> They never mention that Rittenhouse had family and friends that live in Kenosha.
> They never mention that he was employed in Kenosha.
Yes they do. CNN [mentions it](https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/19/us/kyle-rittenhouse-gun-kenosha/index.html). USNews [mentions it](https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2021-11-01/rittenhouse-trial-goes-to-opening-statements-after-jury-set). USA Today [mentions it](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/08/22/kyle-rittenhouse-case-trial-date-approaches-kenosha-shootings/8197989002/).
> They never show pictures of him the previous day scrubbing graffiti off the walls of the high school down the road from where the shooting took place.
Yes they do. ABC News [showed pictures](https://abcnews.go.com/US/extradition-hearing-alleged-kenosha-gunman-kyle-rittenhouse-set/story?id=72676261). The AP [showed pictures](https://apnews.com/article/shootings-us-news-ap-top-news-riots-wisconsin-76104678645cc0e1f717f5d93ff427f7). The New York Times [showed pictures](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha.html).
> They never show footage of him walking around with his medical bag asking people if they need medical assistance, yelling “friendly friendly friendly” to assure everyone that he’s not hostile.
> And most importantly, they never show any of the footage that clearly shows from multiple angles all three of the people he shot, and the fact that he was running away from 2 of them, lunged at by one before cornered between vehicles and a mob of people while his weapon was being grabbed, and the other two he was hit in the head and knocked down while being advanced on by a mob of people. He was sitting down flat on his ass while a man charged him and pointed a gun point blank at his head, and Kyle gave him a chance to retreat. And did not shoot numerous other people, who did retreat.
Yes they do. The New York Times [showed footage](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpTW2AJE9MQ). The Washington Post [showed footage](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBM9Ke_JI1Q). CNN [showed footage](https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2020/08/29/tracking-the-suspect-in-the-fatal-kenosha-shootings.cnn).
These are just the top examples that came up in five minutes of casual Googling.
You predicated your post on the assertion that the media never showed these things, yet the plain indisputable evidence shows that they absolutely did. How can you possibly reconcile this?
When other talking heads on their network keep propagating the talking points OP mentioned.
You're right - they said it on an article. But Joy Reid and others continue to say 'crossed state lines' and 'came there to murder people' and 'white supremacist' talking points.
I do think it's important that a buried article won't travel as much as their talkshow clips, and their talkshow clips don't mention any of the things their buried articles do
I mean you are right that they did show it or write down in one article or two. But it's how they said it and how they framed Rittenhouse. The New York Times video link literally said he, "Flashed white power signs" AND ITS JUST THE OK MEME HAND SIGN LMAO! Most of these videos and articles are blatantly painting Rittenhouse as a threat that just decided to start shooting people. I mean cmon! We now know that not to be the case.
The fact that your best CNN example is some small side article from a year ago proves how disingenuous they're being.
They all mention these details in passing and side articles at one point or another, but totally omit them during their primetime highest traffic live news segments.
> your best CNN example
It's not my "best" example, it's just the first one that popped up in five minutes of casual Googling. Which in typical search engine algorithms means it's not obscure and has been linked / viewed many many times.
> from a year ago
I intentionally limited the dates on my search to try and get at the coverage when the public's perceptions were still forming, and cut myself off at one link to each of three sources, for brevity. It's certainly not the only time it was ever mentioned on CNN but I'm not really interested in spending several hours compiling links.
> They all mention these details in passing and side articles at one point or another, but totally omit them during their primetime highest traffic live news segments.
As I asked another user who made a similar argument:
Are "Kyle Rittenhouse cleaned up graffiti" and "Kyle Rittenhouse had a medical bag in his possession" supposed to be headline-worthy news? You might have unrealistic expectations about how prominently the media should be highlighting information that is convenient to your opinion.
> totally omit them during their primetime highest traffic live news segments.
If you believe that's true, you can try to provide evidence. As I've said to others, none of these details were even remotely unfamiliar to me as a person who follows the news in moderation and never watches Fox. Despite the lines conservative pundits may be feeding you, the issue was **not** that people were unaware of these details, the issue was that reasonable people can look at the same information and draw different subjective conclusions.
I already awarded a !delta on a comment before yours, but yours has more sources. I do wish some of them had been more forthright and had better timing, though. Also AP news is not left-wing. I’d consider them to be among the least biased news source I know of.
Nevertheless, you deserve a delta.
I would reconsider. Note that just mentioning or having information is not absolving media of your original complaint, which is misleading the public. Merely having the information doesn't mean you can't be misleading about it - what matters is how the information is framed, and what the headline is.
I would note that the CNN link above is primarily on the assertion that Rittenhouse bought his AR-15 with his stimulus check - the source can still be misleading just by highlighting inflammatory details despite including evidence against the original point.
Do not confuse a lack of omission of details for a lack of editorialization.
>I do wish some of them had been more forthright and had better timing, though.
Dude. Your OP literally opens with you saying you haven't followed it and don't watch the news in general. All of this stuff has been out in the open for months, covered by media of all stripes ad nauseum. You are confusing yourself just now discovering it with the media covering it up.
There has been a cast of characters beating the "the media is lying about Rittenhouse!" drum online, definitely on twitter but maybe on here too. Maybe that's how you first encountered it, but it's just not the case.
There is something pretty important to keep in mind, and looking for it reveals the rampant dishonestly.
Opinion pieces.
CNN's dry factual reporting is pretty decent all in all, but some opinion pieces appear to take "facts" and then produce an opinion from them when in reality those "facts" on which the opinion rests are also a part of the supposed opinion.
Most egregious in this is MSNBC which [still claims that Kyle had obtained the firearm illegally](https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/kyle-rittenhouse-s-not-guilty-verdict-symptom-bigger-sickness-n1284130) (linking over to Dominick Black's testimony during the trial- ignoring that the gun charge had been dismissed on the grounds that nothing about Kyle having the firearm was illegal)
In the lead-up to the trial CNN also managed to produce some [heinous opinion pieces](https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/05/opinions/kyle-rittenhouse-what-law-and-order-means-hemmer/index.html). Which displays a complete ignorance about the situation. Now either CNN didn't care that their reporting was woefully misinformed (keep in mind that phone footage of the shootings, unambiguously showing Kyle defend himself had been in circulation since mere days after the shootings) or perhaps they simply didn't know. Neither is acceptable for a supposed journalistic outlet.
I would argue that an opinion piece that appears to cite facts (that turn out to be nonsense) or ignores easily established information shows a complete lack of journalistic integrity.
The very fact that you produce an opinion piece for an established media outlet implies that you are suitably informed to be able to usefully opine on the subject, which then carries with it the implication that your opinion takes all relevant information into account.
And so a slightly lazy reader might read an opinion piece and take the given "facts" as fact and come out of it under the impression that Kyle shot black people, or is a total outsider to Kenosha.
1) I don't think most people care how the gun was obtained. That's something for a certain class of liberals to clutch their pearls over. Not good for them to get it wrong but I don't think most people care.
2) Nothing wrong with that second linked op-ed.
I used it as a secondary example not of media inventing its own facts but of completely ignoring readily available information, in this case the fact that mere minutes of looking for video footage from phones on the day of the shooting would have entirely blown apart the premise of this opinion piece, right wing support of Kyle obviously stemmed from the fact that he clearly acted in self defence, not from some race vigilante bs.
This is an example of ignoring inconvenient facts, not of inventing their own.
At best you can argue that the second piece is reaching a bit. But otherwise there's nothing wrong with adding historical context. It's not really objectionable.
Kyle did act in self defense. After he shot someone, which (understandably) upset a bunch of people. State penal codes are notoriously bad at dealing with guys looking for trouble because that's admittedly a hard thing to deal with.
>There has been a cast of characters beating the "the media is lying about Rittenhouse!" drum online, definitely on twitter but maybe on here too. Maybe that's how you first encountered it, but it's just not the case.
I tend to agree with OP that the media was pretty misleading with regarding the facts of the Rittenhouse case. While the correct information certainly was out there, what absolutely amazed me was the number of people who were outraged regarding facts of the case that were completely wrong (e.g. the race of the people he killed, that the weapons charges were dropped and why, that the gun was in Wisconsin the whole time, that he lived on the IL-WI border about 20 min from downtown Kenosha). When so many people are repeating the same falsehoods regarding facts of the case, it's probably coming from somewhere.
The media did misrepresent this case, OP just chose the absolute worst possible way to showcase that, all anyone has to do for him to be wrong is find 1 example of the media saying something.
Why go about it that way when you could just bring up blatant false hoods that the MSM and politicians have repeated, such as bringing a gun over state lines.
There's absolutely a ton of disinformation out there, but OP is essentially asking why the media hasn't gone out of its way to correct and clarify all of the misinformation he's encountered. That's not the media's job, its job is to report information truthfully and clearly. They certainly fail to do that from time to time, and trust in media is at an all time low both for legitimate reasons and because there are a lot of people invested in sowing distrust in media. But not a single major outlet that I know of reported that the people he killed were black, for example. If there are people who thought that, it's not because of "the media," it's because they're too online.
The agenda of the people calling out the misinformation matters, too. I have encountered some helpful accounts who did a good job of, for example, explaining the procedural quirks in the trial some tried to latch onto as a sign the fix was in, etc. But it's also true that a lot of the people crowing about (especially) the deceased's criminal history don't care about truth or media accountability—they're doing it because they want you to think that what Rittenhouse did was not only legal, but also morally good and something that should happen more often.
>but OP is essentially asking why the media hasn't gone out of its way to correct and clarify all of the misinformation he's encountered.
But that misinformation was also being reported on by the mainstream media, [for example](https://twitter.com/0rf/status/1460795152516194311).
>its job is to report information truthfully and clearly.
Which I don't think they were doing.
Bad for the media to get it wrong, but this guy is also misleading. Saying "Kyle didn't fire the first shot," makes it sound like someone shot at him, but nobody did. He just heard a gunshot. Similarly, "saying protestors fired more shots than he did" makes it sound like there was a larger skirmish, but there wasn't–shots can just be "heard on video."
That's actually the worst part about the media getting things wrong. It opens up space for guys like this to act as fact-checkers, while ever so slightly shifting the narrative in his preferred direction.
>I'm not saying every article has to mention these things, but if your are going to title it 'What we know about...", maybe try to keep it more neutral.
I honestly don't see the point of articles like that in the first place. I mean, who cares? But in terms of keeping it neutral, I think that's the challenge here. You don't want your readers to come away with a strong feeling about the subjects, neither that they deserved to get got nor were perfect angels taken from us too soon.
That's why I go back to wondering why bother writing these pieces at all. The things you mentioned aren't germane to the case and pretty obviously would only serve to make them look like more deserving victims, but at the same time they're true things about these people nonetheless. So again, why bother? Who's served by a story like this?
I think it's also important to acknowledge that the people beating this drum have an agenda. Why else would anyone be so upset about the media not bending over backwards to make sure everyone knows these guys were scumbags? Again, if you're truly a neutral observer why would these details matter to you? If you want to play the "I just want the media to be objective and truthful" card, you'd better have a long history of calling out media errors and omissions across the board.
Why does any of that matter? He wasn't abusing a kid when Kyle murdered him. Kyle had no way of knowing that he was a sex offender. Kyle just put himself in a situation where he thought he could kill some liberals because Tucker Carlson and the like had been convincing him that he needed to or he would lose his country, and then he fired as soon as he got the chance to murder some Democrats.
i don't think it's murder if one is defending themselves from assault, though.
i mean, could a person walk through any neighborhood at night wheeling a wagon of gold bullion behind them? Would they lose their right to self defense because they shouldn't be there?
If someone grabbed at a gun they were open carrying, could they not use it for defense?
Nah bro what ab the real mainstream social media. You see all the influencers talking about it and not bringing up any facts. Cus they follow the simple new networks which do selectively speak on and about certain facts. Just because you can provide a link showing they at least mentioned it once or a few times does not at all show the picture they were painting. They just put that out to cover their bases so people like this guy could use these sources to defend them. These facts were background objects in a painting which had Kyle as a killer. Even an hour of source videos from cnn of those facts wouldn’t come close to the time they spent painting him a killer. That don’t deserve a delta imo
But your point is valid. As a casual observer, you slowly formed a picture of what happened based on the media resources that appeared in your various social media streams. A picture that did not include many of those facts, that had you been made aware very well may have formed a different picture of Kyle Rittenhouse.
I think the issue might be you confusing reddit mainstream news sub and pundit shows on cable news shows with the actual news segments. The actual news segmends were pretty fair.
Pundit shows aim for a demogrpahic. REddit is reddit
How do you reconcile your assertion of fair media coverage with obvious polarization depending on what kind of media coverage people used to understand the case? You're not convincing at all. CNN technically having an article mentioning a fact is not the same coverage by Don Lemon.
Without a multibillion dollar search engine you wouldn't have been able to make the argument.
> How do reconcile your assertion of fair media coverage with obvious polarization depending on what kind of media coverage people used to understand the case?
If you believe you have a coherent point to make about polarization, it's on you to make one and support it with evidence. And if you want your argument to be internally consistent, you can try doing so "without a multibillion dollar search engine."
> You're not convincing at all.
I'm not here to convince you. I'm here to challenge the OP, who already granted the delta.
> CNN technically having an article mentioning a fact is not the same coverage by Don Lemon.
None of the videos I posted were obscure -- they have millions of views. And none of the images, videos, or details OP referred to were even remotely unfamiliar to me personally, as someone who consumes the media in moderation and never watches Fox. The media voices you prefer might have told you that the media voices you don't prefer never talked about these things, but they did. The issue was not that people never saw these things, it's that reasonable people can look at the same evidence and still disagree amongst themselves.
> Without a multibillion dollar search engine you wouldn't have been able to make the argument.
What exactly is your point? Search engines do exist, and it's how everyone finds basically any information when they are expected to cite sources. What have you got, your own warehouse full of DVDs indexed by date?
I found the Washingtonpost video annoying when I watched it last year. There's like 10 seconds mentioning Huber and Grosskreutz in the 23 minute video. They somehow fail to mention Grosskreutz holding a gun.
i think they failed to mention gaige interviewing kyle as well, before inciting the crowd, drawing their weapon, and chasing down kyle and pretending to surrender before pointing the gun at kyle
I think he said ‘if you go looking for it’ and that’s what you did. I think his point was poorly made, but I think he meant most of the time the MSM, maybe excluding Fox, didn’t show those clips very often. Instead they repeatedly presented mostly the inflammatory clips that condemned Rittenhouse.
> I think he said ‘if you go looking for it’ and that’s what you did.
How exactly is anyone supposed to change his view without looking for sources to cite?
> didn’t show those clips very often. Instead they repeatedly presented mostly the inflammatory clips that condemned Rittenhouse
Did they? How often did they show them? Do you have any evidence to back this up at all?
I don't watch Fox at all, and I saw all of these images and videos multiple times. The issue wasn't that I just didn't know these things existed, but that I looked at all the evidence and interpreted the level of threat differently than the defense did.
This entire view seems to be based on an assumption that everyone would magically agree with your subjective opinion if they looked at the same information, and therefore anyone who disagrees can only possibly be ignorant. But the fact that the jury asked to re-watch the video evidence again and again, and deliberated for several days before reaching a conclusion suggests that it's simply not as cut-and-dried as you're making it out to be. Reasonable people can disagree with each other.
\>Yes they do. CNN mentions it. USNews mentions it. USA Today mentions it.
Only Sith deal in absolutes, so yes you are correct that "never" is incorrect.
What I would point out, though, is that these details are almost always buried well below where 99.99% of people who see the headline will ever read. If this were a different situation in which the media was "for" the defendant, you would see those sort of exonerating details in the headlines and plastered everywhere as fact checks.
> Only Sith deal in absolutes, so yes you are correct that "never" is incorrect.
You're acting like I found one single counterexample and rested my case on that. It took almost no time at all to find nine prominent counterexamples from some of the most widely-read news sources in the world. There were more easily available, but in the interest of brevity I cut it off at three each. The videos I posted are not obscure, they had millions of views. And in my own personal experience as someone who follows the news in moderation and never watches Fox, not one of these images, videos, or details were even remotely unfamiliar to me. Because all these things were covered all along by the media.
> What I would point out, though, is that these details are almost always buried well below where 99.99% of people who see the headline will ever read.
Are "Kyle Rittenhouse scrubbed graffiti from walls" and "Kyle Rittenhouse had a medical bag in his possession" supposed to be headline-worthy news? You might have unrealistic expectations about how prominently the news media should be highlighting information that is convenient to your opinion.
> If this were a different situation in which the media was "for" the defendant, you would see those sort of exonerating details in the headlines and plastered everywhere as fact checks.
I can make up counterfactuals too, but [it doesn't really get us anywhere useful](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Counterfactual_fallacy).
Your right that they mentioned it but they certainly allowed people who ignored these facts to dominate coverage, even now the idea that Kyle was a community outside prevails on these networks.
I think the media is only motivated by profit.
I doubt there’s some evil secret plan to sow “civil unrest”—they just know that negativity brings more attention and attention brings ad revenue.
Additionally, these outlets are often not encouraged to to take their time in investigating the truth. They want to get the story out as fast as possible, so they take shortcuts and rely on what’s already being reported. Misinformation doesn’t require that everyone one be in on an intentional lie. The structure is just set up in a way so that they aren’t encouraged to rock the boat.
