The not surprising case of Jussie Smollett

[DKW 86 7,419]

Folks, this case was about $$$$, nothing else. Some here in an attempt to provide cover for him are glossing over the FACT that it is all about the Benjamins...

[AUFAN78 3,894]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

You are reading way too much into this. Smollett was tying to enrich himself and get attention.

That is one take and his version at present. Interestingly happened to coincide with newly introduced lynching legislation. I think there may be more to come. We'll see.

Regardless, it does not exempt the press form reporting accurately. They intentionally do this time and again, in fact hundreds of times in the past two years alone. It divides us and that seems to be their intent. That is simply despicable.

To make an excuse for their actions as Brad attempted, equally despicable. 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Folks, this case was about $$$$, nothing else. Some here in an attempt to provide cover for him are glossing over the FACT that it is all about the Benjamins...

Jussie's version. Not certain it is accurate. Why would I believe his version? Hopefully, time will tell.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

48 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

That is one take and his version at present. Interestingly happened to coincide with newly introduced lynching legislation. I think there may be more to come. We'll see.

Regardless, it does not exempt the press form reporting accurately. They intentionally do this time and again, in fact hundreds of times in the past two years alone. It divides us and that seems to be their intent. That is simply despicable.

To make an excuse for their actions as Brad attempted, equally despicable. 

Yep, I'm despicable for understanding how media and reporting functions thanks to live experience in the field.

The press reported what they knew at the time, which was Smollett filing a report about being attacked and then he used that platform to further the narrative.  Reporting then was splattered everywhere (including the front article on CNN.com) that he was being investigated for falsifying those claims.  That second part of the story came later from the police so of course the initial report changed.  What do you want in that case?  They reported facts as they knew them.

What you seem to have a hard time doing is differentiating reporting from opinion shows.  Try reading the news more as opposed to watching it.  You'll find more comprehensive reporting and less BS.  It's why I rarely watch cable news anymore.

The press as a whole isn't interested in "dividing us".  They're interested in making money via ad revenue.  That's the #1 job of any major media outlet.  Those who fail to understand that fail to understand the industry.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

14 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Yep, I'm despicable for understanding how media and reporting functions thanks to live experience in the field.

The press reported what they knew at the time, which was Smollett filing a report about being attacked and then he used that platform to further the narrative.  Reporting then was splattered everywhere (including the front article on CNN.com) that he was being investigated for falsifying those claims.  That second part of the story came later from the police so of course the initial report changed.  What do you want in that case?  They reported facts as they knew them.

What you seem to have a hard time doing is differentiating reporting from opinion shows.  Try reading the news more as opposed to watching it.  You'll find more comprehensive reporting and less BS.  It's why I rarely watch cable news anymore.

The press as a whole isn't interested in "dividing us".  They're interested in making money via ad revenue.  That's the #1 job of any major media outlet.  Those who fail to understand that fail to understand the industry.

I have no problem with the press reporting news. It is when they take said news and try to tie it to partisan opinion that divides us. It is simply not necessary. I'll not excuse them.

But I yield to your final sentence and agree this is done for the $$$. That does not make it morally right. Perhaps that is where we disagree? 

 

[homersapien 11,362]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

That is one take and his version at present. Interestingly happened to coincide with newly introduced lynching legislation. I think there may be more to come. We'll see.

Regardless, it does not exempt the press form reporting accurately. They intentionally do this time and again, in fact hundreds of times in the past two years alone. It divides us and that seems to be their intent. That is simply despicable.

To make an excuse for their actions as Brad attempted, equally despicable. 

 

The press reported what they knew, which is Smollet filed a report saying he was attacked.  That's true.  No one at that time suspected it was staged, and there was no information available to suggest it was.  That only emerged during the police investigation.

The press is now reporting the (apparent) fact that it was staged, based on new information that has become known.

Brad is right, you don't seem to know the difference between news and commentary.  But you are not alone.  Clueless thinking has become a problem in modern society, thanks to the expansion of cable TV and the internet. 

 

[homersapien 11,362]

23 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Yep, I'm despicable for understanding how media and reporting functions thanks to live experience in the field.

The press reported what they knew at the time, which was Smollett filing a report about being attacked and then he used that platform to further the narrative.  Reporting then was splattered everywhere (including the front article on CNN.com) that he was being investigated for falsifying those claims.  That second part of the story came later from the police so of course the initial report changed.  What do you want in that case?  They reported facts as they knew them.

