I likewise never heard about it until after the news was that the story might be fake.
That said, of course it was reported at the time. Why wouldn’t it be? But there’s a reason the news reports that so-and-so claimed this or according to police officers on the scene or even “sources close to the ___ tell us.” They’ll even name other news sources if they didn’t get it directly.
News is about reporting information quickly, giving as much information as they have at the time. No news organization is going to say something definitely happened before it has been investigated.
When the police investigate an accusation that turns out not to be valid, does that mean they “fell for it”?
AFAICT, the media reported the facts (i.e. “according to the police…”, “according to Smollett…”) accurately. They interviewed Smollett because he’s famous and claimed he was the victim of a hateful violent attack.
That’s what the media should do. Is anyone arguing they shouldn’t have reported the facts, or shouldn’t have interviewed a prominent person who claims they were the victim of a hateful, violent attack? If not, what’s the problem?
So am I hearing that the journalists covered the story as they should? They in fact were very credulous and unquestioning. I guess it’s up to you if that’s how you like your journalism.
As has already been stated, the media reported what the police told them, then made corrections as they were given out. How the holy fuck would you have reported the story?
Which journalists were “very credulous and unquestioning”? I’m sure there were some, but the vast majority of the reporting that I read, and saw, was strictly factual (i.e. “the police say xxxx, Smollett says yyyy…”).
So, Lee Oswald (allegedly) shoots JFK, but you don’t want any reporting until the investigation is completed?
Every day the media report on crimes before the investigation in completed. Every damn day. Because a number of those cases each year turn out to be different than first reported, you want the reporting to stop? Why? What’s the problem with the news coming out like it always does. Initial reports, then follow up reporting, then final conclusion. I suspect a great many stories evolve over time for one reason or another.
This is only one story but it’s disturbing journalism because it is all technically true. At the time, no prominent Republican had said anything whereas numerous prominent Democrats had weighed in, some calling it a hate crime.
Yes. And they took what he had to say without question, defining credulous and unquestioning. Again, if you and others don’t desire truth-seeking journalism and just want quotes of what has been said, maybe there is a market for that.
So, we should have heard nothing about the Watergate investigation, the Iran-Contra scandal, the Whitewater investigation, or the Benghazi investigation until it was all completed? Like, a literal media blackout? How about the Son of Sam killings? Should that have had a media blackout until Berkowitz was found?
I think you’re setting a very strange standard for reporting.
In the USA Today article, can you point to exactly what passages you find objectionable?
The way I read it, the reporters probably went a little out of their way to attribute allegations to the multiple police officers that were quoted by name, who in turn specifically stated what Smollett told them. Further, the police asked for help from the public in determining what happened, which may have been the first indication that pieces of the story were missing.
I am going to go back on one thing. I rewatched the GMA interview and the interviewer kept a straight face even though Jussi seemed to be trying to get a reaction from her by initially laughing and then crying. But she seemed pretty stoic so I’m wondering if she also had her doubts.
Smollet made some incredible statements about the attack and the interview he gave was laughably duplicitous. You would have to watch videos to see the context in which the media was covering this. I’m not going to dig up a bunch of stuff off YouTube.
I was reassured when leftists here weren’t falling for the okey-doke, but that may have been a mistake.