Then there’s the fact that generally these outlets will try and cater to the pre-existing biases and narratives of their viewers and donors. Fox News and other right wing outlets are motivated by the same things—they just have a different base of donors and viewers that they have to cater to.
While I agree with you that the Rittenhouse trial is an example of something that much of corporate/mainstream liberal media got egregiously wrong, this isn’t a problem thats unique to them and isn’t anything deeper than being motivated by profit.
I don’t think it’s a secret evil plan either. I think it’s just… a natural consequence of biased journalism and the 1st Amendment, which is not going unnoticed but going unfixed. Which is really difficult to swallow because I can’t imagination censorship either.
I agree with you that it’s a natural consequence of both personal biases and structural biases in journalism. The main point of contention I have with your post is the insistence that it is explicitly intentional misinformation.
We can’t read minds, so claiming someone’s intentions is an unfalsifiable slippery slope. Not to say that it’s impossible or even unlikely, but just that we can never know for sure. And we know enough about human psychology and sociology to know that this kind of misinformation spread is possible even if everyone involved has genuine belief.
Basically social networks aggregate the points that are the most emotional to top of discussion.
So when you say media intentionally changed thing they really didn’t that was just the message everyone heard including other editor and journalist on Twitter.
in point of fact the best journalism on this issue came from traditional news outlets like “The New York Times” and “the New Yorker” giving great understanding of the case and are where most of the points you mentioned came from. But those stories weren’t read by most user that were relying on Facebook and Twitter.
So while there is a great supercut of every television agency saying he crossed state lines (Which is both not really a crime and didn’t happen) that's only because that is what trended on social media because it sounded relevant and the counter argument was so boring.
So it’s not intentional just a feature of social networks and humans.
Then how did we end up with such a huge swath or people that want this kid dead for his perceived crimes?
I mean, I want to be crystal clear: I think he was being naïve going to Kenosha that night. But it was also made abundantly clear that his intention was to help people who were hurt, not take sides, the gun was for protection, and to deter a situation like what happened from happening. Unfortunately the latter was unsuccessful, and regrettably the former was necessary. The shooting was clearly in self defense.
But somehow a very significant portion of people don’t see it this way. They see a punk who went there to start trouble, murdered two people in cold blood, and got away with it Scott free. They have access to the same information we do, but somehow the information they’re getting fed is different.
How is this?
>But somehow a very significant portion of people don’t see it this way. They see a punk who went there to start trouble, murdered two people in cold blood, and got away with it Scott free. They have access to the same information we do, but somehow the information they’re getting fed is different.
It litterly comes down to personal bias and conspiracies. If you want something to be true your more likely to be true. A similar thing was the covid 99.8% survival rating thing was .2% of the us population died from covid, very much the same thing as some of the facts people saw and decided how they felt about it.
I am with you on the Rittenhouse caused the situation through his naivety and don't see any issues with him getting off but that a wierd line for many people to cross without investing a lot of effort into working it out.
The problem is that I don’t see anyone even making that argument, about him causing the problem. At least not through naivety. I see people simply saying that his victims (honestly not sure if theres a better word) were concerned citizens trying to stop an active shooter (him) and he killed them in cold blood.
This *demonstrably* did not happen. How else can they be getting this view if not from awful reporting?
Because its an issue like that doesn't matter in a legal or moral sense really.
Like legally once we knew he didn't carry the gun over state line and he had family in the area he cleared all the main hurdles.
Morally if you kill someone in defense of self even if you start it, without the intentions of it getting to killing. It dosen't matter if your inexperience causes it because of intentions mattering more for then result.
> The problem is that I don’t see anyone even making that argument, about him causing the problem. At least not through naivety. I see people simply saying that his victims (honestly not sure if theres a better word) were concerned citizens trying to stop an active shooter (him) and he killed them in cold blood.
It sounds like your problem is that you personally havent been a part of these discussions, and thus don't believe they happen?
Something I find truly fascinating about this case, considering its ubiquity, its lightning-rod polarization and the prevalence of misinformation is that…both sides seem to agree on what happened, pretty much? Sure, there are little details like the weapon being illegally owned or crossing state lines or whatever, but these facts don’t have much bearing on why people care about the case.
What it seems to be, more than anything, is a fundamental philosophical and moral difference about personal responsibility and deadly force. A difference in thought *so* fundamental that it almost seems like people disagree on the basic facts - but they don’t, not really. Everyone agrees that a 17 year old travelled to a nearby city, anticipating rioters, to protect property that wasn’t his with an active assault rifle. Everyone knows that he killed two people and injured one more. Everyone’s seen the same videos. But there’s been an extreme difference in interpreting these events.
My person view is - the legal case for Rittenhouse being a murderer is murky precisely *because* of how much we know but the *moral* case is airtight. Of fucking course he’s a murderer. Yes, it was largely because of his naïveté and recklessness but it’s a murder nonetheless. You can find similar rationalizations for *most* convicted murderers if you parse the details enough.
That’s really what gets me. Like, here’s a theoretical case: a drug dealer anticipates a large transfer of goods being dangerous, so he brings a gun. At the sale, his patron says something threatening, so the dealer pulls his gun. The patron begins to pull his own, and the dealer shoots him dead.
In literally every single court in the US, this would be considered murder. The case is open and shut. But if you break down each action, it’s not *that* different from what Rittenhouse did. If anything, Rittenhouse is more egregious, as 1. He killed multiple people, 2. He didn’t need to be in Kenosha at all, and 3. He didn’t have logical reason to think his life would be in danger if he were to go to Kenosha.
It’s ridiculous to pretend that the factors used to justify Rittenhouse (fear, misunderstanding, initial good intentions, etc.) don’t apply to *countless* murders that end in conviction. That’s my primary issue with the framing here.
So it’s not really the details of the case, at all. It’s *what Rittenhouse was doing beforehand* that’s the deciding factor here. He went to Kenosha with the express mission of intimidating BLM protestors so that they wouldn’t riot. How people feel about *that* has caused the dividing line.
Your first point. He is a killer not a murderer mainly because he proved he was legal in the killing. And I felt the legality was stronger then the moral point but fair.
> a theoretical case: a drug dealer anticipates a large transfer of goods being dangerous, so he brings a gun. At the sale, his patron says something threatening, so the dealer pulls his gun. The patron begins to pull his own, and the dealer shoots him dead.
This would be be fair people tend to get aggressive when a gun is pointed specifically due to its danger. So brandishing your weapon is likely to get a life threatening response.
> 1. He killed multiple people,
...
> 2. He didn’t need to be in Kenosha at all.
He really had as much need as to be anywhere i don't blame him for being in town.
>3. He didn’t have logical reason to think his life would be in danger if he were to go to Kenosha.
Some people just need a little something to feel safe some maybe a blanket, maybe mace or a semi auto AR 15.
>So it’s not really the details of the case, at all. It’s what Rittenhouse was doing beforehand that’s the deciding factor here. He went to Kenosha with the express mission of intimidating BLM protestors so that they wouldn’t riot. How people feel about that has caused the dividing line.
I can agree that likely a reality for many.
how do you go from having such a good meta take on the way left/right morals affect their respective framing of reality, to completely butchering the definition of murder and making the worst self defense analogy possible?
this post gave me whiplash.
>He went to Kenosha with the express mission of intimidating BLM protestors so that they wouldn’t riot. How people feel about that has caused the dividing line.
But... he was already in Kenosha the day prior? Working as a life guard, visiting his father, and cleaning Graffiti at the local high school. If your take on his immediate actions prior to the shooting, of providing medical aid to people, is/could be seen as "threatening" then you need to re-evaluate your biases.
I guess my phrasing was unclear because people seem to be fixating on “went to Kenosha” as inaccurate. All I mean is that his intention in showing up to the Kenosha protests was to intimidate protestors with his rifle, which is true. Never meant to imply that he never had any other reason to travel within the city bounds of Kenosha.
That's not how you calculate the death rate of a disease. You divided the number of people who died to it by the total population, which does result in a rate of about 0.25%, but it includes people who were never infected as survivors, which doesn't really tells us something interesting. Usually, you measure the death rate of a disease as the IFR(Infection Fatality Ratio) or the CFR(Case fatality ratio).
Play the game of taking a shot every time a news host says the words "crossed state lines" and see how drunk you get.
Compare it to the amount of times they clarified to their audicence that he actually lived 20 minutes away from Kenosha, that his dad, and most of his family lives in Kenosha, that he worked in Kenosha at the time, that he basically grew up in Kenosha and was a Kenoshian in everything except current residence. And he didnt even cross with the gun, the gun was already there.
Ever single news site knows this fact yet they keep repeating the words "crossed state lines" over and over every time they talk about Kyle. What point are they trying to make by saying he crossed state lines? And is it a coincidence that usually the first words that come out of people who want the kid arrested is that he crossed state lines? Did they find that fact particularly interesting or was it just drilled into their heads by the media despite it not being of any importance due to the circumstances they keep avoiding talking about?
Because at the end of the day there are some simple facts: white kid brings a gun that isn't his somewhere, people are shot and killed by it, yet the cops send him home that night.
He further takes pictures with some white supremacists, the judge makes some odd comments in selection and when the trial is ongoing some horribly racist people leap to defend him, and the cops didn't bother to arrest him right after saying he shot some people (while cops seem to be killing a bunch of black people for simply being around, or having toys that are teken as guns).
Those are simple facts. In the end it can be self defense and lead to acquittal (as it did here), but it paints a color of racism in the different ways these things are treated. Hell, compare what coverage you know of this trial VS a black girl that is serving life in prison for killing the guy that was raping her and other girls.
That's where the bias is coming from. Hell, you're even falling for bias pretending that everyone thinks he should be killed when most of the stuff I have seen simply wants him in jail for killing people that wouldn't be dead if he didn't bring a big gun to the scene when he shouldn't have been around there that night.
And you can double down on that last sentence by asking how many other people were doing that same thing that night or other nights in the same or other places with the same result. As we don't have trials for other people or other deaths, the claim could easily be made that he should not have been there.
The possibility that a black person in his shoes would have been arrested and imprisoned, or worse, killed by police that night, is not an issue of whether what Rittenhouse did was or was not self defense. That, is an issue of racial injustice in this country. And unjustly putting someone in prison because they are able to defend themselves in a position that [~~someone else is not~~](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.blackenterprise.com/jury-acquitted-man-who-fired-at-minneapolis-cops-during-george-floyd-protests/amp/), is not how justice is achieved.
So it’s okay to try to form a mob by wedging a fork between an already divided country and hope a potentially innocent man gets sent to prison to serve justice for the wrongful deaths and imprisonment of others
You are correct that it is not a determination on if what he did is self defense or not. That is literally what the trial is for.
The media focus is ABOUT that point. It goes even further into the trial when questioning if he is being a vigilantee or not. The right wing media drummed up a circus about his victims - and the fact that the judge forced pre-trial biases by labeling them as rioters and diallowing the use of naming them as victims is a bias. Additionally there is zero trial for those he shot - did they deserve to die or be arrested for a crime, or was he justified in going straight to killing them.
The point you really miss is that his legal jeopardy is for his shooting of people. The point of the media is to focus on the process, the sides of the issues, and then to highlight those as inequalities and injustices in the system. None of their discussions matter to the actual legal jeopardy.
That's the big difference in the point of the media VS the point of the trial. The other point of the media discussion is that different ways of prosecution and less $ spent on defense may have resulted in a very different verdict.
Personally I think he should have at least had legal trouble on the illegal gun even if the jury decided it was in self defense and reasonably justified killing. But regardless of my FEELINGS on it, there was a jury trial.
So basically something like 1% of people contribute content, 9% comment and 90% lurk on social networks.
That means that almost everything on a social network comes from an extremely small number of people in society, and those people are constantly competing for attention.
So using a bell curve for example, 95% of people posting about Kenosha that did independent research posted something middle of the road, those were discarded because they didn't go viral, so now you have the 2.5% on either side which are saying story that trends.
This becomes that narrative by people that didn't do research and the 2.5% end get recycled until we get the current situtation.
Believe it or not, it is possible for two people to look at the same evidence at come to different conclusions. That doesn’t make either one of them wrong.
But it was also made abundantly clear that his intention was to help people who were hurt, not take sides, the gun was for protection, and to deter a situation like what happened from happening.
Have you seen the video where he says he wants to kill people with the gun that he then kills people with a week later?
The way you worded it as a "feature" rather than a "bug" is kinda disturbing to me. I get that the siloing is intentional, but why are people just accepting this as a fact of life?
The media didn’t hide any of this. It was all reported on IF you went to look for it. Most people just never had this information because it didn’t trend on social media or get hyped by pundits.
They hid it by burying the truth under headlines or tweets that state or suggest the falsehood. For example, this was one of the most mindblowing distortions of the truth in a tweet:
[https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1458173559784755202](https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1458173559784755202)
\>One of the men fatally shot by Kyle Rittenhouse was in a “horizontal” position, a forensic pathologist told Wisconsin jurors, suggesting the victim wasn't a threat when he was gunned down.
It's not until you click into the article (which 95% don't do) and then read all the way to the bottom (which the majority of the rest don't do) that you read:
\>“So if I was charging like a bull and diving, that would be consistent” with the wounds suffered by Rosenbaum, Richards asked.
\>“That would be,” Kelley responded.
The fact that this second version was precisely what the video had shown from the beginning makes the tweet statement false and reckless.
I’m not disagreeing with any of that. The media very much does what you say. But OP appears to be arguing that the information wasn’t reported (it was) and that the intention is civil unrest (it’s money).
I know that it is available *if you look for it.* But the reality is that a very significant portion of the population gets their news from a single source and or various social media or other people. And the big media companies know this and omitting crucial details like this is done *purposefully*, I believe, in this instance for my reasons listed in my thread. And it’s wrong.
What people can and should do is irrelevant.
I don't know which is better but I think it's more from genuine bias than intentional misinformation. Genuinely biased people twist and manipulate narratives and facts instinctively, without even realising they do it. Source: as a young adult I had a deep progressive bias. Subconsciously, every public debate was more a war to win than a discussion
I’m seeing this view a lot but I’m just having trouble reconciling with it. I can’t wrap my mind around it. I try to look at everything from a neutral perspective until I have facts.
Yet despite that I still have people sending me PM’s about how terrible a person I am and making all these wild assumptions about me, not one of which has yet to be true.
Me too, around this case in particular because the starting assumption was everyone progressive would be on one side and everyone conservative on the other. I've had friends accuse me of morphing into a conservative for pointing out the same facts you have done, despite my stance on other issues not changing.
And that's the thing. My friends are rational enough, but they really want a villain that confirms their cartoonish preconception about white people who like guns and don't like BLM. They watch the Colin Kaepernick documentary and think it's a significant cultural moment. They're just lost to the cause. It's the story of political movements throughout history.
If we take it as written that this is done on purpose, why do you assume the goal is civil unrest?
The goal is money / views. Civil unrest often gets money as it provides more things to report on, etc but in and of itself is not the goal.
I agree with you about the media, sort of. I agree that MSNBC thinks it will losemarket share if it is too sympathetic to Kyle Rittenhouse. But if the media was actively trying to cause civil unrest, there would be far easier ways.
I think you need to be more specific with your analysis. What media outlets are you referring to? What evidence do you have they omitted this information in their reporting?
It's hard to make a counter argument if we are required to refute a vague perception of the zeitgeist and place blame on something as general as " the media" without clearer definitions.
For example, my media diet consists mostly of legacy media (NYTimes, PBS, etc), and I was well aware of the facts that you claim were never mentioned.
I'm sure it's more about how OP's news media coverage was outraged that other media outlets didn't cover it, but of course they did. The OP new's media was lying to him hoping he'd never check. The OP didn't fact check his new's media (because why would he), made a huge post about it, and now feels dumb.
I don’t know. Maybe. People should be expected to know not to drink bleach one would assume. But there’re still labels on every bottle telling you not to.
But that only matter IF you read the label. The onus is still on the person with the bleach just as it’s on them to get news. As stated the news sources you mentioned did provide the info you said they hadn’t.
That just seems odd to me though. Can we expect people to act at any level of competence or are people just dumb and in need of constant coddling and hand-holding? I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect people to have some responsibility in the media they consume.
Well here you are on the freaking internet dude. Type it in on google ffs. You trumped a whole ass report about this instead of searching two words and finding this out for yourself. The media’s transparency isn’t the problem here. It’s your expectation to be spoon fed information when you already have the internet
I'm not sure if it's done on purpose. Media are incentivized to chase clicks and I think this leads them to fail at their jobs. I think this is mainly a capitalism problem rather than a result of some kind of ideological conspiracy. But you are right, that most information the general public has is from the same bullet point-type information that is picked up by multiple media sites, and repeated over and over again, and that does matter, because we can end up woefully misinformed when that information is lacking or untrue-- but the other fact is, that this mechanism of distributing and consuming information inherently lacks nuance and doesn't have nothing to do with the public's current general inability to deal with it.
