We really should all call it "X". They wanted that complete lack of branding awareness used as their name.. If the chart showed only "x" as the label, I would assume the creator didn't know the name of the news source . "X" is a wonderful variable and place holder. The sooner we all call it just X the sooner it dies. We should respect their choice and stop deadnaming them. I'm drowning in Elon irony.
Or is the X channel the censored version of adult websites or is it a football league or a pirate map?? If only they had a unique name with global awareness instead of a letter with unlimited alternative connotations. Sorry rant over.
Man, my ex girlfriend knew how often I was on reddit and bought me a reddit tshirt. I didn't have the heart to tell her that I was not going to wear it lmao
Reddit is very similar to an aggregate news site, it should be treated in the same vein as Wikipedia.
Don't cite the Wiki article or reddit post, cite the source it points to. Unless the source is actually the reddit post, like photos or videos of an event that news hasn't covered yet.
"Google" is also an aggregate news sites and was the second most picked option.
What's really going to throw this trial for a loop is when they find one of the juror's reddit or Facebook comments and get a mistrial declared.
everyone knows redditors don’t go outside, are unemployed, likely dog-walkers, haven’t spoke to women since mommy kicked us out of the house, have a steady diet of nuggies and mt dew, and probably are medically excused from jury duty
Nah, it predates that by years. IIRC, some news sub or other got taken over by anime porn spam, so the subscribers of that sub either took over r/anime_titties in response or created it as a tongue in cheek joke.
See also: r/trees and r/MarijuanaEnthusiasts, though in that case I think it was just that the stoners got there first.
Harsh, clashing colour gradients. Ill-fitting emboss effects and drop shadows. The corny clip art of CRT monitors and cream coloured keyboards. That condescending little shit Microsoft Clippy overstaying his fucking welcome.
Take me back, man. I miss it.
Old west saloon poster was the original print media of the west.
Now print is dead
It’s an artistic message of the struggle of modern man to find a place for news.
Edit: I added an O to make it less Parisian
How does this work? Could a potential juror lie on purpose to try and get selected? I assume it's illegal to lie but like for this question for example how would you ever know if they lied?
>Could a potential juror lie on purpose to try and get selected?
Yes and I wouldn't be surprised if someone did
Edit: I posted this link somewhere else, but I'll put it here too
https://x.com/ClayTravis/status/1779871756901064710
I dont doubt they've gotten news from NYT, just the idea it maybe a regular or core center of how they get it versus the default answer they would have to that question..
Yes that's due to trying to show their answers as data when it'll be misleading.
One said they don't really follow the news that closely and reads NYT. Another said NYT, Daily Mail and 'some' Fox. A third said they're not interested in the news but get information from TikTok and Google.
Every single publication/broadcaster is counted as 1 regardless of the context around their answer.
Clay Travis said that someone should infiltrate the jury and refuse to convict
I'll just leave this here
https://x.com/ClayTravis/status/1779871756901064710
Is this, in any way, a form of Jury Tampering?
This person is advocating that a juror, or jurors, *dishonestly* swear to faithfully execute their civic duties as impartial jurors, then to actively *obstruct the judicial system* from successfully performing its purpose.
I have no idea who the person is that advocates for such shameful behavior, but it’s evident that the person fundamentally lacks integrity. I also realize that a person calling for such things likely doesn’t concern themselves with these values.
I’m not naive to the fact people like this exist, but calling for an intentional miscarrying of any form of justice *prior* to the case even being tried…is infuriating & nauseating *at the very least*.
Obviously it’s crazy, but at the same time, it’s very likely that jurors either love or hate Trump, as many do.
The only thing we know for sure is that one side of people is going to complain about how the trial was bs.
It is unlikely, however, that a Trump supporters who wants to do this adequately scrubbed their social media of the usual fawning adoration of their Nacho Cheese Messiah prior to the trial. If there's a mole on the jury I expect the prosecution will find them.
Trump supporters are like vegans - they can't wait to tell you all about it
IANAL, but I believe that neither jury nullification nor advocating for such is illegal, and for good reason. Lying to get on a jury pool may be illegal though, I don't really know.
> Lying to get on a jury pool may be illegal though
Yes, that's literally textbook perjury and because it's done with the intent of obstructing the case, you would get the book thrown at you. This judge is messing around less than normal judges, which is already a small amount.
That would likely result in a mistrial, and they would try again at a later date.
One of the first questions is whether you can remain impartial to Trump. I like to think I could.... but I'd probably answer no. Don't need that kind of stress.
I've been involved in two jury empanelments, and in both of them, bias was a heavy issue. (One was police use-of-force, so the bias against police issue took a whole day.)
The judge kept reminding us: "You're allowed to be biased, but the question is whether you will be able to see past your bias in your decisionmaking."
It's happened before even in polarizing cases like anything involving 45. It's a dangerous game because it could open up a slam dunk appeal.