What you seem to have a hard time doing is differentiating reporting from opinion shows.  Try reading the news more as opposed to watching it.  You'll find more comprehensive reporting and less BS.  It's why I rarely watch cable news anymore.

The press as a whole isn't interested in "dividing us".  They're interested in making money via ad revenue.  That's the #1 job of any major media outlet.  Those who fail to understand that fail to understand the industry.

That's exactly why a majority of my news gathering comes from PBS/NPR.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 

The press reported what they knew, which is Smollet filed a report saying he was attacked.  That's true.  No one at that time suspected it was staged, and there was no information available to suggest it was.  That only emerged during the police investigation.

The press is now reporting the (apparent) fact that it was staged, based on new information that has become known.

Brad is right, you don't seem to know the difference between news and commentary.  But you are not alone.  Clueless thinking has become a problem in modern society, thanks to the expansion of cable TV and the internet. 

 

I'd tell you the same thing I told Brad. I have no problem with the press reporting news. It is when they take said news and try to tie it to partisan opinion that divides us. It is simply not necessary. I'll not excuse them.

[homersapien 11,362]

2 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I'd tell you the same thing I told Brad. I have no problem with the press reporting news. It is when they take said news and try to tie it to partisan opinion that divides us. It is simply not necessary. I'll not excuse them.

Then try to avoid opinion if you don't want to hear it. 

Just cut the TV off after the headlines and avoid Fox altogether.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Then try to avoid opinion if you don't want to hear it. 

Just cut the TV off after the headlines and avoid Fox altogether.

Don't be so simple homes. I rarely watch news on tv.  Print media is just as complicit. 

[homersapien 11,362]

5 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Don't be so simple homes. I rarely watch news on tv.  Print media is just as complicit. 

Then choose different paper/magazine or websites.  (Duuuuuuh) 

At least try to be aware when you are reading a news report vs. opinion. (The better journals and websites typically identify "opinion" pieces, if that helps.)

Or Try PBS and NPR.  They have websites.  And if you appreciate their professionalism, you can support them financially. 

I think you are just bitching because you don't like hearing opinion you don't agree with.  That's become a modern problem also.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Then choose different paper/magazine or websites.  (Duuuuuuh) 

At least try to be aware when you are reading a news report vs. opinion. (The better journals and websites typically identify "opinion" pieces, if that helps.)

Or Try PBS and NPR.  They have websites.  And if you appreciate their professionalism, you can support them financially. 

I think you are just bitching because you don't like hearing opinion you don't agree with.  That's become a modern problem also.

Simpleton response. Precisely what I expected. Thanks for your confirmation and participation. 

[homersapien 11,362]

11 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Simpleton response. Precisely what I expected. Thanks for your confirmation and participation. 

Irony.  Simpleton response for a simpleton.

Just trying to be of help.    You certainly seem to need it.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Irony.  Simpleton response from a simpleton.

Just trying to be of help.    You certainly seem to need it. Of course, I could be drunk.

I agree.

[Auburn85 432]

Don Lemon: "I'm not an advocate or an activist. I'm a journalist."

 

 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

 

The press as a whole isn't interested in "dividing us".  They're interested in making money via ad revenue.  That's the #1 job of any major media outlet.  Those who fail to understand that fail to understand the industry.

Have you ever thought about how many of these mainstream anchors actually maintain the political ideologies they perpetuate on TV, in terms of their personal beliefs? If Fox offered you $30M/year as base, wouldn't it be easy to throw on the mask and bite the bullet haha. I could at least understand the plausibility. 

I know one mainstream anchor, firsthand. I don't think this particular anchor "fakes it," but it certainly doesn't consume them entirely as TV would make you think. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

They reported facts as they knew them.

An alternative view via WSJ opinion page - note, "At the national level, the compulsion to pronounce blanket moral condemnations about other Americans has displaced the instinct to find the facts." I appreciate yours just as I do this one:

If you are wondering why the President of the United States took time Thursday to fire off a tweet about the Jussie Smollett case, the answer should be obvious: Mr. Smollett was soaking up the media’s attention this week. That said, the Smollett hoax is instructive—not for what it says about President Trump’s Twitter habits, not even for what it says about Jussie Smollett, but for what it reveals about the practices and social mind-set of the country’s primary media outlets. 