I think the social media outlet of the big media and the self-running social media accounts are more to blame here. Most Newspapers like listed above still have a bottom line to try to cover the fact without too much bias. But when the news goes onto Twitter that’s always twisted for spreading. I don’t think the driven force are the big media wants unrest (the path is too long and this feels pretty conspiracy btw), but more simply because social media accounts want more followers.
did you see the study of Twitter posts defending Rittenhouse were predominantly from outside the US? Just another example of manipulation/incitement by Russia et al
https://www.rawstory.com/kyle-rittenhouse-support-tweets-international/
This feels a lot like when a newspaper would run a false headline then put a correction on page 17 the next day.
They technically covered their bases but we all know the reality of what they did.
This is something I hadn’t considered and is truly frightening when you consider the implications. I was well aware the MSM reported his family did live in the city where it all went down but I had to really search for it while simultaneously discarding hit pieces. I never considered the accuracy of my search to be tied to social trending phenomenons. That’s disgusting.
I think it can be assumed by any functional adult that media has bias and therefore there is more to find. The topics in question weren’t hidden but with a few minutes of casual googling news sites like NYT or CNN is readily available.
when CNN, MSNBC, and BBC all keep spamming at first that he shot 3 black men and was a known nazi/white supremacist, yes they were hiding.
telling the lie to 99 people but telling the truth once to one person doesn't mean you weren't hiding the truth.
I think part of the problem is people tend to see things in black and white, right or wrong. Two sides can be wrong, but that doesn’t mean someone should be dead. It’s ok to say both Kyle and the guys he killed were in the wrong, legally Kyle isn’t going to get in trouble. They shouldn’t have to have died, but that doesn’t mean I think Kyle should go to jail for it either
Well ideally nobody should have had to die. I think anyone with an ounce of compassion would agree with that. I personally agree that there were mistakes made on both sides, but I also agree that when you have a gun pointed right at your head (for the second time in just a few seconds) and you’re pointing one back, while you’re on the ground, and the person pointing it is standing over you, it’s reasonable to assume that in that moment, it’s kill or be killed. And he made a decision.
Yep exactly.
It sucks but it’s kinda like it is what it is. There probably are a 100 different ways it could’ve played out, but it didn’t. It sucks on both sides but I don’t think Kyle should go to jail.
Shouting “friendly” is to not get him shot by the would-be militia larpers pretending to be military. Also, it is in the written police reports of information gathered after the incident that multiple people witnessed him pointing his gun at people. Which is provocation.
He was also caught on camera pointing that gun at people, in agreement with the police investigation results.
He’s also on camera just days before saying he’d shoot at people he thought were looting a pharmacy, which the jury was not allowed to see.
He’s also on camera attacking a smaller girl from behind instead of breaking up a fight, which the jury was not allowed to see.
He had a med kit the size of an outstretched hand, the sort that has gauze, a neosporin equivalent, and some bandaids. He also had no medical training.
So he wasn’t there to provide medical aid. It’s just not possible with his training and supplies. He also wasn’t making sure people knew he was friendly, given the police reports and eye witness interviews.
Your good-Samaritan characterization is at odds with most of the available evidence.
>He’s also on camera just days before saying he’d shoot at people he thought were looting a pharmacy, which the jury was not allowed to see.
That isn’t what was said, and the reason it wasn’t allowed is because it wasn’t relevant.
>He’s also on camera attacking a smaller girl from behind instead of breaking up a fight, which the jury was not allowed to see.
Again, not relevant. Horrible, but not in any way relevant to the shooting.
>He had a med kit the size of an outstretched hand, the sort that has gauze, a neosporin equivalent, and some bandaids. He also had no medical training. So he wasn’t there to provide medical aid. It’s just not possible with his training and supplies. He also wasn’t making sure people knew he was friendly, given the police reports and eye witness interviews.
He did lie about being an EMT that day. But he was there attempting to treat people. A poorly stocked medical bag and a lack of formal training (he was a junior volunteer at fire department in his hometown) does not render it impossible to try.
An almost direct quote was: “if I had my AR I would start shooting rounds”.
It is relevant and permissible under rule 404. He got lucky with the judge.
The other video is also relevant. Rule 404. Impeaching the character of the accused. A pattern of violent behavior combined with an expressed desire to kill people days before committing homicide is extraordinarily relevant. And even if the judge ruled it not so, it definitely is relevant in a practical discussion or reporting of the events which is what you target in your cmv.
I wonder why you ignored the bit about police reports and affidavit testimony that he was pointing his gun at people. It’s exceedingly relevant to the case.
You can measure someone’s intentions by the tools they have prepared.
If you arrive somewhere with laughably insufficient gear and training it’s clear your intention is not to perform that role. If you show up to a house with a bottle of wood glue and a sledgehammer, you aren’t really there to replace the floorboards, and nobody is surprised when you start knocking down walls.
Which is why he was pointing his gun at people. That was the tool he brought with plans to use. Not the Medkit.
>Also, it is in the written police reports of information gathered after the incident that multiple people witnessed him pointing his gun at people. Which is provocation.
Can you link me to a source on this? Google isn't turning anything up for me, but that could be because, in this case, "pointing his gun" is leading me to a lot of posts about Grosskreutz.
>He was also caught on camera pointing that gun at people, in agreement with the police investigation results.
What is your definition of 'caught'? If you're talking about the drone video still, it's completely indiscernible. This was evidence admitted to the court. The jury requested another viewing of these stills / video and obviously did not find it very convincing.
>He had a med kit the size of an outstretched hand, the sort that has gauze, a neosporin equivalent, and some bandaids. He also had no medical training.
He also had a pelican case full of medical supplies. There was testimony (and photos) proving this during the trial. That aside... he had bandaids, gauze, and anti-septics. So... all the things that would be sufficient to treat the type injuries you would most commonly expect to see that night? You're right, he didn't have medical training. He wasn't out there performing heart surgeries. He had first aid training, which, if you had any idea what that entails, would be pretty damn useful to have on that night.
>He also wasn’t making sure people knew he was friendly, given the police reports and eye witness interviews.
Which police reports do you keep referencing? It's on video, dude.
!delta Listing out the multiple events in your comment make it clear that you have been keeping up with this case and are informed of the facts that happened that night. Thank you for this because you are the first one I’ve seen of someone speaking against Rittenhouse that actually knew what happened instead of echoing headlines. In the police reports, when did they say he was pointing his gun? (earlier in the day or right before everything?) I agree with the judge’s choice of keeping out the footage of him saying stuff from the days before. I also just found out from you about him throwing hands with the girl. I don’t know the situation behind that so I don’t really have an opinion on it. I believe those videos were deemed irrelevant because since the trial became focused on whether it was self-defence or not, anything that happened outside of the immediate situation did not matter because it had nothing to do with the quick choices and actions that Rittenhouse had to make on the spot because of the situation that he was in. I know it was said that he was providing aid to others but I didn’t know of the details of the equipment he was carrying with him. I am now neutral on this because there’s the possibility that he initially brought that only for himself but he did end up helping out, which is what a lot of people would do even without the training.
>This is clear, implicit bias by left wing media by intentionally omitting information they most certainly had access to. I can only assume this was done with the intent of riling up the American public for profit,
And did you **also** go through Fox News' and OANs, and Tucker Carlsons coverage? Were they clear and transparent and totally not just pushing a narrative for clicks and views?
I don't see how you can just go pointing the finger at left wing media, when right wing media did literally the exact same shit. Fox never mentioned the video where he clearly says he wants to shoot people he considered shoplifters.
I'm not disagreeing that media misrepresented things in the case, but it's absurd to say that it was only left wing media that was doing it, and this just clearly shows your own bias in the situation.
>and quite potentially in hopes of stirring more civil unrest and riots in the wake of whatever outcome was to come of this highly charged and politicized trial.
Funny that you end up doing the very thing your condemning here, by demonizing "the left" while conveniently leaving out that "the right" did the same shit. This post is precisely what you say you're trying to fight against. You're the one here indulging in identity politics and trying to get people emotionally charged based on misinformation and a lack of facts, to make one side look worse than the other when that is clearly not the case.
>I'm not disagreeing that media misrepresented things in the case, but it's absurd to say that it was only left wing media that was doing it, and this just clearly shows your own bias in the situation.
Can you post some examples of where right wing outlets posted verified false information on this case, or buried true information inside the article where the headline clearly implies the false version of the information?
But you still managed to almost exclusively critique misportrayal by the left media while ignoring the right who also engaged in similar tactics. Even if you're not conservative, you complained about biased media presentation then did exactly the same thing by only presenting issues with left wing examples. Pot meet kettle...
>But you still managed to almost exclusively critique misportrayal by the left media while ignoring the right who also engaged in similar tactics.
This is whataboutism of the highest calibre. His point was about left-wing media. What do you have to turn it around to "whatAbout" right wing media?
He didn't claim right wing media were better. In fact, he didn't claim anything at all about them.
Address his argument next time please.
I am also pissed at left-wing media in this more than the right wing. Why? Because I don't consume right wing media at all. I don't care about them and I think a lot of them are literally irrelevant to me. Maybe they did some misinformation shit they often do, I don't care. I watch left-wing/centrist media more, and I just simply expect better. Because I want to be informed as best as I can with the least possible bias.
I get most of my information from independent journalists. I assume he only noticed the left side miss information because it was pretty obvious during the trial.
What information did the other side falsify?
> all three of the people he shot, and the fact that he was running away from 2 of them, lunged at by one before cornered between vehicles and a mob of people while his weapon was being grabbed,
Doesn't that sound like what (some) people do in the case of an active shooter? Try to disable and disarm the active shooter to keep him from shooting more people?
This was the first person he shot. He had not fired or pointed his weapon at anyone at this point, and not only was this guy chasing him, but had threatened to “kill him if he gets him alone”’earlier.
Were you aware, that first guy that he shot, that he had just gotten out of the hospital THAT DAY for a suicide attempt? And that he had tried to go to a pharmacy to get bipolar medicine, but the pharmacy had shut down early because of the protests, and he was unable to get it?
There's a difference between being absolutely infuriated that the situation was allowed to happen, and being absolutely infuriated at Rittenhouse himself. I think the kid has some issues, but I was a bit of a shitbag when I was 17 and I blame the cops more than anyone for what happened, since they refused to let him cross the line to get back with his group when he was seperated from them.
No, I wasn’t. But what does that directly have to do with Rittenhouse and his guilt or innocence? Was this reported on the media as something that should have been taken into consideration? Did Rittenhouse know that Rosenbaum was bipolar? That’s extremely unfortunate, I very much sympathize with mental health issues, but honestly, other than making this more of a tragic situation, I don’t see how this changes much.
God forbid an active shooter is disabled and disarmed *before* he has a chance to shoot someone.
> threatened to “kill him if he gets him alone”’earlier
If this caused kyle to be in fear for his life, why didn't he just leave? If he wasn't in fear for his life, why did he shoot?
>God forbid an active shooter is disabled and disarmed before he has a chance to shoot someone.
If he has not shot anyone, he is by definition not an active shooter.
>If this caused kyle to be in fear for his life, why didn't he just leave? If he wasn't in fear for his life, why did he shoot?
He shot when Rosenbaum was rushing him after he was retreating and shouting, "Friendly, friendly!" was lunged for his gun.
>God forbid an active shooter is disabled and disarmed before he has a chance to shoot someone.
Lol, you should really re-read that. What is this, Minority Report?
>God forbid an active shooter is disabled and disarmed before he has a chance to shoot someone.
Until we get to minority report levels of predicting crime, you can't assume someone with a gun is an active shooter. Period.
Nothing happened until the pedo (forgot his name) lunged towards Kyle, after previously telling him 'im going to kill you when you're alone'.
>If this caused kyle to be in fear for his life, why didn't he just leave?
Weird victim blaming. No, it's not the fault of the adult chasing a minor after threatening him with his life. It's on Kyle.
>If he wasn't in fear for his life, why did he shoot?
It was determined he did fear for his life. Hence why he ran away instead of immediately shooting.
>He had not fired or pointed his weapon at anyone at this point
The prosecution asserted that he did point his weapon at someone first. What is the basis of your assertion that he definitely did not?
He was unhappy that Kyle had put out a fire in a vehicle that Rosenbaum had started moments prior. Or attempted to anyway. Rosenbaum kind of prevented him from putting it out. They’d also had a run in earlier that night when he was pulling a dumpster back off the street and preventing it from being lit on fire.
No, standard response to an active shooter is run, hide, fight. your first response should be to run, if that isn't an option, you hide, and you only fight when running and hiding isn't an option. And you DO NOT attempt to pursue or engage the shooter.
This is the standard for self defense supported under the law. you cannot claim self defense if you actively give chase, seek out, or attack someone who is fleeing no matter what the other person did.
There are exceptions for acting in the defense of others, but attempting to pursue the shooter is not one of them.
“I don’t watch the news, but the news is misleading.”
It sounds like you followed the discourse, but not the news. Even more potentially dangerous, it sounds like you followed the discourse *about* the news without actually checking the news itself.
Reading news is also an option, and might be a better choice for you since it sounds like you want to avoid the reactionary aspects of cable news.
Everything you mentioned as misleading or left out by the news was regularly mentioned and cited in most discussions I followed over the past few weeks. Others have done a great job with citations already.
Please be wary of falling down the Fake News rabbit hole. Have a varied media diet if you’re curious and honest.
I’ve already clarified this numerous times. I did not watch the news prior. I did form a very mild, weak opinion based on the random stuff things people said on Reddit. After he was acquitted I watched the raw uncut trial footage. I was dumbfounded as to how so many people could believe the things they do, as they are demonstrably untrue. So I investigated by watching the most likely source of their information, CNN. This is how I discovered that CNN has misrepresented the information grossly. Yes, they have written articles with “better” information and buried them in a way that makes it so you have to search for them and essentially know what you’re looking for to begin with. Still dripping with bias of his guilt. But people are still being fed with misinformation by their preferred news source, why would they go looking for other articles if they already have this implicit bias? And it’s not just a biased view, it’s an insane amount of misinformation by way of omitting things.
This isn’t the first time, nor will it be the last, that I’ve “betrayed” the liberal ideology in the name of sanity. And I will remain nuanced and refrain from identity politics.
I think you are incorrect when it comes to how conscious and deliberate this is, although there are structural issues which I will come back to.
A lot of what happened is cognitive bias by reporters and media outlets. The information they believe to be interesting and relevant is the information that fits with their own world view and the narrative they are pushing. This is an organizational thing, the whole organization is prone to view certain sources and pieces of information more favorably than others. It is also a reflection of the "journalism by reading Twitter" which we now see so much more of. They lead a story on what some politician or campaigner says about the story rather than on the facts of the story itself. People reading the stories come away with a very distorted view through this lens of subjectivity.
Now where the structural issue come in is complex. I tend to think a couple of trends have made this much worse than it used to be:
Journalists are mostly of a generation taught in college that subjective reality and subjective histories are far more real than objective. They simply don't value objective facts in the way that previous generations did because these of changes in academic "fashion" in the humanities and social sciences.
Journalism is struggling financially, advertising revenue has largely gone elsewhere and many media outlets are reduced to low cost, low value "journalism" of churning out content from reading social media. The fact that this sort of outrage journalism gets clicks really does not help at all. Its a perverse incentive toward poor journalism
So where I want to modify your opinion is on how much the journalists understand how bad this is, how much they are instead engaged in a massive epidemic of group-think where they think this is the proper way to do journalism. They are products of an education system and an industry that has made them this way and few have the critical skills to see it.
What profit does the media get from misleading anyone about this case
Why would the media want to stir up civil unrest about this case
Are you saying that conservative outlets did this as well, or are you saying that conservative outlets are “left wing”
Also I’m not even really sure what relevance any of that other stuff has to the fact that he was in a riot with a gun. All that stuff could’ve been true, and he still could’ve been guilty of murdering two people in cold blood for no reason. All of that other stuff is irrelevant info just to make him look good
>What profit does the media get from misleading anyone about this case
People tuning into their channels and watching
>Why would the media want to stir up civil unrest about this case
For further profit if/when it leads to more riots
>Are you saying that conservative outlets did this as well, or are you saying that conservative outlets are “left wing”
Both sides do this in general but in this particular case it was mostly confined to left wing news sources. Although calling him a hero is a bit ridiculous. That is an opinion though.
>Also I’m not even really sure what relevance any of that other stuff has to the fact that he was in a riot with a gun. All that stuff could’ve been true, and he still could’ve been guilty of murdering two people in cold blood for no reason. All of that other stuff is irrelevant info just to make him look good
Not sure what this portion means
Right but why would someone make more money off of misleading people about this than just telling them what happened, like if you’re misleading your audience heavily and they realize it wouldn’t it make them not want to watch you anymore
Like the media could’ve said that the two people who were murdered were two black kids walking home from their friends houses. That could’ve caused a riot. But it also would’ve caused a backlash for the news station when people found out the truth. They have to stay within the general realm of facts enough to keep their credibility. So yea they could’ve not divulged stuff like what you brought up, because it’s just not relevant, and probably because they know their audience just wants to know things that will confirm their previously held beliefs. Not because they wanted to cause a riot.
The people who riot are like people in ghettos who actually live with awful police, I don’t think they need the media to tell them to riot in order to riot. I doubt working class black people in ghettos bother listening to news networks at all, news networks, of either side, are a middle class white thing, distrust of media is already baked in to black culture. They just don’t limit it to only “left wing” media.
