The not surprising case of Jussie Smollett

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

4 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

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.

My bet would be that people in the PD weren't talking to each other, so one cohesive message didn't go out.  Left hand didn't know what the right was doing.  They aren't all trained PR folks so it happens.

You have to remember too that Reason isn't news.  It's a site with an agenda, so if conveniently leaving something out to make a point helps, they'll do it.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

7 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

My bet would be that people in the PD weren't talking to each other, so one cohesive message didn't go out.  Left hand didn't know what the right was doing.

You have to remember too that Reason isn't news.  It's a site with an agenda, so if conveniently leaving something out to make a point helps, they'll do it.

Here's another from January 29:

Quote

TMZ reported Tuesday that the two suspects referenced President Trump’s 2016 “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) campaign slogan during the alleged ambush, yelling, “This is MAGA country.”

"We can not confirm what the offenders stated," a Chicago Police Department spokesman told ITK when asked about any MAGA-related language in the attack.

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/427464-chicago-police-probe-possible-hate-crime-against-empire-star

It appears that the police did not confirm the MAGA comment until hours after Reason and The Hill's articles were put out. By virtue of the time stamp of the articles then they weren't lying. The police for whatever reason wouldn't confirm the comments to either outlet.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

16 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Here's another from January 29:

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/427464-chicago-police-probe-possible-hate-crime-against-empire-star

It appears that the police did not confirm the MAGA comment until hours after Reason and The Hill's articles were put out. By virtue of the time stamp of the articles then they weren't lying. The police for whatever reason wouldn't confirm the comments to either outlet.

Again, this gets to my point of things being fluid, especially within a few hours of each other.  Reason jumped the gun here as CBS did have it confirmed in an article just a few hours later.  I'm not saying Reason was wrong at the time, but reporting was still coming together.  Things can change with news as facts get put together.  It doesn't mean there was an intent to lie or distort the truth by the media.

Unfortunately the fact of business is that getting information out fast is part of the game now, so accuracy and the ability to confidently cross-check before publication takes a back seat to immediacy.  The consumer doesn't want to wait for 100% accuracy, instead choosing to get info as it comes.  The market is just conforming to consumer desires here.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

10 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Again, this gets to my point of things being fluid, especially within a few hours of each other.  Reason jumped the gun here as CBS did have it confirmed in an article just a few hours later.  I'm not saying Reason was wrong at the time, but reporting was still coming together.  Things can change with news as facts get put together.  It doesn't mean there was an intent to lie or distort the truth by the media.

Unfortunately the fact of business is that getting information out fast is part of the game now, so accuracy and the ability to confidently cross-check before publication takes a back seat to immediacy.  The consumer doesn't want to wait for 100% accuracy, instead choosing to get info as it comes.  The market is just conforming to consumer desires here.

And I don't disagree with that part Brad. But my main point in all of this has been that the media shouldn't be taking sides because if fits their narrative. They should only take sides with the facts. They clearly took Smollett's side before any facts were established. They jumped on board with the story and gave people a platform to spew and bash the right over a false flag. No matter the outcome of Smollett's story the media were going to blame Trump and the right.  That's the part that needs to be called out and excuses need to quit being made for traditional media who no longer have any intent of being fair in stories that initially confirm their biases.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

You have to remember too that Reason isn't news.  It's a site with an agenda, so if conveniently leaving something out to make a point helps, they'll do it.

While that may be true, the author Robby Soave is very much credible/reliable imo. He was one of the first in the media to cast doubt on the UVA Rolling Stone story back in 2014. He appears to have a good track record when it comes to pointing out hoaxes or dubious stories.

