Hello, my name is Fabricio Mejía Madrid and this is my weekly contribution for Sin embargo, ¿qué se llama la censura a Salinas Pliego? Do n’t laugh, by the way, I’m writing this column while the international right wing is paying for a million-dollar social media campaign against the president, her government, and her party.
Meanwhile, TV Azteca is telling its less than 2 million news viewers that saying not to watch it because it tells lies is equivalent to censorship. And I am also writing a few days before the second anniversary of the electoral drubbing that the 4T gave to the project of the corporate media Washington, Claudio X González, the former members of the INE and most of the intellectuals once coddled under the slogan they continue to use: narco-government, narco-president, break the criminal pact.
What’s new is that all of this has been taken up in the United States by the war and intervention hawks, starting with Trump, Rubio and Vanz, but also by the PRIAN in defense of the CIA servant, Maru Campos, and by Ambassador Green Beret Johnson in his interventionist displays. A few days ago, in an analysis of 264,200 tweets published between January 20 and May 4, Dr.
Carlos Augusto Jiménez Árate found a pattern. It works like this. Some communicator, for example, Susena Uresti on Radio Fórmula, says a fake news story that she found in the right-wing daily newspaper that is paid for by the Spanish far right. This is amplified, for example, by someone who claims to be an influencer on TikTok, like someone named Melisa Belly, and from there it goes to the Troll Center, where it is replicated hundreds of thousands of times, 264,000.
What you end up with is a digital scandal that has no relation to reality, but which can serve to show that there are people behind the outrage. When it’s a matter of a single source, right-wing newspaper which, as we know, has neither journalistic rigor nor professional dignity. Dr. Jiménez Arate also categorized the topics covered by this new digital campaign: authoritarianism, corruption, the economy, US intervention, and narco-states.
It also found that the peak of digital pollution was during the week of February 22 to March 8. The 22nd was the day that the Mexican Army, the National Guard and the Air Force killed Mencho Nemesio Ceguera Cervantes in an operation in Tapalpa, Jalisco. Two days later, Trump tried to take credit for the operation as usual in his State of the Union address, but spokeswoman Caroline Livet praised the bravery of the Mexican soldiers.
Neither of them mentioned the drug trafficker by name, but it is interesting that Mencho’s death did not lessen the pressure on Mexico, but rather increased it at the same time as this digital operation skyrocketed to numbers never seen before. Up to that point, it’s just a simulation that costs a lot of money.
Meanwhile, there is no street. Since the failed attempt to take over the National Palace last December with the march of the non-Generation Z, orchestrated by the PRI and TV Azteca, there have been no territorial actions, except for something that looks very much like that same digital simulation: putting up banners insulting the president and broadcasting on TV Azteca how ordinary people are outraged by the insults and then saying that those who caused outrage are state forces. and that there is censorship.
But what I can say at this moment is that the opposition, which lost badly two years ago, has only been able to come up with two messages: that we live in a narco-state and that we need US intervention to end it. That’s what Ricardo Salinas Pliego, owner of Electra and TV Azteca, has been feeding off since he started paying back taxes.
But let’s get to her statement so we don’t make fun of her in response to what President Claudia said at a press conference on May 25th, “Don’t watch TV Azteca, Salinas Pliego will get angry ,” already writing a tweet. Immediately, the statement from Salinas Pliego’s television network appeared, saying, “There are millions of Mexicans who do, in all caps, watch TV Azteca and enjoy our programming.
These Mexicans will not stop watching us just because the truth and our leadership in the public discourse make you uncomfortable. Here’s the first point: If your millions of viewers aren’t going to stop watching your programs anyway because the president says so, then why are you calling the president’s freedom of expression censorship? But even if you say that the president’s words do n’t matter to your viewers, you then assert that what you did today—and we have to say it in no uncertain terms, there’s no way you can put it less clearly—is a
blatant attempt at censorship and a direct attack on freedom of expression and of the press. What the president did was exercise her freedom of expression, which is guaranteed to every citizen in Articles 7 and 8 of the Constitution. Just because you’re president doesn’t mean you lose that constitutional guarantee.