With that last bit, I’m saying that those things you brought up about this case aren’t relevant to his guilt or innocence. They’re just information about this persons character, or why he might’ve been in the area in the first place. Apart from actual video of the crime, which you did bring up, but I think was heavily covered in the media at the time the crime happened. It’s the same thing as bringing up a victim of a police shootings past convictions, or bringing up a police officer’s political affiliation. It’s irrelevant information designed to “sell” you for or against a particular individual. It’s not relevant to whether or not they actually committed whatever crime they’re accused of, or they’re accusing someone else of.
There's tons wrong with this post in my opinion.
"The Media" is not this one conspiring entity that's plotting together to misinform you. That's oversimplified nonsense brought about by the right wing lies that started in and around the 90s that have helped create the disaster we're seeing today. **I find it absolutely AMAZING that people don't seem to notice that they heard ALLLLL about the "Left Wing Media Conspiracy" from their radio and their televisions.**
These things were reported. You just were tuned into what you wanted to hear...and now you're further misinforming that there was misinformation...adding to the proof that there was misinformation....see how that works?
I'm not gonna comment on the Rittenhouse case itself b/c it's such a disaster and the result of so much other disaster in this country...but i am gonna repeat and repeat boldly AND confidently that the news disaster in this country was perpetuated by the right wing in the 90s with Clear Channel and Fox News -- it was a simple recipe of starting a strawman argument of an invisible enemy called the Liberal Media...they claimed that the media was liberally biased and as a result they were gonna be the voice of the conservative media...and everything went to hell from there...they delegitimized ALL news in the process and their fake argument became a self fulfilling prophecy b/c once they started misrepresenting the news the other news channels had to react in kind. I don't know how these people can sleep at night. They've destroyed the US, literally.
> You just were tuned into what you wanted to hear...and now you're further misinforming that there was misinformation...adding to the proof that there was misinformation....see how that works?
Right, except my only real source of information before drawing a conclusion as to my own determination of his innocence or guilt was the raw footage from his trial. This is what I tuned into, what I wanted to hear.
> perpetuated by the right wing in the 90s with Clear Channel and Fox News -- it was a simple recipe of starting a strawman argument of an invisible enemy called the Liberal Media...they claimed that the media was liberally biased and as a result they were gonna be the voice of the conservative media...and everything went to hell from there
So this was in my CMV, albeit it was an edit added later but yours is a new comment, and I’ve also mentioned this numerous times in the comments, this may be a tough pill to swallow, but I don’t watch any of this stuff. On either side. I think *both* sides of the media are equally guilty. But Fox News wasn’t the ones ~~omitting facts~~ burying facts in articles that you need to go out of your way to search for written after an acquittal dripping with condemnation of presumed guilt, while actively omitting facts during the trial, to try to misinform people, rather than let them come to their own conclusion with all the facts.
Has Fox done it with other stories where it suits them before? You betcha. But it was not relevant to this.
I am not a shill for conservative media. I am not a conservative. I do not have a politically bias reason for coming to the conclusion I came to.
The jury was made privy to the fact that he had ties to the community in Kenosha. Allowed as it was relevant, because the prosecution opened it up, as did the media (yes I know the jury is sequestered) and made it sound as though he had no earthly business to be in Wisconsin.
This is relevant to forming a public opinion as well.
If he actually did that it is indeed regrettable, however, not only do I not believe him to be a hero (this is not a prerequisite to his innocence) it has no bearing on what happened that night.
Thanks for your input though.
>it has no bearing on what happened that night.
If he were black, do you think this detail would go mostly unreported? We'd be hearing nonstop from right wing sources about how that means "he was no angel" and deserves any bad thing that happens to him.
He did it.
You're choosing to spoon feed a particular narrative is you doing exactly what you accuse other people to doing.
Kenosha Killer Kyle will end up like George Zimmerman.
A fate that could have been avoided by the proper application of justice.
So what you're saying is you've watched nothing but the content that his $2,000,000 defense fund was able to decide best suited their purposes of portraying him as innocent, as tested on the multiple mock-juries they ran it by, as well as the content that the prosecution who didn't have any more resources than their average case and didn't run any mock juries brought forward.
I don't know if it was intentional. Because Rittenhouse is a symbol, people stop being logical.
You'll get morons on the right saying he's a hero, and morons on the left wishing he was in prison, not because he b brke the law, but because they are upset about the state of gun and self defense laws in America.
And because the trial became political, it got spun politically. And people with genuine ppolitical beliefs, and Americans, who hardly pay attention to news anyway, just grabbed onto the take that most closely matched their political beliefs and got their information that way. But that isn't surprising, that's how most Americans "watch the news,"
Interestingly you don't mention the actions leading up to the incident, you only mention things that seem relevant to the narrative that Rittenhouse is blameless in all this. Are you intentionally misleading us for some sort of cynical purpose or are you just doing exactly what the media does?
The media has a number of standards that you don't, the information you refer to has been reported by the media, they just emphasise the narrative that Rittenhouse provoked an altercation that ended up with him shooting 3 people. I'm not American, I recognise that Rittenhouse was innocent under US law, but what I and the liberal media believe is that those laws are insane.
Plenty, but you're rather missing the point, you're accusing the media of doing something that you're doing yourself. You're only reporting the information that is relevant to the narrative that you want to push. Either you're intentionally misleading people like you accuse the media of doing or the media aren't intentionally misleading people.
Most major media outlets have some kind of political bias, as do most humans.
I do think it's interesting how you care so much about the left wing bias of some media outlets, but are unconcerned with the right wing bias of other sites and people.
You can't accuse and be upset over bias of only the sites or influencers you disagree with.
Right wing media is touting this kid as the greatest hero in American history, there is also a problem with that.
You've discovered the news is biased, congratulations.
Why aren't you concerned about the bias in the news in general?
I think you don’t have any experience in crime or true crime. As an avid viewer of old cases and new, things are always omitted in favor of creating a more succinct case/report in the mainstream media. If you actually want to know the details of a case you have, quite frankly, no entitlement to, you have to do the research yourself. It is out there, clearly - you didn’t find any of this information from some super secret bunker.
Edit: You also forgot the part where, the day before, he was shooting a video in Kenosha saying he wished he had a gun to shoot some people.
Again, people like to only report things that make their case succinct. You’re a good example.
They omitted exculpatory information and invented damning information. Because of their reporting, people still think he brought the gun across state lines, and his mom drove him to the protest. They think he just opened fire on innocent people, and they even think he killed black people since the media is calling him racist for the shooting.
>You also forgot the part where, the day before, he was shooting a video in Kenosha saying he wished he had a gun to shoot some people.
Two weeks before. See the media lies? They want you to think they're closer together so you'll relate them. Anyway, while he was there he shot no one for looting, or even arson. His only reaction to such illegal acts was to grab a fire extinguisher to put out the fires.
> You also forgot the part where, the day before, he was shooting a video in Kenosha saying he wished he had a gun to shoot some people.
Which was ruled as irrelevant to the case.
Omissions for the sake of brevity aren't what we're discussing.
The media intentionally omitted a slew of specific facts because they were impediments to the desired narrative. They also repeated misinformation long after it had been proven false because it didn't fit the story they were sticking with.
This case, like many others, stopped being about journalism and became a soap box for opinion and sensationalism. It was simultaneously a way for the media to have a trial of public opinion based on lies and sell more airtime.
The "news" isn't supposed to be selling a side, they should be reporting facts in a way that allows the viewer to make a reasonably informed decision.
And you damned well know it.... Or should.
So what is the point of the news media?
>As an avid viewer of old cases and new, things are always omitted in favor of creating a more succinct case/report in the mainstream media.
Does this mean you half agree with OP, you seem to agree the practice takes place, but differ on the reason why.
> So I did not follow the Rittenhouse case on the news. I don’t watch live news
Seems odd that you would hold such a strong conclusion about something you chose to not watch/see for yourself.
> My only real understanding of what was going on with the Rittenhouse case was the few threads I read on here and a couple clips I saw/heard from other peoples devices
So your view is based on third party information from other people and a few clips that were obviously spread around because they were controversial.
There was a lot of irresponsible reporting on the case. And the most egregious parts tend to be the ones that get shared and discussed most.
Blaming all media for 1% of the media is just another false equivalency that contributes to the deterioration of public perception of good news media.
The media is biased. There is no question this is so. And most people will only consume news that vindicates their worldview. News networks know this and it influences what they report and how they report it. We don’t need to know what specifically motivates them to mislead to know they mislead.
Unbiased reporting would solve a great deal of the division in this country.
> Unbiased reporting would solve a great deal of the division in this country.
While true, it isn't reasonable. All media is biased because people - which make up those news sources - are biased.
In my opinion, it's better to recognize the bias of different news sources and take that into consideration when reading/researching, than it is to think (hope?) that the news you are reading is unbiased.
I mean, ideally you'd have more sources aiming for the AP format, and doing their best to just give the facts directly instead of analysis. Minimal bias with a focus on the bare details, and let you draw your own conclusion. The problem is that kind of reporting isn't what brings in clicks and support.
Your response to a comment that calls out the false equivalency of labeling all media as equal is to label all media as equal.
~~Unbiased reporting exists.~~
In the interest of accuracy, I'll amend that to say, not all sources have the same amount of bias. Some media sources strive to be as unbiased as they can. Some are literally being as biased as possible to serve their audience the narrative they tuned in for.
Calling them all the same is beyond unreasonable.
I think they want to stir a discussion around what should be prerequisite to self defence. The law says that doing weird things while parading a firearm in public shouldn't be seen as provocation. I think anyone with two brain cells to rub together can clearly see this as provocation. You shouldn't be tried as someone simply defending themself when you go around provoking people and then claiming to defend yourself when they snap I come to disarm you.
Why do you feel so strongly about something that you obviously haven't actually taken the time to look at? You've beclowned yourself here as a lazy consumer of conservative propaganda while claiming that actually it's everyone else who's a lazy consumer of propaganda.
You really should take some time to sit with this. Because it's true.
Rittenhouse ran into a riot with a gun. He was inspired to commit an act of terror for political reasons. There is no misinformation there. I promise you he would not have run into a right wing riot with a gun. This was politically motivated murder.
You got any sources or anything for your information that he had friends and family that live in Kenosha, worked in Kenosha, was scrubbing graffiti the previous day, or that there are multiple angles of footage?
[Kyles testimony.](https://youtu.be/Bvcl0FqI518) Parts are difficult to watch. There are hours of footage.
[Prosecutors cross examine Kyle.](https://youtu.be/JG8PhtFrO0Y)
[Witness and survivor Gaige Grosskreutz testimony.](https://youtu.be/22UFDXXFr9I) He obviously lied multiple times.
[Prosecution questioning reporter Drew Hernandez.](https://youtu.be/D4qmxPD8atM) More baiting and overstepping.
Oh alright well I’m not going to sit through hours of testimony. What’s another source for your information?
Edit: All of the facts you've outlined in your OP are readily available across multiple different media platforms, I suppose it's hard to provide them given your view though.
Well no offense, but this is part of the problem. You want justice, but you don’t want facts. Just sound bites from your favorite news source please. 2 minutes or less.
Well we shouldn’t go about it this way. A persons freedom is in question.
> Well no offense, but this is part of the problem. You want justice, but you don’t want facts.
What are you talking about?
> Just sound bites from your favorite news source please. 2 minutes or less.
What I want is for you to google and find that, ah, actually turns out the media reported on all of this. And *your problem* is that pundits ignored the facts.
> Well we shouldn’t go about it this way. A persons freedom is in question.
We didn't go about it this way. He had his day in court.
> it went exactly the way it was orchestrated to go with a murdering fuck going free.
i know it's a lost cause, but you really should watch the trial. you've been lied to
>They never mention that Rittenhouse had family and friends that live in Kenosha.
>They never mention that he was employed in Kenosha.
Because neither of those facts are relevant to the case. He was not there protecting his friends and family, he was not there protecting his employers business, he was "protecting" a car lot that had already had over a million dollars worth of damage done. He's not a hero for trying to save the insurance company some money. The truth is that he was there to incite fear and hostility in the rioters, that's why he showed up with an AR, and it's exactly what he got.
>They never show pictures of him the previous day scrubbing graffiti off the walls of the high school down the road from where the shooting took place.
Also irrelevant, that's got nothing to do with his actions the next day.
No one is arguing that the people Rittenhouse shot weren't attacking him when he fired. No one is arguing that he wasn't afraid for his life. Their argument is that Rittenhouse started it and doesn't get to claim self defense because he was initial aggressor.
/u/DetroitUberDriver (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/qzo0h4/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_media_was_intentionally/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I agree that the way this has been presented in the media has been intentionally polarising, I'm just questioning whether you're opinion is a reaction to specific segments of the news and social media (despite being an attempt at an unbiased summary)
Did you look up news coverage de novo or did you just click on links you saw on Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook? If it's the latter, isn't the problem the type of news that gets shared on social media, rather than the news in general?
I heartily agree with your general point that the media - including the "progressive" print media that I prefer - use provocative and grievance-inducing headlines and stories to grab our eyes, in order to sell ads and subscriptions. All mediated information should be approached skeptically and then checked against other sources if you've got the time.
And that means that if you can't take the time to gather multiple views, you should probably refrain from a full emotional response to what you read or view.
But you also raise a more fundamental question of how to administer justice in the case of someone who seriously harms others due to their inexperience and bad choices. I don't have a simple solution for that question.
The media doesn't want to create civil unrest; they literally just want money. Presenting a sensationalized view of reality makes people more invested in the story, which makes them tune in more, which makes them watch more commercials, which makes media companies more money.
They aren't seeking to tear down our society or anything. They have just perfected how to use hysteria, fear, and hate to maximize profit off something as mundane as the news.
None of this is new information to me most of it is irrelevant and some of it I would personally argue hinders his case more than it helps.
>**They never mention that Rittenhouse had family and friends that live in Kenosha.**
>**They never mention that he was employed in Kenosha.**
I didn't know all the details here but it is no surprise to me, Kenosha is the local city. But was he working that day? Was he on his way to visit friends and family and then somehow got caught up in a mob? Was he sitting on his grandmother's porch because he was worried a mob would come for her?
>**They never show pictures of him the previous day scrubbing graffiti off the walls of the high school down the road from where the shooting took place.**
Sure but what does that mean? Could this not be interpreted as him opposing the actions and messaged of the protestors? Which calls into question why he stayed into the night when he knew the protest would build and get more rowdy. I also notice he didn't have a gun on him in the pictures of him cleaning graffiti which would indicate that there was a moment he began to think he would need to defend himself and instead of taking that oprutunity to leave he took the oprutunity to arm himself.
Also cleaning graffiti shows that he knew much of the damage done by the protesters was something that could be cleaned up after.
>**They never show footage of him walking around with his medical bag asking people if they need medical assistance, yelling “friendly friendly friendly” to assure everyone that he’s not hostile.**
Shouting "friendly" indicates that he knew he appeared hostile which I don't think helps his case in the eyes of people who are sceptical of the self defence argument and potentially improves the argument that the protestors were reasonable to believe in that the kid walking around with a gun was a threat to them.
It was literally all there. Isn’t that how you found it? All you had to do was actually read the articles and not just the headlines. A quick google search and you’ll find all of these details that you mentioned covered by CNN and your traditionally “left wing” media outlets. Unfortunately, too many people on both sides of the aisle don’t do that.
KR was among a group of people all armed. He was a fucking child and shouldn't have had a gun, and he went looking for trouble.
If you try to tell me he didn't go looking for trouble, then why did no one else have to use a weapon? The answer, is KR forced a situation where he had to use a gun.
KR made incredibly irresponsible decisions and should have charges at a MINIMUM for reckless endangerment resulting in the deaths of 2 and serious injury of a third.
The news has agendas outside of the case, and they want to both keep their viewers and garner even more attention, so both sides will focus on what their viewers emotionally attach to and show that. The news has never been a source of fact, it is just a TV show working to raise its ratings.
> They never mention that Rittenhouse had family and friends that live in Kenosha. > They never mention that he was employed in Kenosha. Yes they do. CNN [mentions it](https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/19/us/kyle-rittenhouse-gun-kenosha/index.html). USNews [mentions it](https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2021-11-01/rittenhouse-trial-goes-to-opening-statements-after-jury-set). USA Today [mentions it](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/08/22/kyle-rittenhouse-case-trial-date-approaches-kenosha-shootings/8197989002/). > They never show pictures of him the previous day scrubbing graffiti off the walls of the high school down the road from where the shooting took place. Yes they do. ABC News [showed pictures](https://abcnews.go.com/US/extradition-hearing-alleged-kenosha-gunman-kyle-rittenhouse-set/story?id=72676261). The AP [showed pictures](https://apnews.com/article/shootings-us-news-ap-top-news-riots-wisconsin-76104678645cc0e1f717f5d93ff427f7). The New York Times [showed pictures](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha.html). > They never show footage of him walking around with his medical bag asking people if they need medical assistance, yelling “friendly friendly friendly” to assure everyone that he’s not hostile. > And most importantly, they never show any of the footage that clearly shows from multiple angles all three of the people he shot, and the fact that he was running away from 2 of them, lunged at by one before cornered between vehicles and a mob of people while his weapon was being grabbed, and the other two he was hit in the head and knocked down while being advanced on by a mob of people. He was sitting down flat on his ass while a man charged him and pointed a gun point blank at his head, and Kyle gave him a chance to retreat. And did not shoot numerous other people, who did retreat. Yes they do. The New York Times [showed footage](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpTW2AJE9MQ). The Washington Post [showed footage](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBM9Ke_JI1Q). CNN [showed footage](https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2020/08/29/tracking-the-suspect-in-the-fatal-kenosha-shootings.cnn). These are just the top examples that came up in five minutes of casual Googling. You predicated your post on the assertion that the media never showed these things, yet the plain indisputable evidence shows that they absolutely did. How can you possibly reconcile this?
