For myriad reasons, this country rushes to judgment about virtually everything. Oftentimes, the rush causes misjudgments left and right that should be corrected later but rarely are. The collateral damage can be enormous.
Just in the last twenty years, this country has seen countless lessons of the ills of rushing to judgment. Some of the more notable examples are the Duke lacrosse scandal, the University of Virginia frat story published by Rolling Stone, the Nicholas Sandman debacle and the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. In each instance, the truth as asserted by public news organs turned out not to be the truth but the hopeful narrative pushed by news organizations hoping to cash in on sensational plots.
Perhaps the top reason for this is the rush to be first with a story. In the United States, claiming to be the first with a story -- and not necessarily the most accurate -- matters a lot to the press. Were it only the press's fascination with being first with the news, that would be one thing, but a more than gullible public wanting its fears or hopes confirmed is what galvanizes the press to eschew its journalistic responsibilities in order to claim the mantel of being first with a story.
No matter how wrong a story turns out to be, the rush to be first never causes the perpetrator too much backlash. Professor Jonathan Turley has dubbed this the Age of Rage, and no matter how incorrect a news organization turns out to be, as long as the story sounded plausible when first aired, no amount of correction can diminish the victory of having broken the alleged story. In each of the cases cited above, the story turned out to be almost directly opposite of what the press implied was the truth. People's lives and reputations were damaged. As far as I'm aware, as of this writing, only Mr. Sandman has found any vindication whatsoever, but because of the press's perfidy, no amount of monetary vindication will erase the stain of having been branded a racist. Mr. Rittenhouse will, hopefully, soon add to the MSM's debit column in the next couple of years, but with the enormous sums of advertising revenue the MSM takes in, it will but bat an eye, write a check and exchange it for an NDA.
And that's where the rubber should meet the road. Obviously, given the ordeal endured by Mr. Rittenhouse, he may be loathe to go through another such exercise, but if I were him, after I'd settled with one or two of the lesser miscreants, I'd go to the mat with one of the other, bigger ones. No amount of money would compel me to settle. The reason is quite simple: He can't lose. There is no way that going through a trial and exposing the craven partisanship of an entity that all but had him tried, convicted and executed for exercising his right of self-defense, he'd be viewed as anything other than a champion by right-minded people Sure, he may forfeit a hefty payday, but think of what it would be like to expose, say, the bias of CNN by putting them on the witness stand and having them answer questions under oath:
What was racial about this trial, Mr. Stelter?
How did Mr. Rittenhouse commit murder, Mr. Lemon?
Please explain how Mr. Rittenhouse wasn't in fear of his life after having a gun pointed at his head, Mr. Cuomo.
Admittedly, I don't stand to forfeit a $50M payday, but think about all the goodwill Mr. Rittenhouse would earn for exposing the putrid underbelly of the MSM. Sure, the MSM wouldn't have to write a check, but after undergoing a trial, even assuming it won, how many advertisers would jump ship? How many would continue to support a propaganda machine masquerading as news organization?
It's hard to choose which Leftist to use as an example; there are so many from which to choose. Does he choose the deep pockets, the most vitriolic, the one who stands the most to lose after being exposed? Professor Turley has written that winning a defamation trial for Mr. Rittenhouse isn't the slam dunk many think it would be, given SCOTUS precedent in New York Times v. Sullivan. That being the case, why not take the suit to trial?
It's gotten to the point that for a news organization to be able to claim an exclusive on a news story is tantamount to sell world famous pizza in Newberry, Michigan. But the audience, lacking either the sophistication or the wattage to discern the unimportance of the claim, eats it up. To be honest, having an exclusive is no more authoritative in this age than having a broadcasting license. The lowliest blogger can scoop the major networks if she plays her cards right.
But rushing to judgment gives the newsies one thing: The rush. It gives them the chills to be able to say that they were the first to report something, no matter how inaccurate, because the claim of exclusivity will soon be overtaken by events. For perhaps a twenty-four hour period, the organ that breaks the story is in first place, until everyone catches up, events overtake the original story and corrections begin.
Meanwhile, the poor focus of the story wallows in the mess created by the rush to judgment, never being able to unring that bell. There are still, for example, people that believe Mr. Rittenhouse killed black people, that he shouldn't be allowed to attend college and that if he were black he certainly would have been found guilty. Ironically, these same people are blissfully ignorant of the case in Florida of Andrew Coffee, a black man, who was acquitted the same day as Mr. Rittenhouse of murder and attempted murder when a SWAT team raided his house.
It is possible the Mr. Rittenhouse could sue Man of Dementia for statements he made during his campaign for president wherein he intimated Mr. Rittenhouse was a white supremacist.
Unfortunately for Mr. Rittenhouse, the Man of Dementia has an obvious defense: diminished capacity.
Think of all the millions Mr. Rittenhouse could take from him that China and Ukraine paid him.
(c) 2022 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
No comments:
Post a Comment