HERE is the story. A prominent black Chicago actor claimed 2 men (wearing MAGA hats) assaulted him and shouted racial and homophobic phrases. Also putting a noose around his neck.
The MSM of course jumped all over it and made the guy a hero.
Good grief, this guys story had “fake” written all over it. Using cliches, not giving over his phone, playing up the the press (here he is being interviewed on Good Morning America), playing up to current political divisions (wearing a MAGA hat is an instant crime). But they ran with it. Now they have been quietly deleting tweets and issuing apologies.
Question: Why cant a good reporter smell a liar and distinguish between someone telling the truth or not?
Here is a great article :Why Does the MSM Keep Falling for Hoaxes?
One big reason - they WANT to believe the guy. They WANT to go after someone wearing a MAGA hat. This guy, for example, pulled his tweet about Trump supporters and their “weaponized bigotry”. His exact words "Anyone who thinks supporting You Know Who isn’t tantamount to providing artillery for weaponized bigotry needs to take a hard look in the mirror.”
But why? Ok, I see someone hating Trump but why lose their objectivity in doing their job? Why not wait until the truth comes out before jumping in with your anti-MAGA tweets?
One reason is because the risk of not going along with it is too great. They must comment, it is their job to comment immediately nowadays. There is no allowance for investigation. They must put every story in context of whatever narrative they are pushing. The shrieking hoards of PC police will swarm on them for any deviation. They will sense capitulation to reason and pounce.
If they said it seemed fake, the swarms will descend and they could be out of a job even before the true details come out. Of course now that it is a known fake, there will be no real consequences for the people who participated in the coverage, meaning their calculation was correct in a way.
You notice that not many people bought the lie on these boards. There wasn’t much discussion I saw. I actually breathed a sigh of relief that no real person was believing this stuff.
[ul]
[li]Because Smollet is black[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Because Smollet is gay[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Because of the claim that his attackers said “this is MAGA country”[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Because the MSM hates Trump and wants to prevent his re-election[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Because the story fit their narrative[/li][/ul]
Regards,
Shodan
Can you provide some articles from the actual mainstream media “falling for the hoax”? The one from USA Today seemed like straight ahead reporting of what the police said was going on. I tried to find something from the NY Times, but again it was just the Times reporting on what the police said. Before it came out as a hoax, do you think it would be appropriate for the MSM to ignore the story completely, claim it was a hoax (even though the police weren’t claiming that), or something else? The fact was that a celebrity claimed to have been attacked and went to the police who investigated. The articles I read simply told that story and described the police’s actions. I’m not sure what you’re looking for.
I’ll say the reason I was skeptical of Smollett from the beginning, is while the large national media was reporting the story very credulously, I was noticing local TV news and such in the Chicago area were using phrases like “alleged attack” and et cetera. I’m a little too lazy to dig up the links now, but while none of these stories were directly doubting the narrative, they were also explicitly not endorsing it. That’s a red flag to me because I know a little bit about how local journalists operate, I think when they’re hesitant to embrace a story it means they know some stuff is already wrong back channel. Like probably police sources had let leak “off the record” that the reported crime looked fishy.
That’s not enough to run a story on, but it’s enough to not go all in on the narrative. Mainstream media on the other hand doesn’t have the local police contacts or really even the concern to get that aspect of the story right, because the story as presented is scandalous which means more viewers which is what MSM is all about.
So when more details later came out showing the story was on shaky ground, I wasn’t that surprised because of the tone of the original local reporting–likely the local police beat writers actually had gotten back channel info this was a suspect case to begin with. They couldn’t run with it at the time, but it influenced how their outlets reported on the case.
When journalists report on the facts of an actual ongoing criminal investigation, but later it turns out the person making the report was lying, that’s not “falling for a hoax.” That’s just reporting the news.
This. I watch a fair amount of CNN and MSNBC, yet I’ve only seen this discussed here. Maybe I should get my news from more reputable sites like pjmedia
I’d like to second this. I realize it’s absolutely impossible to convince the OP that his claim is wrong, but I, too, had never heard of this story until it started to come out that Smollet probably lied about it… at which point it was all over the right-wing media.
Hell, I’d never even heard of Smollet until yesterday (or the day before, I honestly can’t remember).
I’m less concerned about the MSM falling for this, as major democratic figures latching onto this as gospel truth, and, even now, wanting to give this guy the benefit of the doubt until all the supposed information comes in. I think we know enough by now.
Essentially there’s not a lot of risk for going with it, and a lot of risk for not going with it. If they go with the story, they can claim they were duped, he lied, it’s his fault, etc… with the added bonus of getting to cover the stories about the lies, and the mea culpa, etc… At no point does it become their fault/problem for not uncovering the lie, so long as they’re reporting what the police told them. That’s the key, I think- not to actually dig their own info, but just report that there was an attack involving Smollett, etc…
If they don’t go with it and treat it skeptically, they run the risk of looking like they were caught flat footed, not sufficiently sensitive to that sort of story, etc…
Yes. A semi-famous person says he was the victim of a terrible crime. Seems like something the media should report on. I don’t think anyone said “and his story is true.” They reported the facts, and as far as I know, reported them accurately.
Lots of crimes have a red flag or two. It doesn’t necessarily mean the crime was a hoax. In this case, those were reported too. I remember hearing about “no surveillance video” and that he was on the phone to his agent at the time of the alleged attack.
It bears mentioning / repeating that, for the most part, the “MSM” reported what the CPD told them. The CPD has had some notable race-related screwups lately, so they seemed to have erred on the side of caution / credulousness with their official stories.
I didn’t follow the case too closely, but it definitely seemed…off. I’m genuinely surprised that, in the process of faking a crime, they did such a sloppy job.
Well, basically, because the facts on the ground at the time didn’t say “hoax”. They said “newsworthy crime”. Sure, it sounds unlikely, but then again, so does “Gay man beaten, tied to a fence, and set on fire”. A lot of crimes seem weird or unlikely. The police certainly took it seriously enough to investigate it. The fact is, we didn’t know this was a hoax until recently, and at that point, the mainstream media did, in fact, report on it being a hoax.
But hey, at least the alternative media figured out that it was a hoax. Right?
The simplest answer to the OP’s question is that the media - all the media, not just the mainstream media - does not have his power to judge actions by knowing what happens two weeks later.
The media did not go along with a hoax. The OP is complete nonsense.
The media reported what the police told them happened, which is what they ALWAYS do. When the police had a different take on the situation, the media reported that as well.