Here are 2 different angles of a Trump supporter sucker-punching a black protester as he was walking out of a rally.
But by all means let’s keep this discussion focused on whether this is America in 2019 or not.
Here is a Trump supporter in a MAGA hat threatening to burn down a bookstore for the offense of I guess being a bookstore.
But by all means let’s focus our attention on whether, after seeing visual evidence of their violent nature, it’s wrong to make assumptions about them.
Here is President Donald Trump condoning violence and offering to pay the legal bills of supporters who assault protesters.
Sure, Trump encourages his supporters to assault his opponents and suggest he’ll pay their legal bills, but if someone actually does that, it’s just a big joke and outlier, right?
That’s quite the point, both sides do it! Its the principle of the thing, the actual numbers are distorted by the Fake News to make it look like there’s more from the mouth-breathing knuckle walkers…
So, OK, Trump drops a little fib, here and there. Obama lied about keeping your doctor, so, even-Steven!
Here’s their first article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/01/29/empire-actor-jussie-smollett-assaulted-chicago-potential-hate-crime/
There’s nothing about wapo “accepting” anything here.
This is what Steve Krakauer said about WaPo:
What do any of these have to do with the thread topic?
Wow, is that what Steve Krakauer said! Well, damn! The Steve Krakauer?
“Why did the MSM fall for the Jussi Smollett hoax?”
Because they are so used to making up bull* stories of their own, they do not have a good grasp on reality any more.
The screenshot even says “alleged assault”, as does the article the tweet links to.
And the second? “After being reportedly assaulted”. And the report does, in fact, highlight the hate black gay Americans face.
Question: Have they dropped mentioning the MAGA angle?
I was listening to the same on NPR and they were only going with the black and gay angle. Never mentioning how this idiot tried to bring his anti-Trump bias into it.
Probably trying to undermine his massive support in that community.
Obvious answer is confirmation bias. Nobody is entirely immune. But a lot of media people just really aren’t that smart, don’t have that well grounded and rounded view of the world and just go with what ‘feels’ right, which is often to be on the ‘righteous’ side politically, which for the vast majority of media people in their personal lives is the generally left side of things.
In fairness though, it seems like the local Chicago TV/print outlets took more the mindset of the decades ago idea of non-ideological media and were more skeptical, earlier than some of the national cable outlets particularly. But the latter are now more vehicles where ‘news’ is mainly used to set up ‘analysis’ ie opinion. Probably everyone here accepts that Fox operates that way, all but the dumb and blind would admit that’s true of MSNBC, but CNN is also basically that now too. The need for commentary fodder creates more emphasis on outrageous stories related to the cultural divide. And nowadays social media provides the further excuse that something is really big news because social media is reacting to it.
The bizarre nature of the crime as described is the same reason some people were highly skeptical of this story to begin with, and why much of the national media couldn’t resist covering it heavily. And even after the story blew up, it stills draws viewers to see the spectacle. And of course eg. CNN has all the air time they want to keep saying it was ‘entertainment circles’ and politicians jumping the gun on this story and how measured their coverage was. They don’t have to replay clips of their own anchor/commentators getting carried away with it. Hoax racism stories have a win-win aspect for the media, assuming they don’t care about the long term decline of their credibility with the public as polls overwhelmingly show.
I don’t know what any of this means…
Once again, HD finds a way to nitpick.
The hoax isn’t that Smollett wasn’t beaten up at all, the hoax was that he staged his own beating.
Didn’t read the rest of the thread, did you? The “MSM” pretty much didn’t fall for any hoax-they just reported what was given them by the police, and made correction as soon as they were released.
And for all those who use the term “MSM”, I have started a new thread about the definition and use of that phrase here.
I thought the topic of the thread was why you mentioned the reporting of only one side and completely omitted what the right-wing media said.
I didn’t write the OP and I didn’t set the topic (“Why did the MSM fall for the Jussi Smollett hoax?”)
I’m unclear why the OP is apparantly dissatisfied with the lack of psychic ability among modern journalists.