Quote

Updated at 7:30 p.m.: Chicago PD now tell me via email that "in the initial reports there was no mention of MAGA," but "when detectives follow[ed] up with him later in the day, he recalled the offender making those comments and detectives completed a supplemental report." It would appear that earlier statements by the police were erroneous. I have changed the headline of this article to reflect new information, and await a statement from Smollett himself.

https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/29/chicago-police-deny-claim-that-jussie-sm

So the Reason article did in fact mention the earlier police reports were erroneous. I missed that too..... lol ...... My bad 

Edit: I've tried to correct the strikethrough parts of my post but for some reason I can't fix it. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

9 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

And I don't disagree with that part Brad. But my main point in all of this has been that the media shouldn't be taking sides because if fits their narrative. They should only take sides with the facts. They clearly took Smollett's side before any facts were established. They jumped on board with the story and gave people a platform to spew and bash the right over a false flag. No matter the outcome of Smollett's story the media were going to blame Trump and the right.  That's the part that needs to be called out and excuses need to quit being made for traditional media who no longer have any intent of being fair in stories that initially confirm their biases.

I know where you're coming from, but again I stand by people need to know how to discern news from opinion.  The Big 3 cable networks rarely engage in news anymore.  Their shows are all almost entirely opinion driven.  Like I said, it's why I read vetted articles rather than watch TV or follow Twitter.  I do enjoy Chris Wallace and Chuck Todd's interviews with political leaders on Sunday mornings though.  They both ask tough questions and will call out folks when facts are being skewed.

As for the Smollett case, we have the benefit of hindsight.  Remember that nearly a month went by before the police began to see him as a suspect in faking this police report.  You can't expect the media to not draw conclusions when the police themselves said Smollett was a victim at the time of initial reporting.

Also, good discussion.  Enjoyed the interaction.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

17 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

 "At the national level, the compulsion to pronounce blanket moral condemnations about other Americans has displaced the instinct to find the facts." 

The Smollett hoax is instructive 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.

Article makes some outstanding points. I highlighted some above. This is not about getting facts out as we know them. Fluidity nonsense. That's providing shade to the real problem. No thank you. I'd rather stick to the real facts about the real problem. 

It’s deeply disturbing how news coverage has often been turned into a propaganda machine, continuing to forge ahead with false narratives with no regard for truth. Facts just seem to get in the way.

In their hatred of Donald Trump and their desire to destroy a sitting president, the anti-Trump media have traded all journalistic objectivity and become completely desensitized to the fact that the American people continue to lose trust in them.

Apparently, no one learned anything from Covington. Remember the Covington High School teenagers who were falsely accused of harassing Native American Nathan Phillips at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington? It didn’t take long for the anti-Trump media to label them racists and bigots.

Thanks to video footage that told another story, it became clear it was the boys who were the targets. Many in the media still haven’t apologized for rushing to judgement and prematurely convicting these boys, which resulted in death threats to them and their families.

In fact, rather than admitting they got it wrong, many in the media just pivoted and changed the conversation – but not the blame – to focus on the red MAGA hats the boys were wearing.

From their elite bully pulpit, the anti-Trump media have decided that “Make America Great Again” is a symbol for hate. Therefore, since the boys wore hats with that saying on them they were inviting trouble, so it’s still their fault.

Many in the media have become blinded by their own bias. They’re more interested in stories that prove they’re right than looking for facts to prove a story is right. What these stories have in common is a desire to defame and socially destroy a wide swath of good people — well exceeding a hundred million Americans — by connoting that, as a class of people, all American conservatives are bigots, racists, misogynists, homophobes, and xenophobes.

That my friends is the real hoax. Jussie was just another dumb actor with an agenda. And the media could have simply reported fact in real time and no one would care. But they had to insert their bias and run this continuing false narrative. A false narrative driving Americans apart. 

I've said enough, let's bring back the fluidity boys.

[homersapien 11,362]

The media didn't determine MAGA hats are a symbol of hate anymore than they determined the confederate battle flag is a symbol of hate.  It's a lot more complicated than that.

As far as "the media being blinded by their own bias", well duuuh.  That's always been true.  Even newspapers have historically been extremely partisan. 