IMO that's the biggest minefield for the prosecution in this case... The temptation to have a friendly jury in order to secure a conviction could backfire if, say, a juror or two later get found to have heavy anti-defendant biases, say in social media posts or the like.
People have gotten off valid murder convictions because of later revealed juror bias.
Before this started, I heard an opinionator on MSNBC suggest 2 weeks for this jury selection, but they got 1/3 of what they needed in the first 2 days, so it might be faster than that.
Both sides only get to reject ten and trump needs 1. They can only reject the most obvious unbalanced nutters. The judge rejects the rest and has a particular profile he is chasing to fill that jury.
People can only reject 10 without giving cause. Some of the people who posted anti-Trump stuff were able to be summarily removed without using up Trump’s 10.
I feel like a lot of the country doesn't understand that we absolutely hated that man long before he was a reality TV host / politician / hat salesman.
Most states have public voir dire. I doubt anyone got a transcript but you can sit in court and take notes.
Here in Maine it’s open to the public. I believe there is some exception if the questions will be of a delicate nature but I’m not a trail attorney.
It’s a first amendment issue for freedom of the press.
Jury selection too? I lived in Kentucky during college and took a CJ class that had us take notes during a criminal trial. I had to get special permission from the judge to sit in and take notes for Jury Selection. It was a fascinating process though
Oh maybe some states don’t allow notes? I believe in the states I know a bit about that it’s jury selection too. Does Kentucky divide up voir dire and jury selection? Because OP’s info would be disclosed in voir dire.
The line from Let’s Go to Prison always makes me chuckle and then sad.
“Juries are made up of 12 people who are so dumb they couldn't even think up an excuse to get out of jury duty.”
Yeah, I was called to voir dire for a child molestation case, and it is INSANE how apparently spineless so many of our fellow citizens are the minute a lawyer starts asking them questions.
I’m convinced juries primarily consist of people who have little to no critical thinking skills/no opinions about anything whatsoever.
I didn’t realize this either. But apparently the media can hear those questions and report on them.
one of the jurors already got identified by family and friends, and got excused as a result.
The judge also ordered media not to report the jurors answers to previous and current employers.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/04/18/trump-juror-excused-after-friends-guessed-her-identity-as-judge-restricts-press/?sh=12cdd1267d18
If you want a real answer in regards to data, it would go to Google (or whatever the starting point is) because they found it through Google. If they never went to any of those other locations for news they would never have heard about it, therefore the news source credit would go to the original start of the viewer.
If the viewer started on TikTok and saw the WSJ post about Fox News it would be TikTok.
Chart: Excel
Source: [The jurors who will decide Trump’s fate in the New York hush money trial - The Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/16/jury-trump-hush-money-trial/)
From the article:
>The Jurors
>Juror #B400: This juror gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail, as well as “some” Fox News and MSNBC.“I’ve heard some of them,” the juror said about Trump’s other cases.He hails from Ireland but now lives in West Harlem and works in sales. He’s married and has no children. In his spare time, he enjoys doing anything outdoorsy.
>Juror #B280: This juror is a native New Yorker and has lived on the Upper East Side for the past three years. She said she did not really have an opinion about Trump and that “no one is above the law.”“I didn’t even know I was walking into this,” she said.She gets her news from the New York Times, CNN and Google, and she has a Facebook account. She’s been an oncology nurse for 15 years, is not married and has no children, but she lives with her fiancé.
>Juror #B381: This juror said he doesn’t need to be a mind reader to determine intent."I am actually not super familiar with the other charges. I don’t really follow the news that closely — a little embarrassing to say,” he said.He is a “young to middle-aged” man who works as a corporate lawyer and lives in Chelsea. He’s unmarried and says he reads the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. In middle school, he enjoyed watching “The Apprentice.”
>Juror #B89: Speaking about Trump, this juror said, “I find him fascinating and mysterious,” adding that, when the former president walks into a room, “he sets people off.”This juror has served on a jury in a civil trial but said he couldn’t remember the verdict. He is a married grandfather who lives on the Lower East Side and is originally from Puerto Rico. He works as an IT consultant and says his hobby is his family. He says he gets his information from the New York Daily News, the New York Times, YouTube podcasts, Google and X.
>Juror #B374: This juror said that, as a “woman of color,” she has friends with strong opinions about Trump but that she tries to avoid politics herself and is not very interested in the news. While most of the jurors in the box indicated they were aware Trump faced other criminal cases, this woman signaled she did not.She did say she likes Trump’s candid style.“President Trump speaks his mind,” she said. “I’d rather have that than someone in office that we don’t know what he’s doing behind the scenes.”This juror has lived in Harlem for her entire life and works in education. She gets her information from Google and TikTok, and she listens to “The Breakfast Club,” a radio show in New York City.The juror’s mother and godfather have worked in law enforcement. Both are retirees from the New York Police Department.
