Rittenhouse should send a message to the media: Do your job

In my more frivolous moments of considering what I would do if I ran for elected office and won, one of the more contentious ideas of legislation I would put forward centres on rules for media to follow in regard to retractions and corrections.

Corrections for errors should not be swept to some indistinct place of their website, or summarised in roundabout language at the top of an article that had grown stale, while fresher content garners eyeballs.

Anything I would enact would require media errors, apologies, corrections and retractions to be given the exact same prominence on their websites or in their publications as the false article. If the error was made on the front page, then the apology and correction for the error should be emblazoned across the exact same place, in the same font, at the same point size.

Considering how many media outlets now stand to face litigation for publishing the worst kind of smears against Kyle Rittenhouse, such legislation I propose above would be relatively minor in comparison. Rittenhouse faces a lifetime of non-employment because of the media, and he should be compensated as such.

Now that the initial relief has washed away, I am finding it difficult to contain my absolute revulsion at what the media has done in this case. MSNBC should be subject to the deeper of investigations for their role in ordering a freelancer to pursue the Jury bus, with the view to determine whether more sinister plans were being hatched, such as Jury intimidation.

Each and every outlet who published stories that smeared Rittenhouse as an active white supremacist shooter, whether they be legacy media, social media, alternative media, or even the fund raisers who willingly impeded efforts to fund Rittenhouse’s defence, should all apologise to Rittenhouse, personally, publicly and monetarily.

Their negligence, and perhaps their activism and bias, has resulted in irreparable damage to Kyle Rittenhouse, not to mention the communities of Kenosha and even the concept of due process and “innocent until proven guilty”. In their pursuit of constructing the narrative that the United States is deeply evil, they have ruined a man’s life for his act of defending himself when he thought his life was in danger.

President Biden should also whip his Communications team into line, having first told the press that he respects the Jury’s decision, while his activist lackeys in the Communications arm later issue a written statement on how angry he supposedly is – no doubt an effort to quell the radical activist base who percolate feverishly on Twitter as though that’s an actual important thing to do.

I have never seen a politician so out of sync with their own administration. It appears to me that Biden is talking to the cameras with his well-practised political speak, but then his back room spin doctors and strategists churn the keyboard mill to deliver the proper “official” lines. What an inept politician, so completely unable to keep his most basic of admin monkeys on message.

The media deserve that which many are demanding comes to them. They have arrogantly pursued their narratives without considering any pretence of impartiality, and they push and slant news to be suitable to their pet causes seemingly sure that they will never receive any blowback. They will never be held accountable, and that the public will just forget their misdeeds and move on.

Not this time. This is a lesson they need to learn. If there is any moment that deserves extensive and highly punitive litigation, it is this one.

The media may claim that their function is a keystone in the arch that is a functioning democracy, and would bristle at any suggestion that they are not that important, but their role is only important when they are responsible and understand that they need to report the facts. They are not the story. Their cause is not the story. The story is the story.

It is not that often that I use fiery language on this small blog, but this should be a moment where the media gets the comeuppance that is long overdue. Let them be sued. Let them have their bottom lines suffer. Let them receive the message that they do not shape peoples’ opinions. Let them realise that the activists among their ranks are truly poison and are the dominant reason why distrust in the media is so high.

Let them all experience that which happened to Gawker – a pit of stench so bitter that its irresponsibility and arrogance resulted in its complete implosion.

Maybe then the media will purge their ranks of the activists with delusions of grandeur and start employing people with a thirst for the story, rather than the desire to catch the worst angle that stands to benefit their causes.

Gawker them. Gawker them all.

Media coaching Rittenhouse witnesses to form public opinion even after the trial is over

It is no surprise at all that the media has melted down following the not-guilty verdict of Kyle Rittenhouse on the charges of murder, backing his claim of self defence.

The media seems to lean heavily on their belief that people only obtain their news from just one source, and some political figures seem absolutely certain that the media will not push back and simply parrot their words as fact.

There is a charge that Rittenhouse “Crossed State Lines” line which is of particular note, not because the claim relates to a crime, but because of what the suggestion is meant to plant into peoples’ minds. The claim was that Rittenhouse “crossed state lines” (hinting he was carrying a weapon) to attend Kenosha that night suggests that Rittenhouse was so dedicated to committing violence that night that he was willing to travel a long distance to do it.

