Why parade the names of ex generals?

Few decades ago, the sources of information were radio, television, and newspapers. They were collectively called the media. The news content that they created was done by select professionals with strict editorial oversight. They prioritized fact-checking and accuracy instead of speed and so they dished out more authoritative and trustworthy information. Incidentally, I was a teenager bridging to my early twenties when I worked in radio and television. Then came the new term “social media” with example platforms such as Facebook, X/Twitter, Instagram, and Tiktok. As it has evolved, millions of cellphone holders have become sources or sharers of instant information.

The American Psychological Association describes social media as forms of digital communication through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages and other content. With blinding speed, bloggers, podcasters and their like (now with a new description as content creators) provide instant news, raw updates, diverse perspectives, and allow rapid sharing.

The other day, I got a piece of news from the social media. It was captioned “Look: Retired AFP, PNP and Coast Guard Officials Back Manifesto of Support for 18 Marines.” At my first glance, the caption alone wasn’t written by a newspaper reporter with editorial oversight. Indeed, a professional in the mainstream media could have written it better. Almost immediately upon reading, I could only brand it as political in essence. Upon my receipt of the post, I easily imagined that it probably went viral as it was shared to me by a complete stranger.

The content of that social media post was about retired military officers, some of whom were generals, reportedly agreeing to form a cabal of supporters backing up the 18 ex-servicemen who earlier claimed to be transporters of unimaginable sums of corrupt money. I do recall that there were such 18 men who joined a press conference. They were led by a lawyer who was himself known as a former counsel of a whistleblower. The lawyer announced that the 18 men were former marines who packed hundreds of billions of pesos in large pieces of luggage and brought such loot to high government officials.

What intention lurked in the brilliant mind of the author of the social media post? Differently asked, why would former top officers of the armed forces and the police come out from their peaceful recluse to announce their support for ex-marines? I don’t believe it was plainly esprit de corps. I surmise that the retired generals who threw their supposed backing to the ex-marines didn’t know these men personally. They were separated by several ranks, like generals and sergeants, such that inter communication between and among then was improbable. They couldn’t hobnob with one another.

The reported affidavit of the 18 men began to be exposed as a document of falsehood. Subsequent fact-checking seemed to belie the narratives of the ex-marines. For instance, their narration that bags of money were delivered to a woman legislator. But at the time of such delivery, the lady, a feisty former senator, was in jail, and has been in prison for years. How could contraband bags of money be given to a person under detention specifically that the visitation rights were reportedly extremely limited?

The discovery of the lies that were alleged in the affidavit had to be stopped. The genius who authored the post had to keep the focus of the curious public away from the unraveling truth. Some kind of a diversion had to be launched thru social media. Such diversionary tactic had to be implemented by men of former stature. Whoever crafted the post wanted to deliver the impression that the 18 ex-marines were telling credible stories. He thought that parading the names of some generals could do it.