Using the word censorship is idiotic on the part of the…” Television, and yes, I mean that explicitly. For censorship to exist, there must be some form of coercion. There has to be one or more institutions that adjust what is said, seen, and published to the model of what is acceptable. There is no censorship where there is no coercion and its mechanisms, which can operate from political or economic power through state suppression of spaces for expression, through the law in cases of defamation, or for reasons of
national security, as happens in the United States with the Transparency Institute. Nor is censorship an exclusive power of governments. The most censorious apparatuses in history, at least in Mexico, have been corporations and churches. That is why , when people cry censorship today, when all that happened was a press conference where the president refuted a false news story, presented the official information, and exposed the media outlet that lied, her name is being invoked in vain.
Censorship is the closure of newspapers, the elimination of frequencies or websites, the imprisonment of information disseminators like Juliana Than. It is the 37 times that Filomeno Mata went to jail for advocating for effective suffrage in his daily newspaper during Porfirio Díaz’s rule. Daniel Cabrera has been arrested 300 times for expressing opinions against Porfirio Díaz through his column, “El hijo de la Hüizote y el colmillo público” (The Son of Huizote and Public Wit).
It’s not about refuting TV Azteca, López Dóriga, or Loret. There’s no coercion in responding and refuting . It’s said that the podium at the National Palace carries a lot of weight. If we consider that 96% of Mexicans watch commercial television and there are journalistic YouTube channels with 10 million subscribers, and that half a million people watch the morning press conferences, it does n’t support such a claim about the weight of the presidential podium.
But what is truly outrageous is trying to link the rebuttals of fake news with the murders of journalists in municipalities across the country. According to data from Article 19, 94 journalists were murdered during the six-year terms of Felipe Calderón and Enrique Peña Nieto. Nieto, who make up 63% of those counted, said that 70% were activists defending their territories, denouncing the links between municipal police and organized crime, or between businesses and plunder.
Without malicious manipulation, it’s impossible to establish a connection between the world of commentators supported by international foundations and corporate media, and these precarious reporters who were murdered from the closure of liberal newspapers ordered by Antonio López de Santa Anna and Porfirio Díaz, through the attack on Excelor under Luis Echeverría, and including the Flores Magón brothers.
The realm of Mexican freedom of expression is rife with imprisonment and monetary silencing. It’s the story of a form of control. It suffices to recall that the paper for printing newspapers was a commodity the government could refuse to deliver through the company that imported it from Canada, Pipsa; that Enrique Gómez Corchado’s newsboys belonged to the PRI union, which could decide not to distribute a printed publication; and that for decades censorship Previously, this power was exercised through the president’s communications director, who would pick up the phone
to threaten and offer bribes. The Chamber of the Radio and Television Industry, which granted airtime to many journalists, used official advertising as a form of bribery, awarding public works contracts , taxi concessions, gas station permits, federal prisons, and even airport runways, and granting tax breaks to media owners.
The day of freedom of expression was celebrated unanimously as a testament to the moral stature of the sitting president. All of these were the corrupt channels through which journalists and politicians mingled to agree on how to continue building one of the pillars of the one-party system and, later, the PRIAN (PRI-PAN alliance): manufacturing consensus.
This model, which went from bribing the media to incorporating its owners into the economic elite, no longer exists. Now, what exists is a two-hour morning program in which the president announces public policies, answers questions, refutes lies, recounts history, and receives complaints.
To say that this is Censorship is idiotic. But here’s the statement from TV Azteca, which I’d almost forgotten about. And it’s worrying that you’re encouraging—or rather, attacking, excuse me—the fundamental right of Mexican citizens to freely decide how and through what media they get their news. I reiterate what the statement itself says at the beginning: that your millions of happy viewers don’t listen to the president and are free to change the channel .
So, you and your government are treating millions of Mexicans like children, as if they weren’t capable of realizing everything you’re trying to cover up. A very classic attitude from the times of authoritarian Mexico. Congratulations. Perhaps those who wrote this didn’t live through authoritarian Mexico, but back then it wasn’t the president saying, ” Stop watching those lies,” but rather removing news anchors, imprisoning them, sending them into exile, or cutting off their printing paper.