It’s a line to seed the image in the audience’s mind that Rittenhouse was some cowboy, getting his friends together to dedicate a night to violence.

Except Rittenhouse lives a few minutes from the border. “Crossing state lines” is something that he likely did quite often, particularly if he worked in Kenosha – which I recall is actually the case.

Then there’s the constant messaging the Rittenhouse was an active shooter that night, despite the evidence in the trial showing that the only people Rittenhouse shot were actively attacking him, and Rittenhouse had very good reason to believe that they would kill him. The one who was injured testified in court that he was approaching Rittenhouse with a gun before he was shot – and note that this is the prosecution’s witness, and that the outlet CBS is not exactly sympathetic to Rittenhouse.

Of course, with the testimony cutting in favour of Rittenhouse’s self defence claim, that same witness was on Good Morning America walking back his testimony.

Notice that the questioning from the host centres initially on the witness’ feelings and opinions on others’ emotions. There is a moment where the host reminds the witness – almost coaching him – by saying, “Here you are allowed to say whatever you feel like you need to say”before offering a leading question to ask that the witness actually wasn’t pointing his weapon at Rittenhouse.

Then the “Rittenhouse was an active shooter” line is offered for the second time that segment. This “active shooter” tag seems to be the sound bite that the media wants to stick, and I expect it to be deployed constantly over the next week or so while the fallout of the verdict spills into the streets.

The media is also trusting that audiences will tune into their channels to watch the quick and easy summary, rather than slogging through hours of actual trial footage. It’s understandable, because getting information in small, easily digestible portions is preferable over scanning hours of tedious meetings for the truth.

The media needs audiences to ignore what has been said under oath, and wants them to tune into what they can coach without that legal burden over what people say.

But this lets media organisations coach responses and selectively edit footage to construct what they want audiences to believe.

This is memetics in action, where the quickest and most dramatic soundbites – regardless of their truthfulness – stick in the mind of the public. “Active shooter” is the most incendiary of claims, is easily identified by the fact that Rittenhouse was armed and shot people.

It ignores the fact that the only people Rittenhouse shot were actively attacking him with a desperation that would give Rittenhouse reasonable belief that he would die if he didn’t defend himself.

Why the media coverage of Rittenhouse trial is not impartial

I wrote this post four days ago, but forgot to publish. My bad.

If there’s any reason to dislike the current media modus operandi of publish first and quietly correct later, it is this. Given the events currently happening with the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, you are seeing mainstream media coverage presenting a skewed take of the proceedings.

It is easy to assume that the media is trying to fan flames to prepare their audiences for a guilty verdict, or that Rittenhouse’s conviction is politically beneficial to their party overlords, but I think their current antics are driven mostly by something simpler, and something that is as old as politics itself.

Arse covering.

Consider this video by Grabien in where many news hosts are seen using potentially slanderous language against Rittenhouse. Multiple hosts were openly using language that labels Rittenhouse with criminal tags, which – if he’s acquitted – opens up the networks to huge litigation.

Of course, I am not saying that politics has played no part in their behaviour. The Rittenhouse case does play into their spun narrative of rampant white supremacy and gun violence, so the events in Kenosha are a very hefty wagon to which they can hitch themselves.

Except the Rittenhouse trial is not playing out in their favour. As a result there is a continued push to bypass where the prosecution is failing, and instead focussing on judge bias or other inconsequential factors.

A judge having a patriotic ring tone is not grounds for mis-trial any more than a judge wearing a pussy hat.

Ultimately, if Rittenhouse is acquitted on grounds of self defence, then the law suits against major networks will be enormous. Rittenhouse will have acres of evidence that the media acted negligently, made comments intended to damage reputation and will affect his future in grave ways.

So, it’s possible that the media is trying to strong-arm a guilty verdict, not just for their politics but also for their money. The media over committed to reporting their feelings and their activism without considering balance and impartiality. A guilty verdict should result in drastic punitive measures.

And yes, this would be true regardless of the politics of the media outlet. The media must be impartial. The media must present its opinions in a measured way. But in the pursuit of drama and sensation, the media might see them in a position that spin their heads faster than when they got it wrong with Nick Sandman.