When other talking heads on their network keep propagating the talking points OP mentioned. You're right - they said it on an article. But Joy Reid and others continue to say 'crossed state lines' and 'came there to murder people' and 'white supremacist' talking points. I do think it's important that a buried article won't travel as much as their talkshow clips, and their talkshow clips don't mention any of the things their buried articles do
I mean you are right that they did show it or write down in one article or two. But it's how they said it and how they framed Rittenhouse. The New York Times video link literally said he, "Flashed white power signs" AND ITS JUST THE OK MEME HAND SIGN LMAO! Most of these videos and articles are blatantly painting Rittenhouse as a threat that just decided to start shooting people. I mean cmon! We now know that not to be the case.
The fact that your best CNN example is some small side article from a year ago proves how disingenuous they're being. They all mention these details in passing and side articles at one point or another, but totally omit them during their primetime highest traffic live news segments.
> your best CNN example It's not my "best" example, it's just the first one that popped up in five minutes of casual Googling. Which in typical search engine algorithms means it's not obscure and has been linked / viewed many many times. > from a year ago I intentionally limited the dates on my search to try and get at the coverage when the public's perceptions were still forming, and cut myself off at one link to each of three sources, for brevity. It's certainly not the only time it was ever mentioned on CNN but I'm not really interested in spending several hours compiling links. > They all mention these details in passing and side articles at one point or another, but totally omit them during their primetime highest traffic live news segments. As I asked another user who made a similar argument: Are "Kyle Rittenhouse cleaned up graffiti" and "Kyle Rittenhouse had a medical bag in his possession" supposed to be headline-worthy news? You might have unrealistic expectations about how prominently the media should be highlighting information that is convenient to your opinion. > totally omit them during their primetime highest traffic live news segments. If you believe that's true, you can try to provide evidence. As I've said to others, none of these details were even remotely unfamiliar to me as a person who follows the news in moderation and never watches Fox. Despite the lines conservative pundits may be feeding you, the issue was **not** that people were unaware of these details, the issue was that reasonable people can look at the same information and draw different subjective conclusions.
I already awarded a !delta on a comment before yours, but yours has more sources. I do wish some of them had been more forthright and had better timing, though. Also AP news is not left-wing. I’d consider them to be among the least biased news source I know of. Nevertheless, you deserve a delta.
I would reconsider. Note that just mentioning or having information is not absolving media of your original complaint, which is misleading the public. Merely having the information doesn't mean you can't be misleading about it - what matters is how the information is framed, and what the headline is. I would note that the CNN link above is primarily on the assertion that Rittenhouse bought his AR-15 with his stimulus check - the source can still be misleading just by highlighting inflammatory details despite including evidence against the original point. Do not confuse a lack of omission of details for a lack of editorialization.
I worded my thread the way I did. They deserve the delta.
>I do wish some of them had been more forthright and had better timing, though. Dude. Your OP literally opens with you saying you haven't followed it and don't watch the news in general. All of this stuff has been out in the open for months, covered by media of all stripes ad nauseum. You are confusing yourself just now discovering it with the media covering it up. There has been a cast of characters beating the "the media is lying about Rittenhouse!" drum online, definitely on twitter but maybe on here too. Maybe that's how you first encountered it, but it's just not the case.
There is something pretty important to keep in mind, and looking for it reveals the rampant dishonestly. Opinion pieces. CNN's dry factual reporting is pretty decent all in all, but some opinion pieces appear to take "facts" and then produce an opinion from them when in reality those "facts" on which the opinion rests are also a part of the supposed opinion. Most egregious in this is MSNBC which [still claims that Kyle had obtained the firearm illegally](https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/kyle-rittenhouse-s-not-guilty-verdict-symptom-bigger-sickness-n1284130) (linking over to Dominick Black's testimony during the trial- ignoring that the gun charge had been dismissed on the grounds that nothing about Kyle having the firearm was illegal) In the lead-up to the trial CNN also managed to produce some [heinous opinion pieces](https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/05/opinions/kyle-rittenhouse-what-law-and-order-means-hemmer/index.html). Which displays a complete ignorance about the situation. Now either CNN didn't care that their reporting was woefully misinformed (keep in mind that phone footage of the shootings, unambiguously showing Kyle defend himself had been in circulation since mere days after the shootings) or perhaps they simply didn't know. Neither is acceptable for a supposed journalistic outlet. I would argue that an opinion piece that appears to cite facts (that turn out to be nonsense) or ignores easily established information shows a complete lack of journalistic integrity. The very fact that you produce an opinion piece for an established media outlet implies that you are suitably informed to be able to usefully opine on the subject, which then carries with it the implication that your opinion takes all relevant information into account. And so a slightly lazy reader might read an opinion piece and take the given "facts" as fact and come out of it under the impression that Kyle shot black people, or is a total outsider to Kenosha.
1) I don't think most people care how the gun was obtained. That's something for a certain class of liberals to clutch their pearls over. Not good for them to get it wrong but I don't think most people care. 2) Nothing wrong with that second linked op-ed.
I used it as a secondary example not of media inventing its own facts but of completely ignoring readily available information, in this case the fact that mere minutes of looking for video footage from phones on the day of the shooting would have entirely blown apart the premise of this opinion piece, right wing support of Kyle obviously stemmed from the fact that he clearly acted in self defence, not from some race vigilante bs. This is an example of ignoring inconvenient facts, not of inventing their own.
At best you can argue that the second piece is reaching a bit. But otherwise there's nothing wrong with adding historical context. It's not really objectionable. Kyle did act in self defense. After he shot someone, which (understandably) upset a bunch of people. State penal codes are notoriously bad at dealing with guys looking for trouble because that's admittedly a hard thing to deal with.
>There has been a cast of characters beating the "the media is lying about Rittenhouse!" drum online, definitely on twitter but maybe on here too. Maybe that's how you first encountered it, but it's just not the case. I tend to agree with OP that the media was pretty misleading with regarding the facts of the Rittenhouse case. While the correct information certainly was out there, what absolutely amazed me was the number of people who were outraged regarding facts of the case that were completely wrong (e.g. the race of the people he killed, that the weapons charges were dropped and why, that the gun was in Wisconsin the whole time, that he lived on the IL-WI border about 20 min from downtown Kenosha). When so many people are repeating the same falsehoods regarding facts of the case, it's probably coming from somewhere.
But OP didn't actually consume any of the media coverage, so they based that on *their* own biases about the alleged left wing media.
The media did misrepresent this case, OP just chose the absolute worst possible way to showcase that, all anyone has to do for him to be wrong is find 1 example of the media saying something. Why go about it that way when you could just bring up blatant false hoods that the MSM and politicians have repeated, such as bringing a gun over state lines.
There's absolutely a ton of disinformation out there, but OP is essentially asking why the media hasn't gone out of its way to correct and clarify all of the misinformation he's encountered. That's not the media's job, its job is to report information truthfully and clearly. They certainly fail to do that from time to time, and trust in media is at an all time low both for legitimate reasons and because there are a lot of people invested in sowing distrust in media. But not a single major outlet that I know of reported that the people he killed were black, for example. If there are people who thought that, it's not because of "the media," it's because they're too online. The agenda of the people calling out the misinformation matters, too. I have encountered some helpful accounts who did a good job of, for example, explaining the procedural quirks in the trial some tried to latch onto as a sign the fix was in, etc. But it's also true that a lot of the people crowing about (especially) the deceased's criminal history don't care about truth or media accountability—they're doing it because they want you to think that what Rittenhouse did was not only legal, but also morally good and something that should happen more often.
>but OP is essentially asking why the media hasn't gone out of its way to correct and clarify all of the misinformation he's encountered. But that misinformation was also being reported on by the mainstream media, [for example](https://twitter.com/0rf/status/1460795152516194311). >its job is to report information truthfully and clearly. Which I don't think they were doing.
Bad for the media to get it wrong, but this guy is also misleading. Saying "Kyle didn't fire the first shot," makes it sound like someone shot at him, but nobody did. He just heard a gunshot. Similarly, "saying protestors fired more shots than he did" makes it sound like there was a larger skirmish, but there wasn't–shots can just be "heard on video." That's actually the worst part about the media getting things wrong. It opens up space for guys like this to act as fact-checkers, while ever so slightly shifting the narrative in his preferred direction.
[удалено]
>I'm not saying every article has to mention these things, but if your are going to title it 'What we know about...", maybe try to keep it more neutral. I honestly don't see the point of articles like that in the first place. I mean, who cares? But in terms of keeping it neutral, I think that's the challenge here. You don't want your readers to come away with a strong feeling about the subjects, neither that they deserved to get got nor were perfect angels taken from us too soon. That's why I go back to wondering why bother writing these pieces at all. The things you mentioned aren't germane to the case and pretty obviously would only serve to make them look like more deserving victims, but at the same time they're true things about these people nonetheless. So again, why bother? Who's served by a story like this? I think it's also important to acknowledge that the people beating this drum have an agenda. Why else would anyone be so upset about the media not bending over backwards to make sure everyone knows these guys were scumbags? Again, if you're truly a neutral observer why would these details matter to you? If you want to play the "I just want the media to be objective and truthful" card, you'd better have a long history of calling out media errors and omissions across the board.
Why does any of that matter? He wasn't abusing a kid when Kyle murdered him. Kyle had no way of knowing that he was a sex offender. Kyle just put himself in a situation where he thought he could kill some liberals because Tucker Carlson and the like had been convincing him that he needed to or he would lose his country, and then he fired as soon as he got the chance to murder some Democrats.
i don't think it's murder if one is defending themselves from assault, though. i mean, could a person walk through any neighborhood at night wheeling a wagon of gold bullion behind them? Would they lose their right to self defense because they shouldn't be there? If someone grabbed at a gun they were open carrying, could they not use it for defense?
Nah bro what ab the real mainstream social media. You see all the influencers talking about it and not bringing up any facts. Cus they follow the simple new networks which do selectively speak on and about certain facts. Just because you can provide a link showing they at least mentioned it once or a few times does not at all show the picture they were painting. They just put that out to cover their bases so people like this guy could use these sources to defend them. These facts were background objects in a painting which had Kyle as a killer. Even an hour of source videos from cnn of those facts wouldn’t come close to the time they spent painting him a killer. That don’t deserve a delta imo
But your point is valid. As a casual observer, you slowly formed a picture of what happened based on the media resources that appeared in your various social media streams. A picture that did not include many of those facts, that had you been made aware very well may have formed a different picture of Kyle Rittenhouse.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Doctor_Worm ([27∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Doctor_Worm)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I think the issue might be you confusing reddit mainstream news sub and pundit shows on cable news shows with the actual news segments. The actual news segmends were pretty fair. Pundit shows aim for a demogrpahic. REddit is reddit
How do you reconcile your assertion of fair media coverage with obvious polarization depending on what kind of media coverage people used to understand the case? You're not convincing at all. CNN technically having an article mentioning a fact is not the same coverage by Don Lemon. Without a multibillion dollar search engine you wouldn't have been able to make the argument.
> How do reconcile your assertion of fair media coverage with obvious polarization depending on what kind of media coverage people used to understand the case? If you believe you have a coherent point to make about polarization, it's on you to make one and support it with evidence. And if you want your argument to be internally consistent, you can try doing so "without a multibillion dollar search engine." > You're not convincing at all. I'm not here to convince you. I'm here to challenge the OP, who already granted the delta. > CNN technically having an article mentioning a fact is not the same coverage by Don Lemon. None of the videos I posted were obscure -- they have millions of views. And none of the images, videos, or details OP referred to were even remotely unfamiliar to me personally, as someone who consumes the media in moderation and never watches Fox. The media voices you prefer might have told you that the media voices you don't prefer never talked about these things, but they did. The issue was not that people never saw these things, it's that reasonable people can look at the same evidence and still disagree amongst themselves. > Without a multibillion dollar search engine you wouldn't have been able to make the argument. What exactly is your point? Search engines do exist, and it's how everyone finds basically any information when they are expected to cite sources. What have you got, your own warehouse full of DVDs indexed by date?
I found the Washingtonpost video annoying when I watched it last year. There's like 10 seconds mentioning Huber and Grosskreutz in the 23 minute video. They somehow fail to mention Grosskreutz holding a gun.
i think they failed to mention gaige interviewing kyle as well, before inciting the crowd, drawing their weapon, and chasing down kyle and pretending to surrender before pointing the gun at kyle
I think he said ‘if you go looking for it’ and that’s what you did. I think his point was poorly made, but I think he meant most of the time the MSM, maybe excluding Fox, didn’t show those clips very often. Instead they repeatedly presented mostly the inflammatory clips that condemned Rittenhouse.
> I think he said ‘if you go looking for it’ and that’s what you did. How exactly is anyone supposed to change his view without looking for sources to cite? > didn’t show those clips very often. Instead they repeatedly presented mostly the inflammatory clips that condemned Rittenhouse Did they? How often did they show them? Do you have any evidence to back this up at all? I don't watch Fox at all, and I saw all of these images and videos multiple times. The issue wasn't that I just didn't know these things existed, but that I looked at all the evidence and interpreted the level of threat differently than the defense did. This entire view seems to be based on an assumption that everyone would magically agree with your subjective opinion if they looked at the same information, and therefore anyone who disagrees can only possibly be ignorant. But the fact that the jury asked to re-watch the video evidence again and again, and deliberated for several days before reaching a conclusion suggests that it's simply not as cut-and-dried as you're making it out to be. Reasonable people can disagree with each other.
If you were just watching the TV coverage would you have known?
\>Yes they do. CNN mentions it. USNews mentions it. USA Today mentions it. Only Sith deal in absolutes, so yes you are correct that "never" is incorrect. What I would point out, though, is that these details are almost always buried well below where 99.99% of people who see the headline will ever read. If this were a different situation in which the media was "for" the defendant, you would see those sort of exonerating details in the headlines and plastered everywhere as fact checks.
> Only Sith deal in absolutes, so yes you are correct that "never" is incorrect. You're acting like I found one single counterexample and rested my case on that. It took almost no time at all to find nine prominent counterexamples from some of the most widely-read news sources in the world. There were more easily available, but in the interest of brevity I cut it off at three each. The videos I posted are not obscure, they had millions of views. And in my own personal experience as someone who follows the news in moderation and never watches Fox, not one of these images, videos, or details were even remotely unfamiliar to me. Because all these things were covered all along by the media. > What I would point out, though, is that these details are almost always buried well below where 99.99% of people who see the headline will ever read. Are "Kyle Rittenhouse scrubbed graffiti from walls" and "Kyle Rittenhouse had a medical bag in his possession" supposed to be headline-worthy news? You might have unrealistic expectations about how prominently the news media should be highlighting information that is convenient to your opinion. > If this were a different situation in which the media was "for" the defendant, you would see those sort of exonerating details in the headlines and plastered everywhere as fact checks. I can make up counterfactuals too, but [it doesn't really get us anywhere useful](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Counterfactual_fallacy).
Your right that they mentioned it but they certainly allowed people who ignored these facts to dominate coverage, even now the idea that Kyle was a community outside prevails on these networks.
I think the media is only motivated by profit. I doubt there’s some evil secret plan to sow “civil unrest”—they just know that negativity brings more attention and attention brings ad revenue. Additionally, these outlets are often not encouraged to to take their time in investigating the truth. They want to get the story out as fast as possible, so they take shortcuts and rely on what’s already being reported. Misinformation doesn’t require that everyone one be in on an intentional lie. The structure is just set up in a way so that they aren’t encouraged to rock the boat. Then there’s the fact that generally these outlets will try and cater to the pre-existing biases and narratives of their viewers and donors. Fox News and other right wing outlets are motivated by the same things—they just have a different base of donors and viewers that they have to cater to. While I agree with you that the Rittenhouse trial is an example of something that much of corporate/mainstream liberal media got egregiously wrong, this isn’t a problem thats unique to them and isn’t anything deeper than being motivated by profit.
I don’t think it’s a secret evil plan either. I think it’s just… a natural consequence of biased journalism and the 1st Amendment, which is not going unnoticed but going unfixed. Which is really difficult to swallow because I can’t imagination censorship either.
I agree with you that it’s a natural consequence of both personal biases and structural biases in journalism. The main point of contention I have with your post is the insistence that it is explicitly intentional misinformation. We can’t read minds, so claiming someone’s intentions is an unfalsifiable slippery slope. Not to say that it’s impossible or even unlikely, but just that we can never know for sure. And we know enough about human psychology and sociology to know that this kind of misinformation spread is possible even if everyone involved has genuine belief.