Since January, this country has experienced two media bonfires—over Covington Catholic’s high school students and now Jussie Smollett—whose common element is the reflexive judgment that much of American society is irredeemably bigoted.

The first incident occurred on the National Mall between students from Covington, Ky., and a Native American drummer. Within minutes of a video emerging of Nicholas Sandmann smiling into the face of Nathan Phillips, the media—newspapers, TV and social media—erupted with condemnation of the teenager. Mr. Sandmann was also wearing a MAGA cap, which for much of the media now seems to be de facto proof of multiple anti-social phobias.

That version of events, a subsequent video made clear, was false. Which is to say the media condemnation of the Covington Catholic students as racist was false.

Now comes the Jussie Smollett incident—allegedly a racially motivated street attack in Chicago. The national media bought it hook, line and fake noose, again turning a presumed “hate crime” into an indictment of America.

You would think these two fiascoes would cause embarrassment among this particular community of journalists and late-night talk show hosts. But we doubt it. At the national level, the compulsion to pronounce blanket moral condemnations about other Americans has displaced the instinct to find the facts. 

Reporters in Chicago, a city with a tradition of street-reporting basics, relied on their sources in the police department to cast doubt on what had happened. The city has now charged Mr. Smollett with filing a false police report, in this instance a felony. He denies it.

Looking for some sanity? Listen to Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson’s remarks on Mr. Smollett Thursday: “This publicity stunt was a scar that Chicago didn’t earn and certainly didn’t deserve. To make things worse, the accusations within this phony attack received national attention for weeks. Celebrities, news commentators and even presidential candidates weighed in on something that was choreographed by an actor.”

Maybe, as an actor, Mr. Smollett knew his audience—the elite media—would elevate him to political martyrdom, and it did. With Covington and now this, a rush to judgment rooted in a false view of this country’s values produced, as Chief Johnson noted, more gratuitous anxiety and polarization. 

Mr. Smollett deserves to be punished for his hoax to deter others. The media’s punishment will be its continuing loss of public credibility.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

On 2/21/2019 at 8:48 PM, Brad_ATX said:

This has less to do with traditional media and more to do with the outrage culture perpetrated by social media if you ask me.  This story really took off on twitter, Facebook, etc and our society's instant need to comment on everything blew up the story.  So much of our media is driven by social aspects and instant news/opinion now that you usually can't just lay it at the feet of traditional outlets.

Sorry Brad but the traditional media absolutely helped **** this story up by not being cautious enough. Traditional media still have a responsibility to report stories in a responsible manner and not help feed sensationalism to our social media driven society. 

It wasn't just celebrities and politicians who piled on this story. "Journalists" did their fair share of piling on. They absolutely should shoulder some of the blame for getting it wrong. 

Here a good takedown of the excuses and people defending the media's screw up on the Smollett story:

Quote

On CNN’s Reliable Sources, Vox’s Liz Plank emphatically made this point, saying she couldn’t find “a real reputable media outlet reporting” that the attack was motivated by MAGA or included a statement about “MAGA country. “I couldn’t find one,” she said. “We can’t confuse celebrity tweets with the media and the press.”

This is a fine idea, and there should be some distinction when referring to the media at large, but in this case the facts simply don’t bear out the premise that the press was not involved in an early pile-on. In fact, dozens of reporters Tweeted these very things, on the day the story broke.

See all of the tweets from the media compiled at: https://www.mediaite.com/online/did-the-media-jump-the-gun-on-the-jussie-smollett-story/

Is April Ryan a journalist or not Brad?

Quote

 

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

16 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Sorry Brad but the traditional media absolutely helped **** this story up by not being cautious enough. Traditional media still have a responsibility to report stories in a responsible manner and not help feed sensationalism to our social media driven society. 

It wasn't just celebrities and politicians who piled on this story. "Journalists" did their fair share of piling on. They absolutely should shoulder some of the blame for getting it wrong. 

Here a good takedown of the excuses and people defending the media's screw up on the Smollett story:

See all of the tweets from the media compiled at: https://www.mediaite.com/online/did-the-media-jump-the-gun-on-the-jussie-smollett-story/

Is April Ryan a journalist or not Brad?