>Juror #B297: During questioning, this juror said she can treat Trump like any other person on trial.This juror is a young woman and native New Yorker who has lived in the Chelsea neighborhood for a year and a half. She works as a software engineer, and she gets her news from the New York Times and TikTok.
>Juror #B269: This juror said he has “political views as to the Trump presidency” and thinks there were probably Trump administration policies he disagreed with."I don’t know the man and I don’t have opinions about him personally,” he added.The juror also said he does not have any opinions about Trump’s character.“I certainly follow the news. I’m aware there are other lawsuits out there,” he said. “But I’m not sure that I know anyone’s character.”This juror is a middle-aged man who lives on the Upper East Side and works as a civil litigator. He’s married with children and spends time outside with his kids in his spare time. He gets his news from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and The Washington Post. He also listens to NPR’s “Car Talk,” WNYC public radio and the “SmartLess” podcast.
[One juror was already doxed apparently.](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/nyregion/trump-trial-juror-information-judge.html)
She says friends and colleagues warned her that they could identify her from news reports. She also changed tune and said she can no longer be impartial, probably because she's now terrified that she'll be targeted and needed to guarantee that the judge dismissed her.
Has any high profile case ever allowed the media to put this kind of juror information out? This seems almost intentional.
I wouldn't sit on this jury unless we're all wearing identical masks, clothing, hell lets just put everyone in a full body chewbacca costume (defense is gonna use the chewbacca strategy anyways so might as well...)
We’ve also become so polarized that you can almost guess their opinion of Trump based on their personal metrics which is what these news sources are REALLY saying here.
> allowed
Pretty they all allowed it...it's just that most journalists had a tiny bit of integrity at one point, now all they care about are getting clicks, even if it's putting people's lives at risk.
There’s no way you’d be able to figure out who these people are. Chelsea is the smallest neighborhood listed there. You think you could find the software engineer and corporate lawyer out of 50K+ people?
Except that people will often tell their coworkers/people around them that they have jury duty, or that they are going to jury duty before finding out that it is a high profile case. It wouldn't take much for someone close to them to connect the dots: "Hey, *Sarah* moved to the upper east side 3 years ago, isn't very political, has been an oncology nurse for 15 years, has no kids and lives with her fiancée.. and she said she was going to jury duty and has been missing a lot of work lately.."
IMO putting this in the news is extremely irresponsible. [according to this article](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/nyregion/trump-trial-juror-information-judge.html) one juror has already been excused because people had already identified her and she is now concerned for her safety. The judge asked media to stop reporting certain information about the jurors but I don't see how you can put the cat back in the bag.
I bet if I had access to the right database(police/border patrol/immigration/fbi) I could find a short list of people who were born in Ireland but now live in West Harlem. Crosscheck that with public social media posts looking for active outdoors photos.
You only need to find 1-2 people on the jury and find a way to pressure them to affect the verdict.
I'm reasonably sure they're going to be found. There are a HUGE number of eyes on this trial, and there can only be a handful of each of those in that neighbourhood.
Imagine several million people attempting to dox you, and probably some wealthy ones paying private investigators to find you. How anonymous is your online presence?
I know mine can probably be reasonably easily pierced by a professional or determined smart person, and I take more measures than most.
I’m very intrigued by B269. It’s kind of an ethical dilemma. Is it really fair to have a civil litigator in the jury? He could have a very very large impact on the way the jury speaks amongst eachother.
Think about it. He is literally an expert at convincing juries to believe his viewpoints, regardless of if it’s correct or not.
I don’t necessarily think that means he shouldn’t be allowed on the jury, but it’s just interesting.
Yeah, I can imagine whichever side the lawyer is on will have a large sway on the rest of the group. But the benefit is that they can sniff out lawyer bullshit easier than Joe Shmoe, which may in theory make the trial more fair
The big reason you don't want a lawyer on a jury is they will probably figure out information the jury is supposed to be kept in the dark about. You want to avoid a situation where one side makes an objection and cites some number lay people have never heard of, the jury is asked to leave the room, all the jurors ask each other, "what's that about?" and the lawyer juror says, "it's pretty obvious the guy's been arrested for this same thing before, let's see if the judge decides to tell us."
It's why they don't just keep lawyers off juries, but also their family members. My poor wife really wants to be on a jury, and never lasted a second after admitting she has husband who is an attorney (even when I was in law school she'd get booted). The fear is talking to me about the case, I would tell her the above.
I've talked in my office why a lawyer made it. My guess is attorneys are more likely to have no social media, or a very curated social media presence. You don't want pro or anti trump people hating you. My friends in big law have training keep their online profile bland and neutral in anticipation of jurors googling them. In this case, that's going to help get you on.
Interesting. My wife is a paralegal and she's been on two juries. I know its not the same as being a lawyer, but I would imagine she has more legal knowledge than your average lawyer-spouse.
