Effective Communication in the Digital Age.”  You’ll find both Amazon.)