 

Yep, she's a reporter.  Congrats, you found one example ON HER TWITTER WHICH IS EXACTLY WHERE I SAID THIS BLEW UP.  It doesn't make your overall point though.  Opinion shows and personal Twitter accounts are not the same as reporting in an actual, published article.  The media has always had opinions (see your local paper's op-ed).  But the consumer can't be so stupid as to think an actual report that has gone through the editorial process is the same as opinion pieces, shows, or personal Twitter accounts.  That's more of an ignorance by the people than it is the media.  Unfortunately it's also common because too many people think Hannity, Lemon, or Maddow are news when they are not.

Again, this is why I choose to read real, published articles from reliable sources that have been vetted.   It's why I don't post links from outlier sources ever on here nor do I usually engage in conversations that start by using those sources.  Several of those tweets in that article you linked come from such fringe sources that should never be taken seriously and are far from mainstream.

 However, the media as a whole has been smart enough to take advantage of the outrage culture we've created and profited wildly from it.

As I get older, the more I realize how spot on the movie "Idiocracy" actually was.  The average Joe in this country is a freaking moron and the echo chambers he/she chooses to live in will drag us down.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

3 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Yep, she's a reporter.  Congrats, you found one example ON HER TWITTER WHICH IS EXACTLY WHERE I SAID THIS BLEW UP.  It doesn't make your overall point though.  Opinion shows and personal Twitter accounts are not the same as reporting in an actual, published article.  The media has always had opinions (see your local paper's op-ed).  But the consumer can't be so stupid as to think an actual report that has gone through the editorial process is the same as opinion pieces, shows, or personal Twitter accounts.  That's more of an ignorance by the people than it is the media.  Unfortunately it's also common because too many people think Hannity, Lemon, or Maddow are news when they are not.

Again, this is why I choose to read real, published articles from reliable sources that have been vetted.   It's why I don't post links from outlier sources ever on here nor do I usually engage in conversations that start by using those sources.  However, the media as a whole has been smart enough to take advantage of the outrage culture we've created and profited wildly from it.

As I get older, the more I realize how spot on the movie "Idiocracy" actually was.  The average Joe in this country is a freaking moron and the echo chambers he/she chooses to live in will drag us down.

But again, she's a reporter/journalist. She won a journalist of the year award from the NABJ. She's certainly not treated like opinion every time she appears on CNN. She's treated like a serious journalist who's opinion matters more than the average blogger or low level reporter. Her tweeting shouldn't mean she's absolved as a journalist.. 

April Ryan is also a part of the WH press corp . Last I checked Sean Hannity's not in the WH press corp. 

NBC's Miguel Almaguer's report on NBC Nightly News from January 29, 2019 concluded by calling the Smollett case a heinous crime and not an "alleged" crime.

 

Quote

"A Hollywood star who's black and gay and now the victim of a heinous crime".

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

14 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

But again, she's a reporter/journalist. She won a journalist of the year award from the NABJ. She's certainly not treated like opinion every time she appears on CNN. She's treated like a serious journalist who's opinion matters more than the average blogger or low level reporter. Her tweeting shouldn't mean she's absolved as a journalist.. 

April Ryan is also a part of the WH press corp . Last I checked Sean Hannity's not in the WH press corp. 

NBC's Miguel Almaguer's report on NBC Nightly News from January 29, 2019 concluded by calling the Smollett case a heinous crime and not an "alleged" crime.

 

 

"She's treated like a serious journalist who's opinion matters more than the average blogger or low level reporter."

This is my point.  She is giving her opinion when presented on CNN, not filing a report. Opinions by their nature have an agenda.  The consumer has voted with their time and money that they don't want straight news anymore.  They want to be told what to think by a preferred outlet.  If that wasn't the case, then the PBS Newshour would be the highest rated news show on TV and your local paper wouldn't be living on it's last legs.

As for the NBC report, that's nitpicking to the nth degree.  Everyone, including the Chicago police, agreed that he was a victim at the time this report was filed.  If they named an attacker and didn't say "alleged", then you have a point.  But by all known facts at the time, to there was no reason to suspect this would be an "alleged" crime.  News agencies take their cues from the cops in these instances.  The cops had called Smollett a victim at that point.  If you're holding anyone accountable, then it has to be the Chicago PD because there were weeks between the initial report of his attack and the PD coming out and correcting the record based on new facts.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

35 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

As for the NBC report, that's nitpicking to the nth degree.  Everyone, including the Chicago police, agreed that he was a victim at the time this report was filed.  If they named an attacker and didn't say "alleged", then you have a point.  But by all known facts at the time, to there was no reason to suspect this would be an "alleged" crime.  News agencies take their cues from the cops in these instances.  The cops had called Smollett a victim at that point.  If you're holding anyone accountable, then it has to be the Chicago PD because there were weeks between the initial report of his attack and the PD coming out and correcting the record based on new facts.