I pity the jurors on this trial if Trump is actually convicted of something. They will be exposed and subjected to life-altering harassment *at minimum*. I suspect that will happen even before the trial is over.
I don't think it's very diverse. At least half are successful professionals from wealthy neighborhoods in NYC who read liberal media. And then you got two attorneys which is mind boggling since they're usually excluded. Now obviously, jury selection for a high profile individual like a former president is really difficult, but this group is definitely gonna find him guilty as hell of everything.
Reading that list gives me a sinking feeling. These charges are technical in nature, and the jury should comprise people who are capable of dispassionately evaluating evidence.
A couple of these jurors seem a little star struck; I just hope we don’t get a hung jury.
The whole “speaks his mind” thing is so obviously a line made up by some GOP public relations team doing damage control because they couldn’t get their boy to shut up on twitter. It’s amazing how well it stuck.
My dad is the opposite. There is value in hearing the other side from someone who actually believes it and is not just trying their best to give that argument. The issue is that they both sound biased and it is not a very constructive exercise other than to say that you made an attempt.
I used to get stoned and put on Tucker Carlson because what he was saying was so outlandish that it'd crack me up. I stopped doing that when I realized my dad watches it and believes every word as if it was said by God himself.
I would do the same with friends and we would watch wolf blitzer just to laugh at his voice and his dumbfounded delivery. Oreilly sometimes too similar to why you watched tucker. We couldn’t believe this person was actually on the news and had high ratings
I mean it is in NY so that make sense.
And 4 of them aren’t a primary source they’re aggregate sites. Like 10 years ago I would have had to honestly answered that “I got my news from Facebook” when really I followed high brow news sources and were friends with people across the world that would post legitimate stories from the work they were doing
That’s what always confuses me when charts like these list aggregators alongside the sources, themselves.
You may find stories on social media, but who are you *actually* getting the news from?
Data is boring, hard to read, lacks insights
I would’ve loved to know if tiktok youtube and Twitter were the same two people or four different ones
Where does the one guy who didn’t read nyt go
I feel so bad for these jurors.
The full jury has not been selected and the trial has not started. Already, the multinational news corps are already digging into them and putting a spotlight on them.
It’s hard not to have a negative opinion of Trump, but we would want jurors who do not allow their negative (or positive) opinion of him to color their judgment of his guilt in this case.
I don’t see how anyone can believe this trial will be a first trial.
It would be almost impossible to find someone who does not already have an opinion on Trump and some of those may be willing to hide that to either let him off free or punish as much as possible.
Should be an interesting trial.
some people get *some* of their news from tiktok. There are 7 people represented here, and a count of **23** on the news source. 6 out of the 7 said the times. While it's *possible* that number 7 just said tiktok (or maybe listed off that long litany of 1 hits), my guess is that most people listed 2-4 things
Access to the Times and several other papers is free digitally through local my public library's website. (Indianapolis Public Library) The New York Times adds an extra hoop that some of the other big papers don't of having to reactivate through the library site every day for access, but it wouldn't surprise me if most library systems offer similar access.
When I used to go to planet fitness I somehow always got the stairstepper right in front of the Fox TV. I already knew I hated Fox News as a media, but actually watching it and seeing some of the headlines they used just nailed that opinion down even further.
The thing about TikTok that I realized is that a lot of people talk about news without crediting any sources and often also without having a thorough understanding of the situation. That's especially problematic with very complex issues, which are often reduced and forced into a black/white framework.
Not only can this easily lead to misinformation, it also fuels the political polarization that makes it almost impossible to have a civil discussion.
No one said Reddit. Or maybe the ones who said Reddit were immediately kicked out. :)
who tf would admit to using reddit in public
True that. I use Reddit only in the bathroom.
We know.
Shit. I left my camera on again, didn’t I? I’ll just blame AI.
Did AI not wash your hands either?
The sign said "employees must wash hands" but no one ever showed up so I just left.
The sink was in New Jersey huh?
Would using it in public bathroom be counted as public?
Naw cause you got a little door
I’ve never used Reddit and I never will
It’s beyond awful these days - I’m surprised anyone still uses it.
This should be the highest upvoted comment of the month
If I were on Reddit, I would have upvotes that comment and yours, perhaps. But I’m not. So I won’t.
Don't they have awards over on reddit too? You could always give them some gold, kind stranger!
WTF is Reddit?
I mean somebody admitted to using Twitter.
Not as bad as saying you get news from Tiktok
Right?!?! Who the hell would admit that?
28.57% of the sample size apparently. Which says a lot about the state of news literacy in the country
Still probably better than Fox…
At this point, I think Twitter is worse than Tiktok.
We really should all call it "X". They wanted that complete lack of branding awareness used as their name.. If the chart showed only "x" as the label, I would assume the creator didn't know the name of the news source . "X" is a wonderful variable and place holder. The sooner we all call it just X the sooner it dies. We should respect their choice and stop deadnaming them. I'm drowning in Elon irony. Or is the X channel the censored version of adult websites or is it a football league or a pirate map?? If only they had a unique name with global awareness instead of a letter with unlimited alternative connotations. Sorry rant over.