The real issue is how "the media" has exploded due to technology and to the pressures of profitability.  That and the propensity for everyone to view information through the lens of 'confirmation bias' - Unfortunately, that's just human nature. 

It's naive to imagine the Jussie Smollet incident could or should have been reported any differently than it was - even if the MAGA hat incident was made up.  Heck, even on this forum we have people seriously suggesting the Trump supporter attacking the BBC cameraman was a "false flag" incident.  It's not limited to one side of the political spectrum, it's universal.

And at the risk of changing the subject into a more philosophical question, our technology has far outpaced our intellectual evolution. That - expressed in various manifestations - will ultimate be the factor that ends our species IMO.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

The media didn't determine MAGA hats are a symbol of hate anymore than they determined the confederate battle flag is a symbol of hate.  It's a lot more complicated than that.

As far as "the media being blinded by their own bias", well duuuh.  That's always been true.  Even newspapers have historically been extremely partisan. 

The real issue is how "the media" has exploded due to technology and to the pressures of profitability.  That and the propensity for everyone to view information through the lens of 'confirmation bias' - Unfortunately, that's just human nature. 

It's naive to imagine the Jussie Smollet incident could or should have been reported any differently than it was - even if the MAGA hat incident was made up.  Heck, even on this forum we have people seriously suggesting the Trump supporter attacking the BBC cameraman was a "false flag" incident.  It's not limited to one side of the political spectrum, it's universal.

And at the risk of changing the subject into a more philosophical question, our technology has far outpaced our intellectual evolution. That - expressed in various manifestations - will ultimate be the factor that ends our species IMO.

Another sad attempt.

You are really going to blame technology for the media's hateful rhetoric that divides America? You can have all the technology in the world, but you don't have to spew hateful rhetoric as our beloved media do daily. WTFUM

You don't need to change anything into a philosophical question, you simply need self reflection.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

4 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Article makes some outstanding points. I highlighted some above. This is not about getting facts out as we know them. Fluidity nonsense. That's providing shade to the real problem. No thank you. I'd rather stick to the real facts about the real problem. 

It’s deeply disturbing how news coverage has often been turned into a propaganda machine, continuing to forge ahead with false narratives with no regard for truth. Facts just seem to get in the way.

In their hatred of Donald Trump and their desire to destroy a sitting president, the anti-Trump media have traded all journalistic objectivity and become completely desensitized to the fact that the American people continue to lose trust in them.

Apparently, no one learned anything from Covington. Remember the Covington High School teenagers who were falsely accused of harassing Native American Nathan Phillips at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington? It didn’t take long for the anti-Trump media to label them racists and bigots.

Thanks to video footage that told another story, it became clear it was the boys who were the targets. Many in the media still haven’t apologized for rushing to judgement and prematurely convicting these boys, which resulted in death threats to them and their families.

In fact, rather than admitting they got it wrong, many in the media just pivoted and changed the conversation – but not the blame – to focus on the red MAGA hats the boys were wearing.

From their elite bully pulpit, the anti-Trump media have decided that “Make America Great Again” is a symbol for hate. Therefore, since the boys wore hats with that saying on them they were inviting trouble, so it’s still their fault.

Many in the media have become blinded by their own bias. They’re more interested in stories that prove they’re right than looking for facts to prove a story is right. What these stories have in common is a desire to defame and socially destroy a wide swath of good people — well exceeding a hundred million Americans — by connoting that, as a class of people, all American conservatives are bigots, racists, misogynists, homophobes, and xenophobes.

That my friends is the real hoax. Jussie was just another dumb actor with an agenda. And the media could have simply reported fact in real time and no one would care. But they had to insert their bias and run this continuing false narrative. A false narrative driving Americans apart. 

I've said enough, let's bring back the fluidity boys.

The media won't just take their L and move on. Instead they spin a story into some other discussion they can morally lecture on and take a moral victory from to confirm their bias. They've now turned the Smollett story into a discussion on hate crimes in general so they can still blame Trump and the right for the prevalence of hate crimes in America.

