And we, rational folks, are misled by the tools and principles by which we are successful in negotiating a good hypothesis for the sciences. Occam's razor is useless for economic or political analysis - because we do not account for the delusional or deceptive - which are fundamental to navigating world events. Nature may be obscure or complex, but it does not intend to lie, and there is not a Machiavellian force in the causal chain of biology. We can joke about that possibility, in quantum physics.
Who really owns what? Who really has an interest in one outcome, over another? These are questions that need to be answered.
First, we must also understand, what is the medium through which we perceive these answers, and who are the messengers? How do they relate to established ownership and interests?
I guarantee, you will never hear the truth about economics, finance or politics on NPR - any more than you expect to from Uzbekistan's national broadcaster.
It can be entertaining, but you never listen to NPR or FOX or BBC or RussiaToday, as a truth-seeking and independent thinker, expecting a balanced story by journalists striving to achieve objective insights. Rather, you listen to hear lies of commission, omission and unexamined false-assumption.
The question is then not what "sides" are represented in any story, but who's lie, for what purpose. "What do these people want me to believe, and how are they influencing me to act?"
For NPR? It's pretty easy. About 85% of the time it is Dept of State or US Army. The rest proceeds from there. However? Who's tool is this really? In the United States, I argue that the engine of Government is very powerful, and the handles of its control do not belong to a devolved extension from the will of the governed. The background for this position can be developed from a familiarity with this book, among others.
Everybody laughs, when Cheney's pronouncement of "Reality-based community" and "make our own reality" are dragged out in an "enlightened" and "rational" audience. Nonetheless, these are the same people who can then have "informed" opinion on how the US should deal with Al-Assad in Syria - never questioning the basics of his accountability for supposed occurrences, or even the basic notion that there is any valid role or legitimate action that could ever be performed in the name of the American people, at all. This has become non-debatable.
If you begin to push on the cui bono arguments, you move from accusations of the "improbable" to those of the "unpalatable" - cast into the pit of Icke and LaRouche, who's examples are likely cultivated to discredit the possibility of an alternative narrative for world events.