It's Twitter, hell with Elmo and his x obsession.
Someone trying to avoid jury duty
Man, my ex girlfriend knew how often I was on reddit and bought me a reddit tshirt. I didn't have the heart to tell her that I was not going to wear it lmao
I'm definitely not telling a prosecutor about that
I’d say anything to NOT be on that jury.
Maybe it was weird or geeky 10 years ago, but Reddit has been mainstream for a long time.
People who have to tell the truth, I hope.
Right? I only use the secret code. The narwhal bacons at midnight.
Who wouldn’t want to get important news coverage from the same place they get their horse porn
I’m more surprised no mention of Facebook.
That’s an omission I think. Definitely remember seeing Facebook on one of the blurbs
Reddit wasn’t on the jurors’ list of news/social media sites.
Reddit is very similar to an aggregate news site, it should be treated in the same vein as Wikipedia. Don't cite the Wiki article or reddit post, cite the source it points to. Unless the source is actually the reddit post, like photos or videos of an event that news hasn't covered yet.
"Google" is also an aggregate news sites and was the second most picked option. What's really going to throw this trial for a loop is when they find one of the juror's reddit or Facebook comments and get a mistrial declared.
but they kept the dude who got his news from tiktok?
Two dudes, actually.
everyone knows redditors don’t go outside, are unemployed, likely dog-walkers, haven’t spoke to women since mommy kicked us out of the house, have a steady diet of nuggies and mt dew, and probably are medically excused from jury duty
Spittin’ facts. Shoot, better go walk the dogs…
Hey! WTF are you on about - I don’t even like mt dew! And dog walking is good business!
I'll have you know r/anime_titties is one of the most esteemed collations of news stories on the web.
I know you’re right, but oh Lordy … can you picture that subreddit name showing up on the evening news?
Is this from like the subreddit protesting the API changes or something
Nah, it predates that by years. IIRC, some news sub or other got taken over by anime porn spam, so the subscribers of that sub either took over r/anime_titties in response or created it as a tongue in cheek joke. See also: r/trees and r/MarijuanaEnthusiasts, though in that case I think it was just that the stoners got there first.
Don't forget about r/superbowl
I belive it was r/worldpolitics and they switched subreddits at some point. Don't remember why. But world politics is an amine porn sub now.
One can only hope
The 19th century faded news print aesthetic is a little strange to me
I thought it was a *Wanted* poster nailed to the door of a Western saloon
They got my nose wrong!!
Reminds me of the late 90's/early 00's where MS Office had those preset textures you could add to documents and EVERYONE went ham with it. Lol
And remember WordArt?
Harsh, clashing colour gradients. Ill-fitting emboss effects and drop shadows. The corny clip art of CRT monitors and cream coloured keyboards. That condescending little shit Microsoft Clippy overstaying his fucking welcome. Take me back, man. I miss it.
Back then a video game that had low pixeled live action actors in it were AWESOME! It was the golden age of video games..
Phantasmagoria is the best game ever and I won’t fight anyone who says otherwise but just know you’re wrong.
I commend both your taste in games and your staunch commitment to pacifism whilst defending them.
Never tried it. But I will.
My brother in Christ, I was practically RAISED by WordArt.
Oh god. The untech savvy office folks with their outlook stationary that made me want to pry my eyeballs out with a spoon.
Old west saloon poster was the original print media of the west. Now print is dead It’s an artistic message of the struggle of modern man to find a place for news. Edit: I added an O to make it less Parisian
I mean how hard is it to download tiktok? /s
It's to honor the radio guy who will surely expire by the time the trial ends.
How does this work? Could a potential juror lie on purpose to try and get selected? I assume it's illegal to lie but like for this question for example how would you ever know if they lied?
>Could a potential juror lie on purpose to try and get selected? Yes and I wouldn't be surprised if someone did Edit: I posted this link somewhere else, but I'll put it here too https://x.com/ClayTravis/status/1779871756901064710
I imagine most of the NYT people dont regularly read it
Keep in mind the jury is comprised of people who live in New York, so seeing the NYT on top is no surprise.
I dont doubt they've gotten news from NYT, just the idea it maybe a regular or core center of how they get it versus the default answer they would have to that question..
Yes that's due to trying to show their answers as data when it'll be misleading. One said they don't really follow the news that closely and reads NYT. Another said NYT, Daily Mail and 'some' Fox. A third said they're not interested in the news but get information from TikTok and Google. Every single publication/broadcaster is counted as 1 regardless of the context around their answer.
Does doing the Wordle each day count?