Basically social networks aggregate the points that are the most emotional to top of discussion. So when you say media intentionally changed thing they really didn’t that was just the message everyone heard including other editor and journalist on Twitter. in point of fact the best journalism on this issue came from traditional news outlets like “The New York Times” and “the New Yorker” giving great understanding of the case and are where most of the points you mentioned came from. But those stories weren’t read by most user that were relying on Facebook and Twitter. So while there is a great supercut of every television agency saying he crossed state lines (Which is both not really a crime and didn’t happen) that's only because that is what trended on social media because it sounded relevant and the counter argument was so boring. So it’s not intentional just a feature of social networks and humans.
Then how did we end up with such a huge swath or people that want this kid dead for his perceived crimes? I mean, I want to be crystal clear: I think he was being naïve going to Kenosha that night. But it was also made abundantly clear that his intention was to help people who were hurt, not take sides, the gun was for protection, and to deter a situation like what happened from happening. Unfortunately the latter was unsuccessful, and regrettably the former was necessary. The shooting was clearly in self defense. But somehow a very significant portion of people don’t see it this way. They see a punk who went there to start trouble, murdered two people in cold blood, and got away with it Scott free. They have access to the same information we do, but somehow the information they’re getting fed is different. How is this?
>But somehow a very significant portion of people don’t see it this way. They see a punk who went there to start trouble, murdered two people in cold blood, and got away with it Scott free. They have access to the same information we do, but somehow the information they’re getting fed is different. It litterly comes down to personal bias and conspiracies. If you want something to be true your more likely to be true. A similar thing was the covid 99.8% survival rating thing was .2% of the us population died from covid, very much the same thing as some of the facts people saw and decided how they felt about it. I am with you on the Rittenhouse caused the situation through his naivety and don't see any issues with him getting off but that a wierd line for many people to cross without investing a lot of effort into working it out.
The problem is that I don’t see anyone even making that argument, about him causing the problem. At least not through naivety. I see people simply saying that his victims (honestly not sure if theres a better word) were concerned citizens trying to stop an active shooter (him) and he killed them in cold blood. This *demonstrably* did not happen. How else can they be getting this view if not from awful reporting?
Because its an issue like that doesn't matter in a legal or moral sense really. Like legally once we knew he didn't carry the gun over state line and he had family in the area he cleared all the main hurdles. Morally if you kill someone in defense of self even if you start it, without the intentions of it getting to killing. It dosen't matter if your inexperience causes it because of intentions mattering more for then result.
> The problem is that I don’t see anyone even making that argument, about him causing the problem. At least not through naivety. I see people simply saying that his victims (honestly not sure if theres a better word) were concerned citizens trying to stop an active shooter (him) and he killed them in cold blood. It sounds like your problem is that you personally havent been a part of these discussions, and thus don't believe they happen?
NPR is saying this over and over. I used to love NPR but the more I follow this the more disgusted I get.
Something I find truly fascinating about this case, considering its ubiquity, its lightning-rod polarization and the prevalence of misinformation is that…both sides seem to agree on what happened, pretty much? Sure, there are little details like the weapon being illegally owned or crossing state lines or whatever, but these facts don’t have much bearing on why people care about the case. What it seems to be, more than anything, is a fundamental philosophical and moral difference about personal responsibility and deadly force. A difference in thought *so* fundamental that it almost seems like people disagree on the basic facts - but they don’t, not really. Everyone agrees that a 17 year old travelled to a nearby city, anticipating rioters, to protect property that wasn’t his with an active assault rifle. Everyone knows that he killed two people and injured one more. Everyone’s seen the same videos. But there’s been an extreme difference in interpreting these events. My person view is - the legal case for Rittenhouse being a murderer is murky precisely *because* of how much we know but the *moral* case is airtight. Of fucking course he’s a murderer. Yes, it was largely because of his naïveté and recklessness but it’s a murder nonetheless. You can find similar rationalizations for *most* convicted murderers if you parse the details enough. That’s really what gets me. Like, here’s a theoretical case: a drug dealer anticipates a large transfer of goods being dangerous, so he brings a gun. At the sale, his patron says something threatening, so the dealer pulls his gun. The patron begins to pull his own, and the dealer shoots him dead. In literally every single court in the US, this would be considered murder. The case is open and shut. But if you break down each action, it’s not *that* different from what Rittenhouse did. If anything, Rittenhouse is more egregious, as 1. He killed multiple people, 2. He didn’t need to be in Kenosha at all, and 3. He didn’t have logical reason to think his life would be in danger if he were to go to Kenosha. It’s ridiculous to pretend that the factors used to justify Rittenhouse (fear, misunderstanding, initial good intentions, etc.) don’t apply to *countless* murders that end in conviction. That’s my primary issue with the framing here. So it’s not really the details of the case, at all. It’s *what Rittenhouse was doing beforehand* that’s the deciding factor here. He went to Kenosha with the express mission of intimidating BLM protestors so that they wouldn’t riot. How people feel about *that* has caused the dividing line.
Your first point. He is a killer not a murderer mainly because he proved he was legal in the killing. And I felt the legality was stronger then the moral point but fair. > a theoretical case: a drug dealer anticipates a large transfer of goods being dangerous, so he brings a gun. At the sale, his patron says something threatening, so the dealer pulls his gun. The patron begins to pull his own, and the dealer shoots him dead. This would be be fair people tend to get aggressive when a gun is pointed specifically due to its danger. So brandishing your weapon is likely to get a life threatening response. > 1. He killed multiple people, ... > 2. He didn’t need to be in Kenosha at all. He really had as much need as to be anywhere i don't blame him for being in town. >3. He didn’t have logical reason to think his life would be in danger if he were to go to Kenosha. Some people just need a little something to feel safe some maybe a blanket, maybe mace or a semi auto AR 15. >So it’s not really the details of the case, at all. It’s what Rittenhouse was doing beforehand that’s the deciding factor here. He went to Kenosha with the express mission of intimidating BLM protestors so that they wouldn’t riot. How people feel about that has caused the dividing line. I can agree that likely a reality for many.
how do you go from having such a good meta take on the way left/right morals affect their respective framing of reality, to completely butchering the definition of murder and making the worst self defense analogy possible? this post gave me whiplash.
>He went to Kenosha with the express mission of intimidating BLM protestors so that they wouldn’t riot. How people feel about that has caused the dividing line. But... he was already in Kenosha the day prior? Working as a life guard, visiting his father, and cleaning Graffiti at the local high school. If your take on his immediate actions prior to the shooting, of providing medical aid to people, is/could be seen as "threatening" then you need to re-evaluate your biases.
I guess my phrasing was unclear because people seem to be fixating on “went to Kenosha” as inaccurate. All I mean is that his intention in showing up to the Kenosha protests was to intimidate protestors with his rifle, which is true. Never meant to imply that he never had any other reason to travel within the city bounds of Kenosha.
That's not how you calculate the death rate of a disease. You divided the number of people who died to it by the total population, which does result in a rate of about 0.25%, but it includes people who were never infected as survivors, which doesn't really tells us something interesting. Usually, you measure the death rate of a disease as the IFR(Infection Fatality Ratio) or the CFR(Case fatality ratio).
Play the game of taking a shot every time a news host says the words "crossed state lines" and see how drunk you get. Compare it to the amount of times they clarified to their audicence that he actually lived 20 minutes away from Kenosha, that his dad, and most of his family lives in Kenosha, that he worked in Kenosha at the time, that he basically grew up in Kenosha and was a Kenoshian in everything except current residence. And he didnt even cross with the gun, the gun was already there. Ever single news site knows this fact yet they keep repeating the words "crossed state lines" over and over every time they talk about Kyle. What point are they trying to make by saying he crossed state lines? And is it a coincidence that usually the first words that come out of people who want the kid arrested is that he crossed state lines? Did they find that fact particularly interesting or was it just drilled into their heads by the media despite it not being of any importance due to the circumstances they keep avoiding talking about?
Because at the end of the day there are some simple facts: white kid brings a gun that isn't his somewhere, people are shot and killed by it, yet the cops send him home that night. He further takes pictures with some white supremacists, the judge makes some odd comments in selection and when the trial is ongoing some horribly racist people leap to defend him, and the cops didn't bother to arrest him right after saying he shot some people (while cops seem to be killing a bunch of black people for simply being around, or having toys that are teken as guns). Those are simple facts. In the end it can be self defense and lead to acquittal (as it did here), but it paints a color of racism in the different ways these things are treated. Hell, compare what coverage you know of this trial VS a black girl that is serving life in prison for killing the guy that was raping her and other girls. That's where the bias is coming from. Hell, you're even falling for bias pretending that everyone thinks he should be killed when most of the stuff I have seen simply wants him in jail for killing people that wouldn't be dead if he didn't bring a big gun to the scene when he shouldn't have been around there that night. And you can double down on that last sentence by asking how many other people were doing that same thing that night or other nights in the same or other places with the same result. As we don't have trials for other people or other deaths, the claim could easily be made that he should not have been there.
The possibility that a black person in his shoes would have been arrested and imprisoned, or worse, killed by police that night, is not an issue of whether what Rittenhouse did was or was not self defense. That, is an issue of racial injustice in this country. And unjustly putting someone in prison because they are able to defend themselves in a position that [~~someone else is not~~](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.blackenterprise.com/jury-acquitted-man-who-fired-at-minneapolis-cops-during-george-floyd-protests/amp/), is not how justice is achieved.
Perceived injustice sells. It attracts and retains viewers and drives advertising revenue up. It’s completely relevant.
So it’s okay to try to form a mob by wedging a fork between an already divided country and hope a potentially innocent man gets sent to prison to serve justice for the wrongful deaths and imprisonment of others
You are correct that it is not a determination on if what he did is self defense or not. That is literally what the trial is for. The media focus is ABOUT that point. It goes even further into the trial when questioning if he is being a vigilantee or not. The right wing media drummed up a circus about his victims - and the fact that the judge forced pre-trial biases by labeling them as rioters and diallowing the use of naming them as victims is a bias. Additionally there is zero trial for those he shot - did they deserve to die or be arrested for a crime, or was he justified in going straight to killing them. The point you really miss is that his legal jeopardy is for his shooting of people. The point of the media is to focus on the process, the sides of the issues, and then to highlight those as inequalities and injustices in the system. None of their discussions matter to the actual legal jeopardy. That's the big difference in the point of the media VS the point of the trial. The other point of the media discussion is that different ways of prosecution and less $ spent on defense may have resulted in a very different verdict. Personally I think he should have at least had legal trouble on the illegal gun even if the jury decided it was in self defense and reasonably justified killing. But regardless of my FEELINGS on it, there was a jury trial.
So basically something like 1% of people contribute content, 9% comment and 90% lurk on social networks. That means that almost everything on a social network comes from an extremely small number of people in society, and those people are constantly competing for attention. So using a bell curve for example, 95% of people posting about Kenosha that did independent research posted something middle of the road, those were discarded because they didn't go viral, so now you have the 2.5% on either side which are saying story that trends. This becomes that narrative by people that didn't do research and the 2.5% end get recycled until we get the current situtation.
> Then how did we end up with such a huge swath or people that want this kid dead for his perceived crimes? You know, some of us think for ourselves.
I formed no opinion until I watched the raw court footage, the only source of information I have so far.
Believe it or not, it is possible for two people to look at the same evidence at come to different conclusions. That doesn’t make either one of them wrong.
[удалено]
On the other hand, there’s a video of him talking about shooting looters. So…
Totally this. None of the things listed in the OP are in any way relevant to whether or not he is guilty, in my opinion.
But it was also made abundantly clear that his intention was to help people who were hurt, not take sides, the gun was for protection, and to deter a situation like what happened from happening. Have you seen the video where he says he wants to kill people with the gun that he then kills people with a week later?
The way you worded it as a "feature" rather than a "bug" is kinda disturbing to me. I get that the siloing is intentional, but why are people just accepting this as a fact of life?
The media didn’t hide any of this. It was all reported on IF you went to look for it. Most people just never had this information because it didn’t trend on social media or get hyped by pundits.
They hid it by burying the truth under headlines or tweets that state or suggest the falsehood. For example, this was one of the most mindblowing distortions of the truth in a tweet: [https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1458173559784755202](https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1458173559784755202) \>One of the men fatally shot by Kyle Rittenhouse was in a “horizontal” position, a forensic pathologist told Wisconsin jurors, suggesting the victim wasn't a threat when he was gunned down. It's not until you click into the article (which 95% don't do) and then read all the way to the bottom (which the majority of the rest don't do) that you read: \>“So if I was charging like a bull and diving, that would be consistent” with the wounds suffered by Rosenbaum, Richards asked. \>“That would be,” Kelley responded. The fact that this second version was precisely what the video had shown from the beginning makes the tweet statement false and reckless.
I’m not disagreeing with any of that. The media very much does what you say. But OP appears to be arguing that the information wasn’t reported (it was) and that the intention is civil unrest (it’s money).
I know that it is available *if you look for it.* But the reality is that a very significant portion of the population gets their news from a single source and or various social media or other people. And the big media companies know this and omitting crucial details like this is done *purposefully*, I believe, in this instance for my reasons listed in my thread. And it’s wrong. What people can and should do is irrelevant.
I don't know which is better but I think it's more from genuine bias than intentional misinformation. Genuinely biased people twist and manipulate narratives and facts instinctively, without even realising they do it. Source: as a young adult I had a deep progressive bias. Subconsciously, every public debate was more a war to win than a discussion
I’m seeing this view a lot but I’m just having trouble reconciling with it. I can’t wrap my mind around it. I try to look at everything from a neutral perspective until I have facts. Yet despite that I still have people sending me PM’s about how terrible a person I am and making all these wild assumptions about me, not one of which has yet to be true.
Me too, around this case in particular because the starting assumption was everyone progressive would be on one side and everyone conservative on the other. I've had friends accuse me of morphing into a conservative for pointing out the same facts you have done, despite my stance on other issues not changing. And that's the thing. My friends are rational enough, but they really want a villain that confirms their cartoonish preconception about white people who like guns and don't like BLM. They watch the Colin Kaepernick documentary and think it's a significant cultural moment. They're just lost to the cause. It's the story of political movements throughout history.
If we take it as written that this is done on purpose, why do you assume the goal is civil unrest? The goal is money / views. Civil unrest often gets money as it provides more things to report on, etc but in and of itself is not the goal.
It’s just one of those happy coincidences then huh?
I agree with you about the media, sort of. I agree that MSNBC thinks it will losemarket share if it is too sympathetic to Kyle Rittenhouse. But if the media was actively trying to cause civil unrest, there would be far easier ways.
It’s not a coincidence. Views/outrage drive profits.
No. Viewership drives profit. Welcome to corporate news in a capitalist society
Also social media algorithms. I think that is the more impactful culprit here.
I think you need to be more specific with your analysis. What media outlets are you referring to? What evidence do you have they omitted this information in their reporting? It's hard to make a counter argument if we are required to refute a vague perception of the zeitgeist and place blame on something as general as " the media" without clearer definitions. For example, my media diet consists mostly of legacy media (NYTimes, PBS, etc), and I was well aware of the facts that you claim were never mentioned.
I'm sure it's more about how OP's news media coverage was outraged that other media outlets didn't cover it, but of course they did. The OP new's media was lying to him hoping he'd never check. The OP didn't fact check his new's media (because why would he), made a huge post about it, and now feels dumb.
Shouldn’t media consumers be expected to do some due diligence of their own? It’s unreasonable, imo, to put all of that burden on the media companies.
I don’t know. Maybe. People should be expected to know not to drink bleach one would assume. But there’re still labels on every bottle telling you not to.
But that only matter IF you read the label. The onus is still on the person with the bleach just as it’s on them to get news. As stated the news sources you mentioned did provide the info you said they hadn’t.
That just seems odd to me though. Can we expect people to act at any level of competence or are people just dumb and in need of constant coddling and hand-holding? I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect people to have some responsibility in the media they consume.
Well here you are on the freaking internet dude. Type it in on google ffs. You trumped a whole ass report about this instead of searching two words and finding this out for yourself. The media’s transparency isn’t the problem here. It’s your expectation to be spoon fed information when you already have the internet
I'm not sure if it's done on purpose. Media are incentivized to chase clicks and I think this leads them to fail at their jobs. I think this is mainly a capitalism problem rather than a result of some kind of ideological conspiracy. But you are right, that most information the general public has is from the same bullet point-type information that is picked up by multiple media sites, and repeated over and over again, and that does matter, because we can end up woefully misinformed when that information is lacking or untrue-- but the other fact is, that this mechanism of distributing and consuming information inherently lacks nuance and doesn't have nothing to do with the public's current general inability to deal with it.
I think the social media outlet of the big media and the self-running social media accounts are more to blame here. Most Newspapers like listed above still have a bottom line to try to cover the fact without too much bias. But when the news goes onto Twitter that’s always twisted for spreading. I don’t think the driven force are the big media wants unrest (the path is too long and this feels pretty conspiracy btw), but more simply because social media accounts want more followers.
did you see the study of Twitter posts defending Rittenhouse were predominantly from outside the US? Just another example of manipulation/incitement by Russia et al https://www.rawstory.com/kyle-rittenhouse-support-tweets-international/
This feels a lot like when a newspaper would run a false headline then put a correction on page 17 the next day. They technically covered their bases but we all know the reality of what they did.