And then, at the end, TV Azteca throws itself to the ground wrapped in the Total Play flag and says, “And we’re not naive.” We know that more attacks are coming and that this is just the prelude to a stage of censorship and silencing against critical media like us. When were the people at TV Azteca ever naive? When they took as their own the loan from Raúl and Carlos Salinas to act as figureheads for power, when they believed that they would continue to have their taxes forgiven for eternity, or when they simulated coups with young men
hired by the PRI in Michoacán. I am not going to explain here the difference between criticism and lies, between a judgment based on evidence and the deliberate intention to deceive the viewer. What I am interested in is identifying the ground on which TV Azteca might be operating when defending its lies about the narco-state and its plea for Trump to invade us.
To do this, we need to review the three types of journalism that coexist in Mexico today. The first would be the legal argument. It is spoken and written to approve a case. It starts from the idea that the facts are there and that nobody intervenes in their questioning, in their order, in their framing, in their arrangement.
The judicial idea is also responsible for all parties establishing a supposed balance and being equal in value. Thus, claiming to be neutral is actually a preemptive defense against the criticism that is coming and that is being leveled at the journalist. It can be said to be neutral because it is primarily to save the journalist’s person, not the truth.
The commercially profitable idea that the journalist is at the center of conflicts without blinking, without intervening or having a bias is becoming normalized. Neutrality is just an advertising slogan, because how could it be neutral? A communicator in the midst of racism, exploitation, or classism? Wouldn’t that be normalizing inequality and injustice by simply presenting it as an opinion? It’s like interviewing the Israeli ambassador to have him say there is no genocide in Gaza.
It is his opinion, but it is not valid because it does not hold up against the overwhelming evidence of genocide. There are five types of bias that must be made transparent by the media outlet itself or by the journalist. The positive one, when the journalist is in favor of one cause and ignores the other. The negative bias occurs when it is against something and only values comments when they speak ill of those people, when it gives equal weight to both causes, even if one has more arguments and reasons than the other; that is also a bias. Or that it gives
equal weight to the errors of one cause and the other; they are all equal. and the one who gives pros and cons of one cause without even presenting those of the other. These are all masked biases because the two causes never have the same quality in reality, so making them equivalent distorts what really happens.
For example, anti-vaxxers are given the same weight as the health authority, as are those who believe that climate change does not exist, as scientists, or the ambassador of Israel, or the relatives of the children killed in the genocide in Palestine. Given the idea of a journalist acting as a lawyer in court, it shouldn’t be seen as wrong for him to defend his client, even if he is guilty.
The problem is that journalists are not lawyers. One does not choose to make a judgment about reality, much less to take an action, in order to remain in the middle of two extremes. We act and express opinions to say what is right, not what is in between. Morality is not decided with respect to two extremes seen beforehand, but because it is just and true from before seeing those extremes.
That’s why everything is freedom of expression, but not everything that is said and published is valid. What TV Azteca does is repeat the lie of the narco-state without providing any evidence of the involvement of the power structure in Mexico with criminals, nor providing proof that those it points out as responsible have committed any crime.
He simply states it and presents it as his opinion, as his freedom of expression. And that’s what freedom of expression is. The problem is that it is not valid because it has no basis. There is another quagmire that TV Azteca plays in, and that is the idea that for true journalism, politics is intrinsically bad.
So they don’t engage in politics through their news programs, but rather they make those in power uncomfortable. Annoying or bothering people is not an editorial line; it is, if anything, an unintentional effect of publishing the truth. But TV Azteca, like Radio Fórmula, Latinus, Reforma, and so many others, believe that there is no power other than presidential power, that power is bad even if it is legitimate, and that businessmen, shell companies, drug traffickers, and the media owners themselves are not part of the system of obedience that should be
reviewed, exposed, and held accountable. They are private and therefore their power decisions are untouchable and are even confused with disinterested opinions. If you only investigate one person, the president, you are actually upholding what you want to remain hidden in the privacy of the old regime.
If only the president engages in politics, then what are Mexicans doing about the corruption of Claudiques González, CopaMex, or TV Azteca? The latest way of understanding journalism, that of giving a voice to those who do not have one despite their condescension, in the case of the right has given a voice to those who consider themselves victims.
The lady who says it’s racist to be called “herita” at the market. The builder who did not win the public works tender. The intellectual who believes he is being persecuted for his ideas and forgets that it is for not paying his employees’ social security contributions. The businessman who had to pay taxes, and in order to avoid fulfilling his obligations to society, starts claiming that he does not agree with social programs.
He claims to be persecuted, like everyone else who wants to get away with the same old thing. Thank you so much for listening.