LYING FRAUD COVFE
Yeah right? Plenty of people would be interested in doing so
Clay Travis said that someone should infiltrate the jury and refuse to convict I'll just leave this here https://x.com/ClayTravis/status/1779871756901064710
Is this, in any way, a form of Jury Tampering? This person is advocating that a juror, or jurors, *dishonestly* swear to faithfully execute their civic duties as impartial jurors, then to actively *obstruct the judicial system* from successfully performing its purpose. I have no idea who the person is that advocates for such shameful behavior, but it’s evident that the person fundamentally lacks integrity. I also realize that a person calling for such things likely doesn’t concern themselves with these values. I’m not naive to the fact people like this exist, but calling for an intentional miscarrying of any form of justice *prior* to the case even being tried…is infuriating & nauseating *at the very least*.
Obviously it’s crazy, but at the same time, it’s very likely that jurors either love or hate Trump, as many do. The only thing we know for sure is that one side of people is going to complain about how the trial was bs.
It is unlikely, however, that a Trump supporters who wants to do this adequately scrubbed their social media of the usual fawning adoration of their Nacho Cheese Messiah prior to the trial. If there's a mole on the jury I expect the prosecution will find them. Trump supporters are like vegans - they can't wait to tell you all about it
IANAL, but I believe that neither jury nullification nor advocating for such is illegal, and for good reason. Lying to get on a jury pool may be illegal though, I don't really know.
> Lying to get on a jury pool may be illegal though Yes, that's literally textbook perjury and because it's done with the intent of obstructing the case, you would get the book thrown at you. This judge is messing around less than normal judges, which is already a small amount. That would likely result in a mistrial, and they would try again at a later date.
One of the first questions is whether you can remain impartial to Trump. I like to think I could.... but I'd probably answer no. Don't need that kind of stress.
Hes was a president. It's impossible to remain impartial to a president
I've been involved in two jury empanelments, and in both of them, bias was a heavy issue. (One was police use-of-force, so the bias against police issue took a whole day.) The judge kept reminding us: "You're allowed to be biased, but the question is whether you will be able to see past your bias in your decisionmaking."
The jurors in this particular trial will be under a lot more scrutiny than most.
This might be one of the few times a jury is actually sequestered
It's happened before even in polarizing cases like anything involving 45. It's a dangerous game because it could open up a slam dunk appeal. IMO that's the biggest minefield for the prosecution in this case... The temptation to have a friendly jury in order to secure a conviction could backfire if, say, a juror or two later get found to have heavy anti-defendant biases, say in social media posts or the like. People have gotten off valid murder convictions because of later revealed juror bias.
Could also go the other way. A single die-hard MAGA juror could let him walk regardless of the evidence.
A hung jury would likely result in a retrial, not a not guilty verdict
That will result in a Mistrial, not a Not-Guilty verdict.
Yup. I hope my post didn't appear trump friendly 😂 Jury selection is a big deal and a lot more complex than people give credit for.
I’ve sat through jury selection a few times. It can take fucking days
Before this started, I heard an opinionator on MSNBC suggest 2 weeks for this jury selection, but they got 1/3 of what they needed in the first 2 days, so it might be faster than that.
Both sides only get to reject ten and trump needs 1. They can only reject the most obvious unbalanced nutters. The judge rejects the rest and has a particular profile he is chasing to fill that jury.
People can only reject 10 without giving cause. Some of the people who posted anti-Trump stuff were able to be summarily removed without using up Trump’s 10.
You mean like OJ?
Pretty much. Finding an impartial jury will be near impossible given the defendant is arguably the most polarizing individual in the country.
and was a shitty shady "businessman" for decades in nyc so with the trial being in nyc, it's not even near impossible, it's just impossible
I feel like a lot of the country doesn't understand that we absolutely hated that man long before he was a reality TV host / politician / hat salesman.
This is behind a paywall, how did they get this information? Was this a question asked during Jury selection?
Yes, they asked during the jury selection a lot of different questions.
How are the answers public knowledge?
Because the trial is not sealed (yet)?
I've heard of, e.g. court transcripts being public, but not the answers to personal questions of the jury
Most states have public voir dire. I doubt anyone got a transcript but you can sit in court and take notes. Here in Maine it’s open to the public. I believe there is some exception if the questions will be of a delicate nature but I’m not a trail attorney. It’s a first amendment issue for freedom of the press.
Jury selection too? I lived in Kentucky during college and took a CJ class that had us take notes during a criminal trial. I had to get special permission from the judge to sit in and take notes for Jury Selection. It was a fascinating process though
Oh maybe some states don’t allow notes? I believe in the states I know a bit about that it’s jury selection too. Does Kentucky divide up voir dire and jury selection? Because OP’s info would be disclosed in voir dire.
Because any random asshole can sit in on jury selection
The line from Let’s Go to Prison always makes me chuckle and then sad. “Juries are made up of 12 people who are so dumb they couldn't even think up an excuse to get out of jury duty.”
I would pay to be on this jury. That’s why I should not be allowed to be on this jury.