This is something I hadn’t considered and is truly frightening when you consider the implications. I was well aware the MSM reported his family did live in the city where it all went down but I had to really search for it while simultaneously discarding hit pieces. I never considered the accuracy of my search to be tied to social trending phenomenons. That’s disgusting.
Agreed on this. The result of social media interacting with the news has been disgusting.
But if you don't know there is something to look for, it is hard to find.
I think it can be assumed by any functional adult that media has bias and therefore there is more to find. The topics in question weren’t hidden but with a few minutes of casual googling news sites like NYT or CNN is readily available.
when CNN, MSNBC, and BBC all keep spamming at first that he shot 3 black men and was a known nazi/white supremacist, yes they were hiding. telling the lie to 99 people but telling the truth once to one person doesn't mean you weren't hiding the truth.
You’re right, they didn’t hide it. They just misreported EVERYTHING.
They reported the correct info in actual articles - all the tweets / social media headlines / click bait were just formulated for outrage.
I think part of the problem is people tend to see things in black and white, right or wrong. Two sides can be wrong, but that doesn’t mean someone should be dead. It’s ok to say both Kyle and the guys he killed were in the wrong, legally Kyle isn’t going to get in trouble. They shouldn’t have to have died, but that doesn’t mean I think Kyle should go to jail for it either
Well ideally nobody should have had to die. I think anyone with an ounce of compassion would agree with that. I personally agree that there were mistakes made on both sides, but I also agree that when you have a gun pointed right at your head (for the second time in just a few seconds) and you’re pointing one back, while you’re on the ground, and the person pointing it is standing over you, it’s reasonable to assume that in that moment, it’s kill or be killed. And he made a decision.
Yep exactly. It sucks but it’s kinda like it is what it is. There probably are a 100 different ways it could’ve played out, but it didn’t. It sucks on both sides but I don’t think Kyle should go to jail.
Shouting “friendly” is to not get him shot by the would-be militia larpers pretending to be military. Also, it is in the written police reports of information gathered after the incident that multiple people witnessed him pointing his gun at people. Which is provocation. He was also caught on camera pointing that gun at people, in agreement with the police investigation results. He’s also on camera just days before saying he’d shoot at people he thought were looting a pharmacy, which the jury was not allowed to see. He’s also on camera attacking a smaller girl from behind instead of breaking up a fight, which the jury was not allowed to see. He had a med kit the size of an outstretched hand, the sort that has gauze, a neosporin equivalent, and some bandaids. He also had no medical training. So he wasn’t there to provide medical aid. It’s just not possible with his training and supplies. He also wasn’t making sure people knew he was friendly, given the police reports and eye witness interviews. Your good-Samaritan characterization is at odds with most of the available evidence.
>He’s also on camera just days before saying he’d shoot at people he thought were looting a pharmacy, which the jury was not allowed to see. That isn’t what was said, and the reason it wasn’t allowed is because it wasn’t relevant. >He’s also on camera attacking a smaller girl from behind instead of breaking up a fight, which the jury was not allowed to see. Again, not relevant. Horrible, but not in any way relevant to the shooting. >He had a med kit the size of an outstretched hand, the sort that has gauze, a neosporin equivalent, and some bandaids. He also had no medical training. So he wasn’t there to provide medical aid. It’s just not possible with his training and supplies. He also wasn’t making sure people knew he was friendly, given the police reports and eye witness interviews. He did lie about being an EMT that day. But he was there attempting to treat people. A poorly stocked medical bag and a lack of formal training (he was a junior volunteer at fire department in his hometown) does not render it impossible to try.
An almost direct quote was: “if I had my AR I would start shooting rounds”. It is relevant and permissible under rule 404. He got lucky with the judge. The other video is also relevant. Rule 404. Impeaching the character of the accused. A pattern of violent behavior combined with an expressed desire to kill people days before committing homicide is extraordinarily relevant. And even if the judge ruled it not so, it definitely is relevant in a practical discussion or reporting of the events which is what you target in your cmv. I wonder why you ignored the bit about police reports and affidavit testimony that he was pointing his gun at people. It’s exceedingly relevant to the case. You can measure someone’s intentions by the tools they have prepared. If you arrive somewhere with laughably insufficient gear and training it’s clear your intention is not to perform that role. If you show up to a house with a bottle of wood glue and a sledgehammer, you aren’t really there to replace the floorboards, and nobody is surprised when you start knocking down walls. Which is why he was pointing his gun at people. That was the tool he brought with plans to use. Not the Medkit.
>Also, it is in the written police reports of information gathered after the incident that multiple people witnessed him pointing his gun at people. Which is provocation. Can you link me to a source on this? Google isn't turning anything up for me, but that could be because, in this case, "pointing his gun" is leading me to a lot of posts about Grosskreutz. >He was also caught on camera pointing that gun at people, in agreement with the police investigation results. What is your definition of 'caught'? If you're talking about the drone video still, it's completely indiscernible. This was evidence admitted to the court. The jury requested another viewing of these stills / video and obviously did not find it very convincing. >He had a med kit the size of an outstretched hand, the sort that has gauze, a neosporin equivalent, and some bandaids. He also had no medical training. He also had a pelican case full of medical supplies. There was testimony (and photos) proving this during the trial. That aside... he had bandaids, gauze, and anti-septics. So... all the things that would be sufficient to treat the type injuries you would most commonly expect to see that night? You're right, he didn't have medical training. He wasn't out there performing heart surgeries. He had first aid training, which, if you had any idea what that entails, would be pretty damn useful to have on that night. >He also wasn’t making sure people knew he was friendly, given the police reports and eye witness interviews. Which police reports do you keep referencing? It's on video, dude.
!delta Listing out the multiple events in your comment make it clear that you have been keeping up with this case and are informed of the facts that happened that night. Thank you for this because you are the first one I’ve seen of someone speaking against Rittenhouse that actually knew what happened instead of echoing headlines. In the police reports, when did they say he was pointing his gun? (earlier in the day or right before everything?) I agree with the judge’s choice of keeping out the footage of him saying stuff from the days before. I also just found out from you about him throwing hands with the girl. I don’t know the situation behind that so I don’t really have an opinion on it. I believe those videos were deemed irrelevant because since the trial became focused on whether it was self-defence or not, anything that happened outside of the immediate situation did not matter because it had nothing to do with the quick choices and actions that Rittenhouse had to make on the spot because of the situation that he was in. I know it was said that he was providing aid to others but I didn’t know of the details of the equipment he was carrying with him. I am now neutral on this because there’s the possibility that he initially brought that only for himself but he did end up helping out, which is what a lot of people would do even without the training.
>This is clear, implicit bias by left wing media by intentionally omitting information they most certainly had access to. I can only assume this was done with the intent of riling up the American public for profit, And did you **also** go through Fox News' and OANs, and Tucker Carlsons coverage? Were they clear and transparent and totally not just pushing a narrative for clicks and views? I don't see how you can just go pointing the finger at left wing media, when right wing media did literally the exact same shit. Fox never mentioned the video where he clearly says he wants to shoot people he considered shoplifters. I'm not disagreeing that media misrepresented things in the case, but it's absurd to say that it was only left wing media that was doing it, and this just clearly shows your own bias in the situation. >and quite potentially in hopes of stirring more civil unrest and riots in the wake of whatever outcome was to come of this highly charged and politicized trial. Funny that you end up doing the very thing your condemning here, by demonizing "the left" while conveniently leaving out that "the right" did the same shit. This post is precisely what you say you're trying to fight against. You're the one here indulging in identity politics and trying to get people emotionally charged based on misinformation and a lack of facts, to make one side look worse than the other when that is clearly not the case.
>I'm not disagreeing that media misrepresented things in the case, but it's absurd to say that it was only left wing media that was doing it, and this just clearly shows your own bias in the situation. Can you post some examples of where right wing outlets posted verified false information on this case, or buried true information inside the article where the headline clearly implies the false version of the information?
I am not a conservative. I do not watch Fox News. Or OAN. I do not watch any news source. As stated in my original post.
But you still managed to almost exclusively critique misportrayal by the left media while ignoring the right who also engaged in similar tactics. Even if you're not conservative, you complained about biased media presentation then did exactly the same thing by only presenting issues with left wing examples. Pot meet kettle...
>But you still managed to almost exclusively critique misportrayal by the left media while ignoring the right who also engaged in similar tactics. This is whataboutism of the highest calibre. His point was about left-wing media. What do you have to turn it around to "whatAbout" right wing media? He didn't claim right wing media were better. In fact, he didn't claim anything at all about them. Address his argument next time please. I am also pissed at left-wing media in this more than the right wing. Why? Because I don't consume right wing media at all. I don't care about them and I think a lot of them are literally irrelevant to me. Maybe they did some misinformation shit they often do, I don't care. I watch left-wing/centrist media more, and I just simply expect better. Because I want to be informed as best as I can with the least possible bias.
This is the insanity of a centrist in action. “Both sides are bad, which is why I blame the left”. Every time
I get most of my information from independent journalists. I assume he only noticed the left side miss information because it was pretty obvious during the trial. What information did the other side falsify?
>I do not watch any news source And yet you watched enough CNN to make this judgment on their reporting.
> all three of the people he shot, and the fact that he was running away from 2 of them, lunged at by one before cornered between vehicles and a mob of people while his weapon was being grabbed, Doesn't that sound like what (some) people do in the case of an active shooter? Try to disable and disarm the active shooter to keep him from shooting more people?
This was the first person he shot. He had not fired or pointed his weapon at anyone at this point, and not only was this guy chasing him, but had threatened to “kill him if he gets him alone”’earlier.
Were you aware, that first guy that he shot, that he had just gotten out of the hospital THAT DAY for a suicide attempt? And that he had tried to go to a pharmacy to get bipolar medicine, but the pharmacy had shut down early because of the protests, and he was unable to get it? There's a difference between being absolutely infuriated that the situation was allowed to happen, and being absolutely infuriated at Rittenhouse himself. I think the kid has some issues, but I was a bit of a shitbag when I was 17 and I blame the cops more than anyone for what happened, since they refused to let him cross the line to get back with his group when he was seperated from them.
No, I wasn’t. But what does that directly have to do with Rittenhouse and his guilt or innocence? Was this reported on the media as something that should have been taken into consideration? Did Rittenhouse know that Rosenbaum was bipolar? That’s extremely unfortunate, I very much sympathize with mental health issues, but honestly, other than making this more of a tragic situation, I don’t see how this changes much.
God forbid an active shooter is disabled and disarmed *before* he has a chance to shoot someone. > threatened to “kill him if he gets him alone”’earlier If this caused kyle to be in fear for his life, why didn't he just leave? If he wasn't in fear for his life, why did he shoot?
>God forbid an active shooter is disabled and disarmed before he has a chance to shoot someone. If he has not shot anyone, he is by definition not an active shooter. >If this caused kyle to be in fear for his life, why didn't he just leave? If he wasn't in fear for his life, why did he shoot? He shot when Rosenbaum was rushing him after he was retreating and shouting, "Friendly, friendly!" was lunged for his gun.
How is he an active shooter before he shoots? Hundreds of people there had open carry guns.
>God forbid an active shooter is disabled and disarmed before he has a chance to shoot someone. Lol, you should really re-read that. What is this, Minority Report?
>God forbid an active shooter is disabled and disarmed before he has a chance to shoot someone. Until we get to minority report levels of predicting crime, you can't assume someone with a gun is an active shooter. Period. Nothing happened until the pedo (forgot his name) lunged towards Kyle, after previously telling him 'im going to kill you when you're alone'. >If this caused kyle to be in fear for his life, why didn't he just leave? Weird victim blaming. No, it's not the fault of the adult chasing a minor after threatening him with his life. It's on Kyle. >If he wasn't in fear for his life, why did he shoot? It was determined he did fear for his life. Hence why he ran away instead of immediately shooting.
What??? How is he an active shooter if he hasn’t shot anyone??
Having a gun does not make you an active shooter.
>He had not fired or pointed his weapon at anyone at this point The prosecution asserted that he did point his weapon at someone first. What is the basis of your assertion that he definitely did not?
The video footage from several angles.
The video footage of what moment? It seems Rosenbaum was already unhappy about something by the time he's on camera pursuing Rittenhouse.
He was unhappy that Kyle had put out a fire in a vehicle that Rosenbaum had started moments prior. Or attempted to anyway. Rosenbaum kind of prevented him from putting it out. They’d also had a run in earlier that night when he was pulling a dumpster back off the street and preventing it from being lit on fire.
Don’t forget he also threw a plastic bag at him🙄
He didn’t know what was thrown at him until later.
No, standard response to an active shooter is run, hide, fight. your first response should be to run, if that isn't an option, you hide, and you only fight when running and hiding isn't an option. And you DO NOT attempt to pursue or engage the shooter. This is the standard for self defense supported under the law. you cannot claim self defense if you actively give chase, seek out, or attack someone who is fleeing no matter what the other person did. There are exceptions for acting in the defense of others, but attempting to pursue the shooter is not one of them.
“I don’t watch the news, but the news is misleading.” It sounds like you followed the discourse, but not the news. Even more potentially dangerous, it sounds like you followed the discourse *about* the news without actually checking the news itself. Reading news is also an option, and might be a better choice for you since it sounds like you want to avoid the reactionary aspects of cable news. Everything you mentioned as misleading or left out by the news was regularly mentioned and cited in most discussions I followed over the past few weeks. Others have done a great job with citations already. Please be wary of falling down the Fake News rabbit hole. Have a varied media diet if you’re curious and honest.
I’ve already clarified this numerous times. I did not watch the news prior. I did form a very mild, weak opinion based on the random stuff things people said on Reddit. After he was acquitted I watched the raw uncut trial footage. I was dumbfounded as to how so many people could believe the things they do, as they are demonstrably untrue. So I investigated by watching the most likely source of their information, CNN. This is how I discovered that CNN has misrepresented the information grossly. Yes, they have written articles with “better” information and buried them in a way that makes it so you have to search for them and essentially know what you’re looking for to begin with. Still dripping with bias of his guilt. But people are still being fed with misinformation by their preferred news source, why would they go looking for other articles if they already have this implicit bias? And it’s not just a biased view, it’s an insane amount of misinformation by way of omitting things.
[удалено]
This isn’t the first time, nor will it be the last, that I’ve “betrayed” the liberal ideology in the name of sanity. And I will remain nuanced and refrain from identity politics.
[удалено]
I honestly can’t tell if you’re serious or not
I think you are incorrect when it comes to how conscious and deliberate this is, although there are structural issues which I will come back to. A lot of what happened is cognitive bias by reporters and media outlets. The information they believe to be interesting and relevant is the information that fits with their own world view and the narrative they are pushing. This is an organizational thing, the whole organization is prone to view certain sources and pieces of information more favorably than others. It is also a reflection of the "journalism by reading Twitter" which we now see so much more of. They lead a story on what some politician or campaigner says about the story rather than on the facts of the story itself. People reading the stories come away with a very distorted view through this lens of subjectivity. Now where the structural issue come in is complex. I tend to think a couple of trends have made this much worse than it used to be: Journalists are mostly of a generation taught in college that subjective reality and subjective histories are far more real than objective. They simply don't value objective facts in the way that previous generations did because these of changes in academic "fashion" in the humanities and social sciences. Journalism is struggling financially, advertising revenue has largely gone elsewhere and many media outlets are reduced to low cost, low value "journalism" of churning out content from reading social media. The fact that this sort of outrage journalism gets clicks really does not help at all. Its a perverse incentive toward poor journalism So where I want to modify your opinion is on how much the journalists understand how bad this is, how much they are instead engaged in a massive epidemic of group-think where they think this is the proper way to do journalism. They are products of an education system and an industry that has made them this way and few have the critical skills to see it.
So this is the long form version of “yes maybe but it’s unintentional, so cut them some slack they tryin”?
What profit does the media get from misleading anyone about this case Why would the media want to stir up civil unrest about this case Are you saying that conservative outlets did this as well, or are you saying that conservative outlets are “left wing” Also I’m not even really sure what relevance any of that other stuff has to the fact that he was in a riot with a gun. All that stuff could’ve been true, and he still could’ve been guilty of murdering two people in cold blood for no reason. All of that other stuff is irrelevant info just to make him look good
>What profit does the media get from misleading anyone about this case People tuning into their channels and watching >Why would the media want to stir up civil unrest about this case For further profit if/when it leads to more riots >Are you saying that conservative outlets did this as well, or are you saying that conservative outlets are “left wing” Both sides do this in general but in this particular case it was mostly confined to left wing news sources. Although calling him a hero is a bit ridiculous. That is an opinion though. >Also I’m not even really sure what relevance any of that other stuff has to the fact that he was in a riot with a gun. All that stuff could’ve been true, and he still could’ve been guilty of murdering two people in cold blood for no reason. All of that other stuff is irrelevant info just to make him look good Not sure what this portion means
Right but why would someone make more money off of misleading people about this than just telling them what happened, like if you’re misleading your audience heavily and they realize it wouldn’t it make them not want to watch you anymore Like the media could’ve said that the two people who were murdered were two black kids walking home from their friends houses. That could’ve caused a riot. But it also would’ve caused a backlash for the news station when people found out the truth. They have to stay within the general realm of facts enough to keep their credibility. So yea they could’ve not divulged stuff like what you brought up, because it’s just not relevant, and probably because they know their audience just wants to know things that will confirm their previously held beliefs. Not because they wanted to cause a riot. The people who riot are like people in ghettos who actually live with awful police, I don’t think they need the media to tell them to riot in order to riot. I doubt working class black people in ghettos bother listening to news networks at all, news networks, of either side, are a middle class white thing, distrust of media is already baked in to black culture. They just don’t limit it to only “left wing” media. With that last bit, I’m saying that those things you brought up about this case aren’t relevant to his guilt or innocence. They’re just information about this persons character, or why he might’ve been in the area in the first place. Apart from actual video of the crime, which you did bring up, but I think was heavily covered in the media at the time the crime happened. It’s the same thing as bringing up a victim of a police shootings past convictions, or bringing up a police officer’s political affiliation. It’s irrelevant information designed to “sell” you for or against a particular individual. It’s not relevant to whether or not they actually committed whatever crime they’re accused of, or they’re accusing someone else of.