The Chicago PD called it a possible hate crime though. They were still very much investigating the case and hadn't identified the race or political views of the offenders.

All the Chicago PD had gathered was that Smollett was apparently attacked and they only knew that the alleged offenders allegedly shouted racial and homophobic slurs at him. At no point did the Chicago police ever perpetuate the claims of it being two white guys shouting "this is MAGA country"  That part of the story was all Smollett's team using the useful media to his advantage to help blow the story up.

Quote

Several media outlets referenced claims that appeared in TMZ's coverage of this matter, most notably that the perpetrators were white and yelled "this is MAGA country," as they attacked Smollett. But a spokesperson for the Chicago police denied having any information about the race and political views of the attackers.*

"According to the victim, the offenders' faces were concealed," a police spokesperson told Reason. "We have no record indicating that [they shouted 'MAGA'], we only have record of them shouting racial and homophobic slurs at him."

Chicago police have also released a statement contradicting claims that Smollett identified his attackers' race and heard them shout "MAGA."

"We have no record of The MAGA Country comment," said the police in a statement. "We have racial and homophobic comments documented."

read all of the article at: https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/29/chicago-police-deny-claim-that-jussie-sm

 

A lot of MAJOR media outlets reported that Smollett told police that the attackers yelled "This is MAGA country" :

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/30/arts/television/jussie-smollett-attack-investigation.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/01/29/empire-actor-jussie-smollett-assaulted-chicago-potential-hate-crime/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b33ff038e909

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jussie-smollett-hospitalized-empire-actor-attacked-maga-hat-possible-hate-crime-chicago-2019-01-29/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jussie-smollett-assault-maga-country_us_5c51d884e4b0ca92c6dc7d59

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

14 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

The Chicago PD called it a possible hate crime though. They were still very much investigating the case and hadn't identified the race or political views of the offenders.

All the Chicago PD had gathered was that Smollett was apparently attacked and they only knew that the alleged offenders allegedly shouted racial and homophobic slurs at him. At no point did the Chicago police ever perpetuate the claims of it being two white guys shouting "this is MAGA country"  That part of the story was all Smollett's team using the useful media to his advantage to help blow the story up.

read all of the article at: https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/29/chicago-police-deny-claim-that-jussie-sm

 

A lot of MAJOR media outlets reported that Smollett told police that the attackers yelled "This is MAGA country" :

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/30/arts/television/jussie-smollett-attack-investigation.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/01/29/empire-actor-jussie-smollett-assaulted-chicago-potential-hate-crime/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b33ff038e909

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jussie-smollett-hospitalized-empire-actor-attacked-maga-hat-possible-hate-crime-chicago-2019-01-29/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jussie-smollett-assault-maga-country_us_5c51d884e4b0ca92c6dc7d59

See, this is where it's important to decipher and read.

You say "At no point did the Chicago police ever perpetuate the claims of it being two white guys shouting "this is MAGA country"  That part of the story was all Smollett's team using the useful media to his advantage to help blow the story up."

This directly from the CBS article you linked disputes that claim:

"In a follow-up interview with police, Smollett said his attackers yelled "MAGA country" during the assault, Chicago police confirmed to CBS News."

CBS went to the source of the police to confirm before reporting this.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

3 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

See, this is where it's important to decipher and read.

You say "At no point did the Chicago police ever perpetuate the claims of it being two white guys shouting "this is MAGA country"  That part of the story was all Smollett's team using the useful media to his advantage to help blow the story up."

This directly from the CBS article you linked disputes that claim:

"In a follow-up interview with police, Smollett said his attackers yelled "MAGA country" during the assault, Chicago police confirmed to CBS News."

CBS went to the source of the police to confirm before reporting this.

Ah, thanks for catching that. Well now that leads us to a couple of scenarios, either CBS or Reason is lying or the Chicago police were giving different answers to different media outlets because the Reason article I posted and linked to said that Chicago police had no record of that MAGA country comment.  Both the Reason and CBS article's are from January 29. The same day. So how could one outlet emphatically state that  the police had no record of it but the CBS  article said that police confirmed the MAGA country comment.