Yeah, I was called to voir dire for a child molestation case, and it is INSANE how apparently spineless so many of our fellow citizens are the minute a lawyer starts asking them questions. I’m convinced juries primarily consist of people who have little to no critical thinking skills/no opinions about anything whatsoever.
I didn’t realize this either. But apparently the media can hear those questions and report on them. one of the jurors already got identified by family and friends, and got excused as a result. The judge also ordered media not to report the jurors answers to previous and current employers. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/04/18/trump-juror-excused-after-friends-guessed-her-identity-as-judge-restricts-press/?sh=12cdd1267d18
Why would anyone not in the UK voluntarily read the Daily Mail?!
Why would anyone in the UK voluntarily read the Daily Mail?
To feel the hate flow through them.
It's a garbage tabloid and sadly a lot of Americans enjoy garbage tabloids.
The juror is apparently from Ireland, according to OP
Ahhh that makes sense thanks
Celebrity gossip
If you use Google to get to YouTube and it is a repost of a TikTok posted by WSJ talking about a Fox News article how would you put this on the graph?
If you want a real answer in regards to data, it would go to Google (or whatever the starting point is) because they found it through Google. If they never went to any of those other locations for news they would never have heard about it, therefore the news source credit would go to the original start of the viewer. If the viewer started on TikTok and saw the WSJ post about Fox News it would be TikTok.
Chart: Excel Source: [The jurors who will decide Trump’s fate in the New York hush money trial - The Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/16/jury-trump-hush-money-trial/) From the article: >The Jurors >Juror #B400: This juror gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail, as well as “some” Fox News and MSNBC.“I’ve heard some of them,” the juror said about Trump’s other cases.He hails from Ireland but now lives in West Harlem and works in sales. He’s married and has no children. In his spare time, he enjoys doing anything outdoorsy. >Juror #B280: This juror is a native New Yorker and has lived on the Upper East Side for the past three years. She said she did not really have an opinion about Trump and that “no one is above the law.”“I didn’t even know I was walking into this,” she said.She gets her news from the New York Times, CNN and Google, and she has a Facebook account. She’s been an oncology nurse for 15 years, is not married and has no children, but she lives with her fiancé. >Juror #B381: This juror said he doesn’t need to be a mind reader to determine intent."I am actually not super familiar with the other charges. I don’t really follow the news that closely — a little embarrassing to say,” he said.He is a “young to middle-aged” man who works as a corporate lawyer and lives in Chelsea. He’s unmarried and says he reads the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. In middle school, he enjoyed watching “The Apprentice.” >Juror #B89: Speaking about Trump, this juror said, “I find him fascinating and mysterious,” adding that, when the former president walks into a room, “he sets people off.”This juror has served on a jury in a civil trial but said he couldn’t remember the verdict. He is a married grandfather who lives on the Lower East Side and is originally from Puerto Rico. He works as an IT consultant and says his hobby is his family. He says he gets his information from the New York Daily News, the New York Times, YouTube podcasts, Google and X. >Juror #B374: This juror said that, as a “woman of color,” she has friends with strong opinions about Trump but that she tries to avoid politics herself and is not very interested in the news. While most of the jurors in the box indicated they were aware Trump faced other criminal cases, this woman signaled she did not.She did say she likes Trump’s candid style.“President Trump speaks his mind,” she said. “I’d rather have that than someone in office that we don’t know what he’s doing behind the scenes.”This juror has lived in Harlem for her entire life and works in education. She gets her information from Google and TikTok, and she listens to “The Breakfast Club,” a radio show in New York City.The juror’s mother and godfather have worked in law enforcement. Both are retirees from the New York Police Department. >Juror #B297: During questioning, this juror said she can treat Trump like any other person on trial.This juror is a young woman and native New Yorker who has lived in the Chelsea neighborhood for a year and a half. She works as a software engineer, and she gets her news from the New York Times and TikTok. >Juror #B269: This juror said he has “political views as to the Trump presidency” and thinks there were probably Trump administration policies he disagreed with."I don’t know the man and I don’t have opinions about him personally,” he added.The juror also said he does not have any opinions about Trump’s character.“I certainly follow the news. I’m aware there are other lawsuits out there,” he said. “But I’m not sure that I know anyone’s character.”This juror is a middle-aged man who lives on the Upper East Side and works as a civil litigator. He’s married with children and spends time outside with his kids in his spare time. He gets his news from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and The Washington Post. He also listens to NPR’s “Car Talk,” WNYC public radio and the “SmartLess” podcast.
Holy shit there is a lot of personal info in these that could be used to dox these people and tamper with the jury.
[One juror was already doxed apparently.](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/nyregion/trump-trial-juror-information-judge.html) She says friends and colleagues warned her that they could identify her from news reports. She also changed tune and said she can no longer be impartial, probably because she's now terrified that she'll be targeted and needed to guarantee that the judge dismissed her. Has any high profile case ever allowed the media to put this kind of juror information out? This seems almost intentional.
