It was not an example of a contradiction (I figured that's well enough understood to not mean an example). It was an example of selectively presenting facts in a way to distort reality.
> 1: Here's an example with details changed...
How is this not supposed to be an example of a contradiction? You pre-empted your "they distort reality" comment with the presumption that there are contradictions, then go on to give an example that doesn't contain any.
It just contains lazy details, which justly lead to incorrect inferences. Whether this is indicative of intentional manipulative behavior or distorted views of reality is hard to say without more context.
- They contradict themselves.
- They habitually selectively report facts to distort reality
The footnote belongs with the second behavior which is why the [1] was on the second sentence.
It banks on inferring, "Joe drank too much last night and we got in a car crash." to explicitly mean "Joe was driving drunk". It isn't a completely off-base interpretation, but it isn't rock solid either. More context is necessary before this conversation has any real value.