QQ4 Bob Dylan and Keith Richards have been close friends for nearly 40 years. The friendship began on a live television program in November of 1986 in the 11 seconds after Bob Dylan called Keith Richards music derivative on camera. Keith Richard’s response to that assessment, one sentence said without anger, without performance, with the specific directness of a man who has nothing to prove and knows it made Bob Dylan laugh.
Then made Bob Dylan go quiet. then made Bob Dylan say two words that people who know Bob Dylan say he almost never said to anyone. This is the story of those 11 seconds and the 40 years that followed them. The program was a live music interview special broadcast on an American network on the evening of November 3rd, 1986. The format was simple.
Two musicians, a host, an hour of conversation about music and the state of it. The producers had assembled the pairing of Bob Dylan and Keith Richards with the specific calculation of television producers who understand that two people with equally strong and potentially incompatible views about what music is and what it should do will produce better television than two people who agree about everything.
The calculation was correct, though not in the way the producers had anticipated. Bob Dylan was 45 years old in November of 1986. Bob Dylan had released Empire Burlesque the previous year and had been on the road for most of the intervening period as part of the True Confessions tour with Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers.
Bob Dylan was in November of 1986 in one of the most prolific and restless phases of a career that had consisted almost entirely of prolific and restless phases. A career that had moved through folk, rock, country, gospel, and back again, that had been declared finished at least six times by the music press, and at each time continued with the serene indifference of a river to the opinions of people standing on its banks.
Bob Dylan had been redefining what music could be. Since 1962, Bob Dylan had invented and reinvented himself so many times that reinvention had become his defining characteristic, not in the superficial sense of a performer changing costumes, but in the deeper sense of a musician who had never allowed his work to settle into a form that could be anticipated or categorized from the outside.
Bob Dylan understood influence and originality and the relationship between them better than almost anyone alive in 1986. Bob Dylan had spent 24 years thinking carefully and specifically about where music came from and where music was going and what it meant that those two things were always in constant conversation with each other.
Keith Richards was 42 years old in November of 1986. Keith Richards had been playing guitar professionally since 1962. Keith Richards had built a career on a foundation of American blues and rhythm and blues. A foundation that Keith Richards had studied with the systematic devotion of someone who understood that the tradition he was building on was not incidental to the music he was making, but essential to it.
that you could not understand what Keith Richards did without understanding where Keith Richards had come from and what Keith Richards had been listening to since he was a teenager in Dartford with American Import Records and a secondhand guitar and no teacher except the recordings themselves. Keith Richards had never pretended otherwise. Keith Richards had in fact spent considerable energy across his career making the lineage explicit, naming the artists, citing the recordings, insisting on the acknowledgement of influence that the mainstream music
industry had a long history of suppressing or ignoring or crediting to the wrong people. If anything, Keith Richards was more transparent about his sources than most musicians of his generation. Keith Richards had always said openly that the Rolling Stones came directly from the blues, that Muddy Waters and Robert Johnson and the specific tradition of the Mississippi Delta were not background influences, but foundational ones.
The music Keith Richards made was in direct and sustained conversation with that tradition, something Keith Richards considered not a limitation, but a responsibility and a form of respect. The interview had been running for 8 minutes when the host asked Bob Dylan about the current state of rock and roll.
Bob Dylan answered with the density and the indirection that characterized Bob Dylan’s responses to direct questions, turning the question over, approaching it from an unexpected angle, finding his way to what he actually thought through a series of observations that moved like a river rather than a road. Bob Dylan was not a straightforward interview subject.
Bob Dylan had been asked about rock and roll in hundreds of interviews across 24 years and had developed the habit of treating the question as an invitation to think out loud rather than a request for a prepared position. The producer Gerald Sherman said afterward that in the first 8 minutes of the interview, he had been slightly anxious, not because anything was going wrong, but because nothing was going anywhere in particular yet.
The interview had the feeling of two conversations happening simultaneously. Bob Dylan’s internal one and the external one visible to the cameras. And Gerald Sherman was not certain in those first eight minutes that the two conversations would converge into something. Bob Dylan talked about influence. Bob Dylan talked about originality.