And it's not just the cable news shows that drop the ball. Just last month the Buzzfeed story got swept up by even the OLD MEDIA like NBC. Chuck Todd is the political director at NBC, so he's not only responsible for political coverage on NBC but he's also over MSNBC. They lapped up the Buzzfeed story despite them not being able to independently confirm it. 

Chuck Todd whined on Meet the Press last month after the Buzzfeed story imploded that it would be used to against the media for jumping on it and speculating so much on it. And see that's where even people like Chuck Todd who are presented as objective and straight based reporting reveal their bias. That kind of mindset is that of a political operative and not a reporter. A political operative's main concern is how will the other side benefit? A political operative's is also about winning the next campaign. That kind of whining from people like Chuck Todd needs to stop. When the media get it wrong they don't need to whine about it being used against them. They need to correct the record and quit constantly giving in to their confirmation bias by attacking the side they want to be guilty instead of waiting on the facts.

The media could have still treated Smollett like a victim like the Chicago PD did but the media had no reason to bring on guests to smear the right for the Smollett case when there had been no facts established in the case. Until the facts were established by the Chicago PD, the media should have shown restraint from attacking one side over this.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

24 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

The media won't just take their L and move on. Instead they spin a story into some other discussion they can morally lecture on and take a moral victory from to confirm their bias. They've now turned the Smollett story into a discussion on hate crimes in general so they can still blame Trump and the right for the prevalence of hate crimes in America.

And it's not just the cable news shows that drop the ball. Just last month the Buzzfeed story got swept up by even the OLD MEDIA like NBC. Chuck Todd is the political director at NBC, so he's not only responsible for political coverage on NBC but he's also over MSNBC. They lapped up the Buzzfeed story despite them not being able to independently confirm it. 

Chuck Todd whined on Meet the Press last month after the Buzzfeed story imploded that it would be used to against the media for jumping on it and speculating so much on it. And see that's where even people like Chuck Todd who are presented as objective and straight based reporting reveal their bias. That kind of mindset is that of a political operative and not a reporter. A political operative's main concern is how will the other side benefit? A political operative's is also about winning the next campaign. That kind of whining from people like Chuck Todd needs to stop. When the media get it wrong they don't need to whine about it being used against them. They need to correct the record and quit constantly giving in to their confirmation bias by attacking the side they want to be guilty instead of waiting on the facts.

The media could have still treated Smollett like a victim like the Chicago PD did but the media had no reason to bring on guests to smear the right for the Smollett case when there had been no facts established in the case. Until the facts were established by the Chicago PD, the media should have shown restraint from attacking one side over this.

Well stated. This truly goes back to a single loss in 2016. Instead of a gracious acceptance, they chose a butthurt false narrative. It is simply despicable. No excuses.

[homersapien 11,362]

14 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Another sad attempt.

You are really going to blame technology for the media's hateful rhetoric that divides America? You can have all the technology in the world, but you don't have to spew hateful rhetoric as our beloved media do daily. WTFUM

You don't need to change anything into a philosophical question, you simply need self reflection.

Didn't say that.  In fact, I don't "blame" technology for anything. 

But technology has allowed for the transformation of what we still call "media" into a huge universe of news reporting and opinion - with the emphasis on the latter.  Technology has also, for better or worse, completely democratized the structure of how information is developed and delivered by eliminating the need of the editorial process.

Any "Joe Blow" can now "publish" their opinion - much less what they consider to be significant news - with as much distributive power as traditional, respected news sources, without any editorial control other than their own bias.  This can then be propagated  on a exponential scale via social media.

The result is the term "media" no longer has any real meaning, other than the technological communication environment that now exists, which is why you cannot "blame" the "media". 

So the media cannot be characterized as "spewing hateful rhetoric" any more than humans can be characterized as spewing hateful rhetoric.  Or at least, saying so is no more or less valid than characterizing the media as providing important information that is crucial to our freedom and the operation of a liberal democracy.