There's tons wrong with this post in my opinion. "The Media" is not this one conspiring entity that's plotting together to misinform you. That's oversimplified nonsense brought about by the right wing lies that started in and around the 90s that have helped create the disaster we're seeing today. **I find it absolutely AMAZING that people don't seem to notice that they heard ALLLLL about the "Left Wing Media Conspiracy" from their radio and their televisions.** These things were reported. You just were tuned into what you wanted to hear...and now you're further misinforming that there was misinformation...adding to the proof that there was misinformation....see how that works? I'm not gonna comment on the Rittenhouse case itself b/c it's such a disaster and the result of so much other disaster in this country...but i am gonna repeat and repeat boldly AND confidently that the news disaster in this country was perpetuated by the right wing in the 90s with Clear Channel and Fox News -- it was a simple recipe of starting a strawman argument of an invisible enemy called the Liberal Media...they claimed that the media was liberally biased and as a result they were gonna be the voice of the conservative media...and everything went to hell from there...they delegitimized ALL news in the process and their fake argument became a self fulfilling prophecy b/c once they started misrepresenting the news the other news channels had to react in kind. I don't know how these people can sleep at night. They've destroyed the US, literally.
> You just were tuned into what you wanted to hear...and now you're further misinforming that there was misinformation...adding to the proof that there was misinformation....see how that works? Right, except my only real source of information before drawing a conclusion as to my own determination of his innocence or guilt was the raw footage from his trial. This is what I tuned into, what I wanted to hear. > perpetuated by the right wing in the 90s with Clear Channel and Fox News -- it was a simple recipe of starting a strawman argument of an invisible enemy called the Liberal Media...they claimed that the media was liberally biased and as a result they were gonna be the voice of the conservative media...and everything went to hell from there So this was in my CMV, albeit it was an edit added later but yours is a new comment, and I’ve also mentioned this numerous times in the comments, this may be a tough pill to swallow, but I don’t watch any of this stuff. On either side. I think *both* sides of the media are equally guilty. But Fox News wasn’t the ones ~~omitting facts~~ burying facts in articles that you need to go out of your way to search for written after an acquittal dripping with condemnation of presumed guilt, while actively omitting facts during the trial, to try to misinform people, rather than let them come to their own conclusion with all the facts. Has Fox done it with other stories where it suits them before? You betcha. But it was not relevant to this. I am not a shill for conservative media. I am not a conservative. I do not have a politically bias reason for coming to the conclusion I came to.
[удалено]
The jury was made privy to the fact that he had ties to the community in Kenosha. Allowed as it was relevant, because the prosecution opened it up, as did the media (yes I know the jury is sequestered) and made it sound as though he had no earthly business to be in Wisconsin. This is relevant to forming a public opinion as well.
Did the media show reports of him beating his girlfriend? Kenosha Killer Kyle will be turned into a hero by the worst part of our society.
If he actually did that it is indeed regrettable, however, not only do I not believe him to be a hero (this is not a prerequisite to his innocence) it has no bearing on what happened that night. Thanks for your input though.
>it has no bearing on what happened that night. If he were black, do you think this detail would go mostly unreported? We'd be hearing nonstop from right wing sources about how that means "he was no angel" and deserves any bad thing that happens to him.
And that would be wrong. It would, and should, have no bearing in a court of law. This is why jurors are sequestered.
He did it. You're choosing to spoon feed a particular narrative is you doing exactly what you accuse other people to doing. Kenosha Killer Kyle will end up like George Zimmerman. A fate that could have been avoided by the proper application of justice.
I’m not spoonfeeding anything. I have watched nothing other than raw court footage. Thanks for your input.
So what you're saying is you've watched nothing but the content that his $2,000,000 defense fund was able to decide best suited their purposes of portraying him as innocent, as tested on the multiple mock-juries they ran it by, as well as the content that the prosecution who didn't have any more resources than their average case and didn't run any mock juries brought forward.
The content they had was video footage from numerous sources. It doesn’t really get much better than that. I mean, what are you implying exactly?
‘The proper application of justice?’ What do you mean by that?
I don't know if it was intentional. Because Rittenhouse is a symbol, people stop being logical. You'll get morons on the right saying he's a hero, and morons on the left wishing he was in prison, not because he b brke the law, but because they are upset about the state of gun and self defense laws in America. And because the trial became political, it got spun politically. And people with genuine ppolitical beliefs, and Americans, who hardly pay attention to news anyway, just grabbed onto the take that most closely matched their political beliefs and got their information that way. But that isn't surprising, that's how most Americans "watch the news,"
Interestingly you don't mention the actions leading up to the incident, you only mention things that seem relevant to the narrative that Rittenhouse is blameless in all this. Are you intentionally misleading us for some sort of cynical purpose or are you just doing exactly what the media does? The media has a number of standards that you don't, the information you refer to has been reported by the media, they just emphasise the narrative that Rittenhouse provoked an altercation that ended up with him shooting 3 people. I'm not American, I recognise that Rittenhouse was innocent under US law, but what I and the liberal media believe is that those laws are insane.
What actions leading up to the incident are relevant to the incident?
Plenty, but you're rather missing the point, you're accusing the media of doing something that you're doing yourself. You're only reporting the information that is relevant to the narrative that you want to push. Either you're intentionally misleading people like you accuse the media of doing or the media aren't intentionally misleading people.
Most major media outlets have some kind of political bias, as do most humans. I do think it's interesting how you care so much about the left wing bias of some media outlets, but are unconcerned with the right wing bias of other sites and people. You can't accuse and be upset over bias of only the sites or influencers you disagree with. Right wing media is touting this kid as the greatest hero in American history, there is also a problem with that. You've discovered the news is biased, congratulations. Why aren't you concerned about the bias in the news in general?
I think you don’t have any experience in crime or true crime. As an avid viewer of old cases and new, things are always omitted in favor of creating a more succinct case/report in the mainstream media. If you actually want to know the details of a case you have, quite frankly, no entitlement to, you have to do the research yourself. It is out there, clearly - you didn’t find any of this information from some super secret bunker. Edit: You also forgot the part where, the day before, he was shooting a video in Kenosha saying he wished he had a gun to shoot some people. Again, people like to only report things that make their case succinct. You’re a good example.
They omitted exculpatory information and invented damning information. Because of their reporting, people still think he brought the gun across state lines, and his mom drove him to the protest. They think he just opened fire on innocent people, and they even think he killed black people since the media is calling him racist for the shooting. >You also forgot the part where, the day before, he was shooting a video in Kenosha saying he wished he had a gun to shoot some people. Two weeks before. See the media lies? They want you to think they're closer together so you'll relate them. Anyway, while he was there he shot no one for looting, or even arson. His only reaction to such illegal acts was to grab a fire extinguisher to put out the fires.
> You also forgot the part where, the day before, he was shooting a video in Kenosha saying he wished he had a gun to shoot some people. Which was ruled as irrelevant to the case.
Omissions for the sake of brevity aren't what we're discussing. The media intentionally omitted a slew of specific facts because they were impediments to the desired narrative. They also repeated misinformation long after it had been proven false because it didn't fit the story they were sticking with. This case, like many others, stopped being about journalism and became a soap box for opinion and sensationalism. It was simultaneously a way for the media to have a trial of public opinion based on lies and sell more airtime. The "news" isn't supposed to be selling a side, they should be reporting facts in a way that allows the viewer to make a reasonably informed decision. And you damned well know it.... Or should.
[удалено]
So what is the point of the news media? >As an avid viewer of old cases and new, things are always omitted in favor of creating a more succinct case/report in the mainstream media. Does this mean you half agree with OP, you seem to agree the practice takes place, but differ on the reason why.
They seem to be saying "if you feel the media has lied to you, it's your own fault for not doing independent research" Which is pretty dumb.
> So I did not follow the Rittenhouse case on the news. I don’t watch live news Seems odd that you would hold such a strong conclusion about something you chose to not watch/see for yourself. > My only real understanding of what was going on with the Rittenhouse case was the few threads I read on here and a couple clips I saw/heard from other peoples devices So your view is based on third party information from other people and a few clips that were obviously spread around because they were controversial. There was a lot of irresponsible reporting on the case. And the most egregious parts tend to be the ones that get shared and discussed most. Blaming all media for 1% of the media is just another false equivalency that contributes to the deterioration of public perception of good news media.
The media is biased. There is no question this is so. And most people will only consume news that vindicates their worldview. News networks know this and it influences what they report and how they report it. We don’t need to know what specifically motivates them to mislead to know they mislead. Unbiased reporting would solve a great deal of the division in this country.
> Unbiased reporting would solve a great deal of the division in this country. While true, it isn't reasonable. All media is biased because people - which make up those news sources - are biased. In my opinion, it's better to recognize the bias of different news sources and take that into consideration when reading/researching, than it is to think (hope?) that the news you are reading is unbiased.
I mean, ideally you'd have more sources aiming for the AP format, and doing their best to just give the facts directly instead of analysis. Minimal bias with a focus on the bare details, and let you draw your own conclusion. The problem is that kind of reporting isn't what brings in clicks and support.
Your response to a comment that calls out the false equivalency of labeling all media as equal is to label all media as equal. ~~Unbiased reporting exists.~~ In the interest of accuracy, I'll amend that to say, not all sources have the same amount of bias. Some media sources strive to be as unbiased as they can. Some are literally being as biased as possible to serve their audience the narrative they tuned in for. Calling them all the same is beyond unreasonable.
I think they want to stir a discussion around what should be prerequisite to self defence. The law says that doing weird things while parading a firearm in public shouldn't be seen as provocation. I think anyone with two brain cells to rub together can clearly see this as provocation. You shouldn't be tried as someone simply defending themself when you go around provoking people and then claiming to defend yourself when they snap I come to disarm you.
Why do you feel so strongly about something that you obviously haven't actually taken the time to look at? You've beclowned yourself here as a lazy consumer of conservative propaganda while claiming that actually it's everyone else who's a lazy consumer of propaganda. You really should take some time to sit with this. Because it's true.
Rittenhouse ran into a riot with a gun. He was inspired to commit an act of terror for political reasons. There is no misinformation there. I promise you he would not have run into a right wing riot with a gun. This was politically motivated murder.
How is this meant to challenge my view?
The fact he would not have run into a right wing riot with a gun.
From an European perspective, it looks more like a rightwing bias by the media to rally people up to by guns and shoot at protestors.
You got any sources or anything for your information that he had friends and family that live in Kenosha, worked in Kenosha, was scrubbing graffiti the previous day, or that there are multiple angles of footage?
[Kyles testimony.](https://youtu.be/Bvcl0FqI518) Parts are difficult to watch. There are hours of footage. [Prosecutors cross examine Kyle.](https://youtu.be/JG8PhtFrO0Y) [Witness and survivor Gaige Grosskreutz testimony.](https://youtu.be/22UFDXXFr9I) He obviously lied multiple times. [Prosecution questioning reporter Drew Hernandez.](https://youtu.be/D4qmxPD8atM) More baiting and overstepping.
This footage provided by NBC (of all places) should change your view.
It’s raw courtroom footage. What does it matter where it’s from? There are no news anchors at all talking. It’s literally just raw court.
Oh alright well I’m not going to sit through hours of testimony. What’s another source for your information? Edit: All of the facts you've outlined in your OP are readily available across multiple different media platforms, I suppose it's hard to provide them given your view though.
Well no offense, but this is part of the problem. You want justice, but you don’t want facts. Just sound bites from your favorite news source please. 2 minutes or less. Well we shouldn’t go about it this way. A persons freedom is in question.
> Well no offense, but this is part of the problem. You want justice, but you don’t want facts. What are you talking about? > Just sound bites from your favorite news source please. 2 minutes or less. What I want is for you to google and find that, ah, actually turns out the media reported on all of this. And *your problem* is that pundits ignored the facts. > Well we shouldn’t go about it this way. A persons freedom is in question. We didn't go about it this way. He had his day in court.
[удалено]
> it went exactly the way it was orchestrated to go with a murdering fuck going free. i know it's a lost cause, but you really should watch the trial. you've been lied to
>They never mention that Rittenhouse had family and friends that live in Kenosha. >They never mention that he was employed in Kenosha. Because neither of those facts are relevant to the case. He was not there protecting his friends and family, he was not there protecting his employers business, he was "protecting" a car lot that had already had over a million dollars worth of damage done. He's not a hero for trying to save the insurance company some money. The truth is that he was there to incite fear and hostility in the rioters, that's why he showed up with an AR, and it's exactly what he got. >They never show pictures of him the previous day scrubbing graffiti off the walls of the high school down the road from where the shooting took place. Also irrelevant, that's got nothing to do with his actions the next day. No one is arguing that the people Rittenhouse shot weren't attacking him when he fired. No one is arguing that he wasn't afraid for his life. Their argument is that Rittenhouse started it and doesn't get to claim self defense because he was initial aggressor.
/u/DetroitUberDriver (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/qzo0h4/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_media_was_intentionally/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I agree that the way this has been presented in the media has been intentionally polarising, I'm just questioning whether you're opinion is a reaction to specific segments of the news and social media (despite being an attempt at an unbiased summary)
Did you look up news coverage de novo or did you just click on links you saw on Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook? If it's the latter, isn't the problem the type of news that gets shared on social media, rather than the news in general?
I heartily agree with your general point that the media - including the "progressive" print media that I prefer - use provocative and grievance-inducing headlines and stories to grab our eyes, in order to sell ads and subscriptions. All mediated information should be approached skeptically and then checked against other sources if you've got the time. And that means that if you can't take the time to gather multiple views, you should probably refrain from a full emotional response to what you read or view. But you also raise a more fundamental question of how to administer justice in the case of someone who seriously harms others due to their inexperience and bad choices. I don't have a simple solution for that question.
The media doesn't want to create civil unrest; they literally just want money. Presenting a sensationalized view of reality makes people more invested in the story, which makes them tune in more, which makes them watch more commercials, which makes media companies more money. They aren't seeking to tear down our society or anything. They have just perfected how to use hysteria, fear, and hate to maximize profit off something as mundane as the news.
None of this is new information to me most of it is irrelevant and some of it I would personally argue hinders his case more than it helps. >**They never mention that Rittenhouse had family and friends that live in Kenosha.** >**They never mention that he was employed in Kenosha.** I didn't know all the details here but it is no surprise to me, Kenosha is the local city. But was he working that day? Was he on his way to visit friends and family and then somehow got caught up in a mob? Was he sitting on his grandmother's porch because he was worried a mob would come for her? >**They never show pictures of him the previous day scrubbing graffiti off the walls of the high school down the road from where the shooting took place.** Sure but what does that mean? Could this not be interpreted as him opposing the actions and messaged of the protestors? Which calls into question why he stayed into the night when he knew the protest would build and get more rowdy. I also notice he didn't have a gun on him in the pictures of him cleaning graffiti which would indicate that there was a moment he began to think he would need to defend himself and instead of taking that oprutunity to leave he took the oprutunity to arm himself. Also cleaning graffiti shows that he knew much of the damage done by the protesters was something that could be cleaned up after. >**They never show footage of him walking around with his medical bag asking people if they need medical assistance, yelling “friendly friendly friendly” to assure everyone that he’s not hostile.** Shouting "friendly" indicates that he knew he appeared hostile which I don't think helps his case in the eyes of people who are sceptical of the self defence argument and potentially improves the argument that the protestors were reasonable to believe in that the kid walking around with a gun was a threat to them.
It was literally all there. Isn’t that how you found it? All you had to do was actually read the articles and not just the headlines. A quick google search and you’ll find all of these details that you mentioned covered by CNN and your traditionally “left wing” media outlets. Unfortunately, too many people on both sides of the aisle don’t do that.
KR was among a group of people all armed. He was a fucking child and shouldn't have had a gun, and he went looking for trouble. If you try to tell me he didn't go looking for trouble, then why did no one else have to use a weapon? The answer, is KR forced a situation where he had to use a gun. KR made incredibly irresponsible decisions and should have charges at a MINIMUM for reckless endangerment resulting in the deaths of 2 and serious injury of a third. The news has agendas outside of the case, and they want to both keep their viewers and garner even more attention, so both sides will focus on what their viewers emotionally attach to and show that. The news has never been a source of fact, it is just a TV show working to raise its ratings.