Bob Dylan talked about the difference between music that absorbed a tradition and transformed it and music that absorbed a tradition and reproduced it. And then Bob Dylan made his assessment. And then Bob Dylan said with the precision of a man making a musical assessment rather than a personal judgment that the Rolling Stones work, and Bob Dylan was specific, naming Keith Richards as the guitarist whose approach he was discussing was derivative in a way that Bob Dylan found limiting.
Bob Dylan said it without hostility. Bob Dylan said it as a technical observation about the relationship between source material and the work that came from it. Bob Dylan said that Keith Richards played the blues the way the blues had already been played, rather than using the blues as a starting point for something that had not yet been played.
Keith Richards had been listening to this with the specific attention Keith Richards gave to things being said about music by people who knew music. Keith Richards did not interrupt. Keith Richards did not shift in his chair or display any of the visible signals of a person preparing a defensive response. Keith Richards listened to Bob Dylan’s complete observation all the way to its conclusion without interrupting and without displaying any visible signal of preparing a response.
Then Keith Richards said one sentence. The sentence was not a rebuttal. The sentence did not defend Keith Richards music or argue for its originality or challenge Bob Dylan’s characterization of what the blues meant in the context of rock and roll. The sentence was something else entirely, something that required a specific kind of confidence to say.
The confidence of a person who has spent long enough thinking about the same things as the person they are talking to that they can locate the exact point where their thinking diverges and say something useful about that point rather than simply defending their own position. The sentence acknowledged everything Bob Dylan had said, the assessment, the distinction Bob Dylan was drawing, the specific musical concern underlying the observation, and then turned it 90°.
Keith Richards took Bob Dylan’s own framework, the one Bob Dylan had used to analyze Keith Richards relationship to the blues tradition, and applied it back to Bob Dylan’s work with the same precision Bob Dylan had used to apply it to Keith Richards. Spare aimed. The sentence asked Bob Dylan something about Bob Dylan’s own music, about the relationship between Bob Dylan’s sources and Bob Dylan’s output that Bob Dylan had not been asked on television before.
The sentence did not attack. The sentence illuminated. Bob Dylan laughed. The laugh was not the polite laugh of someone responding to a joke. The laugh was the involuntary laugh of someone who has been genuinely surprised. The specific kind of surprise that a person of exceptional intelligence experiences when someone else’s intelligence exceeds their expectations.
Bob Dylan laughed for 4 seconds. Then Bob Dylan stopped laughing. Then Bob Dylan was quiet for 3 seconds in the way that Bob Dylan was quiet when Bob Dylan was thinking rather than performing thought. Then Bob Dylan said, “You’re right.” The producer in the booth, a man named Gerald Sherman, who had been working in television for 14 years, said afterward that in 14 years of live television production, he had never heard Bob Dylan say those two words in a public forum.
Gerald Sherman said he had worked with Bob Dylan on two previous occasions and had observed Bob Dylan in numerous other contexts and that you’re right was not a phrase that Bob Dylan deployed easily or often because Bob Dylan had spent 24 years being right about music in ways that other people eventually caught up with. And the experience of being right ahead of everyone else does not generally produce a man who says you’re right readily when someone else makes a point.
The host of the program, a journalist named Patricia Wells, who had been interviewing musicians for 12 years, said afterward that the 11 seconds between Bob Dylan’s assessment and Bob Dylan saying, “You’re right,” were the most extraordinary 11 seconds of television she had been present for. Patricia Wells said that what she witnessed in those 11 seconds was not a debate or a confrontation or a celebrity exchange of competing opinions.
Patricia Wells said what she witnessed was one musician recognizing another musician as an equal, which was in the specific context of Bob Dylan in 1986, not something that happened in public very often. The interview continued for another 42 minutes after those 11 seconds. The conversation between Bob Dylan and Keith Richards in the remaining 42 minutes was described by everyone who watched it as fundamentally different from the first 8 minutes.
The host, Patricia Wells, who had been conducting music interviews for 12 years and understood the difference between the performance of conversation and actual conversation, said that at approximately the 9-minute mark, something shifted in the studio. That the formal interview, architecture dissolved, and what replaced it was something less structured and more genuine.
Bob Dylan and Keith Richards talked about influence and originality and the blues and what it meant to build on a tradition without being consumed by it. They talked about specific recordings and specific musicians with the specificity of two people who had spent their entire adult lives thinking about these things and rarely found another person who had thought about them with equivalent care.