So while I don't "blame" technology for the universe of hateful rhetoric or important information it has certainly changed the environment we live in regarding communications.  This technology - combined with the profit motive associated with free enterprise- has essentially destroyed what used to be known as the "media".

In short, it's simplistic to blame what one considers to be "hateful" rhetoric on the "media" as if the word media refers to specific sources of information. Very few of those sources still exist, and the ones who do are typically non-profit. 

And I am not making this up.  I have lived most of my life as an adult before the advent of modern communications technology such as the internet and computers.  I have seen the effects of technology first hand in a relative sense.

Hopefully, that clarifies my post.

(And btw, your petty insults reflect more on yourself than they harm me.  So keep them up. ) 

[homersapien 11,362]

4 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Well stated. This truly goes back to a single loss in 2016. Instead of a gracious acceptance, they chose a butthurt false narrative. It is simply despicable. No excuses.

Seriously? 

Bad "media", bad!

[AUFAN78 3,894]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Didn't say that.  In fact, I don't "blame" technology for anything. 

But technology has allowed for the transformation of what we still call "media" into a huge universe of news reporting and opinion - with the emphasis on the latter.  Technology has also, for better or worse, completely democratized the structure of how information is developed and delivered by eliminating the need of the editorial process.

Any "Joe Blow" can now "publish" their opinion - much less what they consider to be significant news - with as much distributive power as traditional, respected news sources, without any editorial control other than their own bias.  This can then be propagated  on a exponential scale via social media.

The result is the term "media" no longer has any real meaning, other than the technological communication environment that now exists, which is why you cannot "blame" the "media". 

So the media cannot be characterized as "spewing hateful rhetoric" any more than humans can be characterized as spewing hateful rhetoric.  Or at least, saying so is no more or less valid than characterizing the media as providing important information that is crucial to our freedom and the operation of a liberal democracy.

So while I don't "blame" technology for the universe of hateful rhetoric or important information it has certainly changed the environment we live in regarding communications.  This technology - combined with the profit motive associated with free enterprise- has essentially destroyed what used to be known as the "media".

In short, it's simplistic to blame what one considers to be "hateful" rhetoric on the "media" as if the word media refers to specific sources of information. Very few of those sources still exist, and the ones who do are typically non-profit. 

And I am not making this up.  I have lived most of my life as an adult before the advent of modern communications technology such as the internet and computers.  I have seen the effects of technology first hand in a relative sense.

Hopefully, that clarifies my post.

(And btw, your petty insults reflect more on yourself than they harm me.  So keep them up. ) 

  And BTW, that wasn't an insult. It was advice.

[homersapien 11,362]

12 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

  And BTW, that wasn't an insult. It was advice.

All due respect, but if I ever think I need your advice, I'll ask for it.

But like I said, don't stop.  It reflects more on you than me.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

All due respect, but if I ever think I need your advice, I'll ask for it.

But like I said, don't stop.  It reflects more on you than me.

All due respect, you needed it.

[DKW 86 7,419]

78 & 91 y’all need to quit. You are not letting the “media” (anyone with a kbd and time to post) off the hook. “Journalists” those with real journalism degrees are jumping in the twitter mind and that is the issue. Celebs etc that post on Twitter are just more brainless trolls that know nothing. But people employed as journalists AND politicos that post up need to be more wary. Simple fact, wait until all the evidence is in, then post or post only on what is known. They don’t tho. CNN will immediately have opinion pieces on unknown facts and innuendo. Hell, that is what THE PLANE CHANNEL is famous for doing. Y’all have it correct but there are those on here that cannot let the effect of twitter reposts speeding up the speed of outrage go unsupported. If we got everyone to cool off and stopped the outrage, ON BOTH SIDES, that would effectively end the careers of the outrage meisters like Limbaugh, Hannity, Jones, Cilliza, Stelter and others.