Let’s not get started on how wrong it is for anyone to apply outside pressure to a judicial process that should be free to make its decision in a vacuum, without having to consider the fallout of their verdict.

Ana Kasparian: credit where it is due

I have no affinity for the opinions of The Young Turks team, former or current. I don’t think I care much for their aims and agenda. Regardless of my personal opinions, credit must be granted where it is due.

Ana Kasparian recently put forward a video where she admits error and corrects the record on what she knew on the circumstances surrounding the night relating to the charges faced by Kyle Rittenhouse.

Some would be quick to point out that Kasparian is only doing this correction in order to cover her behind. Some would even say that it’s a cynical way to prevent litigation as TYT and Kasparian recognise that the evidence in the trial doesn’t support their reporting.

Regardless of Kasparian’s motivation, this kinda of admission of error is something I applaud and would encourage all media to do. This is the kind of thing that goes toward building trust with an audience. To admit error – especially in this age of narratives, partisanship and cheerleading – is a step toward an atmosphere of discourse and debate I have been demanding for years now.

Do I remember Kasparian’s famous, “I’m better than you” speech? Yes. Am I more inclined to watch her news outlet due to this admission of error? Not really.

But granting credit where it is due is warranted. I do not think higher of her opinion, but I do not think lower of her because of her error. Her willingness to (as she says) “Correct the record” is a positive step and serves as an example to the media of how they should conduct themselves.

It’s okay to get things wrong if you properly atone for it. Media is guilty of doubling or tripling down on their narratives, performing logical somersaults in order to somehow appear right, and they need to stop it. Take, for instance, the interview with Sanjay Gupta and Don Lemon which is clearly an effort by CNN to somehow wrangle their way out of the mistake they made on reporting Joe Rogan’s supposed “horse dewormer” story (courtesy of Russell Brand).

Notice how Lemon goes to lengths to reinforce that CNN was not actually wrong. Lemon even talks over Gupta at one stage to say that Rogan’s medication is used as a horse dewormer. It’s CNN’s way of asserting to their audience that they haven’t made a terrible mistake and are actually correct. It’s slimy and is a practice that should be ended.

So, well done, Ana Kasparian. I don’t agree with you on your opinions but on this occasion I at least applaud your conduct. Regardless of what you believe, keep this up.

Rittenhouse trial to show who has power

No matter the result of the Rittenhouse trial, people will suffer. If he is found to be not guilty because of his self defence, the liberal media and activist cronies will hit the streets “in protest”, claiming the verdict is yet another sign of the ubiquitous White Supremacy and Privilege.

If Rittenhouse is found to be guilty, then it shows that justice cannot be served with the outside presence and threat of rioting. It shows that a jury can be swayed and can lose all their objectivity if they feel that their decision carries the weight of destruction.

Considering that the prosecution’s case seems to falter at every step, with witnesses going so far as to say they were shot upon only once they had their weapon pointed at Rittenhouse, and that the media seems hell bent on presenting Rittenhouse as nothing more than a crazed gunman, it is only setting up the scenario in where injustice is the only result.

Rittenhouse’s conviction will be an injustice. The destruction of Kenosha businesses as a result of riots is an injustice. As far as I can tell, these two scenarios are the only possible eventualities.

It even seems that the prosecution is actively gunning for a mis-trial at this point, as the media can always portray a lack of conviction as a result of white privilege rather than the result of an inept prosecution.

Going from what I have viewed of the Rittenhouse trial, a guilty verdict on the murder charges will stand to send a very clear message to gun-owning conservative Americans; the justice system is not blind and is influenced by many pressures. These pressures could be outside the courtroom, such as the threat of riots. These pressures could be inside as well, with activists weaselling their way into juries.

People who aren’t following the trial closely, and who obtain their news from mainstream sources, will only see the release of a killer. People who are closely following the trial, and who obtain their news from alternative sources will see the death of due process.

Given that the evidence to date suggests that Rittenhouse responded with fire only when first shot upon, a guilty verdict will tell Americans that they cannot, under any circumstances, exercise their right to self defence.

The media’s quick portrayal of Rittenhouse as a malicious killer means a not guilty verdict tells other Americans that more activism to fight white supremacy is needed.

Either way, the media will make sure to send a clear message to Americans as to who holds power, or who they want people to believe has power.