They talked about where music came from and where music was going and whether those two questions were actually one question or two. Patricia Wells said afterward that she had asked approximately four questions in the remaining 42 minutes because Bob Dylan and Keith Richards did not require questions. They required only a room and a camera and the shared understanding that what they were saying together was worth recording carefully.
She said it was the best interview she had ever conducted and that she had conducted the smallest part of it. After the program, Bob Dylan and Keith Richards were in the corridor outside the studio when the host Patricia Wells passed them. Patricia Wells said she did not stop because she did not want to interrupt.
She observed them for approximately 30 seconds from a distance. She said they were talking with the ease of people who had known each other for years rather than people who had met for the first time 2 hours earlier. She said that something had shifted between them during the broadcast that the broadcast had made permanent rather than temporary.
She continued down the corridor and did not look back. She said in her account of that evening that she had decided in that moment not to interrupt the conversation because some conversations are more valuable than any question a journalist might ask and that the conversation she had observed for 30 seconds in the corridor outside the studio was one of them.
She had been a music journalist for 12 years. She recognized the difference. Bob Dylan and Keith Richards have maintained their friendship across four decades. They have appeared together at various events, most significantly at the concert for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1995, where people who were present described them as inseparable for most of the evening, occupying the same corner of the backstage area and talking with the concentrated attention of people who only have a limited amount of time together and intend to use it
well. Bob Dylan has spoken about Keith Richards in interviews with the specific thoughtful care that Bob Dylan reserves for musicians whose work Bob Dylan considers genuinely important rather than merely culturally prominent. Keith Richards has spoken about Bob Dylan in similar terms with the specific respect of someone who recognizes in another person a commitment to music that goes deeper than career.
Neither Bob Dylan nor Keith Richards has made a public statement specifically about how the friendship began or about the November 1986 interview. Bob Dylan has not mentioned the 11 seconds. Keith Richards has not mentioned the sentence. The interview exists in the archive. The 11 seconds are there. The laugh is there. The two words are there.
What is also there for anyone who watches the interview from its beginning and pays attention to the shift that happens at the 9-minute mark is the specific moment when two people who thought they were appearing on a television program discovered they were actually talking to each other. What Keith Richards said in that one sentence has never been officially reported.
The people who were in the studio that evening, Gerald Sherman, Patricia Wells, the floor crew, the two camera operators, the makeup artist who was watching from the side of the set, have described the sentence in consistent terms. They have described its effect. They have described Bob Dylan’s laugh and Bob Dylan’s silence and Bob Dylan’s two words.
They have not repeated the sentence itself in the specific understanding that the sentence was said between two musicians on a television program and that its power resided in the specific context of that exchange and would not survive removal from it intact. What can be said is this. Keith Richards said something to Bob Dylan about Bob Dylan’s music that used Bob Dylan’s own observation about Keith Richards as its starting point and arrived somewhere that Bob Dylan had not anticipated.
Keith Richards turned Bob Dylan’s assessment 90° and showed Bob Dylan something about the music they had both spent their lives making that Bob Dylan recognized immediately as true. And Bob Dylan said, “You’re right.” Two words said by Bob Dylan in public on live television in 1986 to Keith Richards in response to a single sentence Keith Richards had said about music.
Two words that Gerald Sherman, who had worked with Bob Dylan on two previous occasions, said he had never heard Bob Dylan say in a public forum. Two words that Patricia Wells, who had been interviewing musicians for 12 years, said were the most significant two words she had heard in those 12 years. Not because of their content, but because of who said them and what it cost to say them and what it meant that Keith Richards had produced them in 11 seconds from a conversation that began with Bob Dylan calling Keith Richards’s music derivative. And Keith Richards and
Bob Dylan have been close friends for nearly 40 years. The sentence did its work in 11 seconds on the evening of November 3rd, 1986. The work has been ongoing ever since. If this story moved you, subscribe and leave a comment below. Have you ever said something to someone that turned a potential disagreement into an unexpected and lasting connection? Tell us about it in the comments below.
Share this with someone who needs to be reminded that the right sentence said at the right moment can completely change the entire direction of a relationship. Ring the notification bell for more untold stories about the extraordinary human beings behind music’s greatest legends.
Disclaimer : This content may be created by AI for entertainment purposes. Any resemblance to real persons, events, or places is coincidental.