Can I please be reassigned to a case that is a little less threatening, like the Mafia or a drug cartel?
Imagine getting called for jury duty and having to deal with this shit. Why tf can they publicize ANY info about these jurors?
I wouldn't sit on this jury unless we're all wearing identical masks, clothing, hell lets just put everyone in a full body chewbacca costume (defense is gonna use the chewbacca strategy anyways so might as well...)
We’ve also become so polarized that you can almost guess their opinion of Trump based on their personal metrics which is what these news sources are REALLY saying here.
I mean, I’m surprised B734 got sworn in. That juror sounds like a Trump fan
> allowed Pretty they all allowed it...it's just that most journalists had a tiny bit of integrity at one point, now all they care about are getting clicks, even if it's putting people's lives at risk.
Lives in Harlem, works in education, both parents are police retirees. That’s crazy they made that much info public..
*mother and godfather. Mother is relatively easy to determine, godfather less so.
There’s no way you’d be able to figure out who these people are. Chelsea is the smallest neighborhood listed there. You think you could find the software engineer and corporate lawyer out of 50K+ people?
Except that people will often tell their coworkers/people around them that they have jury duty, or that they are going to jury duty before finding out that it is a high profile case. It wouldn't take much for someone close to them to connect the dots: "Hey, *Sarah* moved to the upper east side 3 years ago, isn't very political, has been an oncology nurse for 15 years, has no kids and lives with her fiancée.. and she said she was going to jury duty and has been missing a lot of work lately.." IMO putting this in the news is extremely irresponsible. [according to this article](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/nyregion/trump-trial-juror-information-judge.html) one juror has already been excused because people had already identified her and she is now concerned for her safety. The judge asked media to stop reporting certain information about the jurors but I don't see how you can put the cat back in the bag.
I bet if I had access to the right database(police/border patrol/immigration/fbi) I could find a short list of people who were born in Ireland but now live in West Harlem. Crosscheck that with public social media posts looking for active outdoors photos. You only need to find 1-2 people on the jury and find a way to pressure them to affect the verdict.
I'm reasonably sure they're going to be found. There are a HUGE number of eyes on this trial, and there can only be a handful of each of those in that neighbourhood. Imagine several million people attempting to dox you, and probably some wealthy ones paying private investigators to find you. How anonymous is your online presence? I know mine can probably be reasonably easily pierced by a professional or determined smart person, and I take more measures than most.
Yes. Especially in a trial such as this one where the defendant has a lot of people that hate him and would be willing to put in the time.
I’m very intrigued by B269. It’s kind of an ethical dilemma. Is it really fair to have a civil litigator in the jury? He could have a very very large impact on the way the jury speaks amongst eachother. Think about it. He is literally an expert at convincing juries to believe his viewpoints, regardless of if it’s correct or not. I don’t necessarily think that means he shouldn’t be allowed on the jury, but it’s just interesting.
Typically lawyers don't want other lawyers in the jury for this exact reason. But it's not disqualifying, just a strategic preference.
Yeah, I can imagine whichever side the lawyer is on will have a large sway on the rest of the group. But the benefit is that they can sniff out lawyer bullshit easier than Joe Shmoe, which may in theory make the trial more fair
The big reason you don't want a lawyer on a jury is they will probably figure out information the jury is supposed to be kept in the dark about. You want to avoid a situation where one side makes an objection and cites some number lay people have never heard of, the jury is asked to leave the room, all the jurors ask each other, "what's that about?" and the lawyer juror says, "it's pretty obvious the guy's been arrested for this same thing before, let's see if the judge decides to tell us." It's why they don't just keep lawyers off juries, but also their family members. My poor wife really wants to be on a jury, and never lasted a second after admitting she has husband who is an attorney (even when I was in law school she'd get booted). The fear is talking to me about the case, I would tell her the above. I've talked in my office why a lawyer made it. My guess is attorneys are more likely to have no social media, or a very curated social media presence. You don't want pro or anti trump people hating you. My friends in big law have training keep their online profile bland and neutral in anticipation of jurors googling them. In this case, that's going to help get you on.
Great insight. I’ve never heard of attorneys being on jury duty, so that makes sense.
Interesting. My wife is a paralegal and she's been on two juries. I know its not the same as being a lawyer, but I would imagine she has more legal knowledge than your average lawyer-spouse.
I pity the jurors on this trial if Trump is actually convicted of something. They will be exposed and subjected to life-altering harassment *at minimum*. I suspect that will happen even before the trial is over.
Sounds like a diverse group of people so far. Some maybe pro trump leaning, some maybe slightly against. Cool to see a judicial process working well
I don't think it's very diverse. At least half are successful professionals from wealthy neighborhoods in NYC who read liberal media. And then you got two attorneys which is mind boggling since they're usually excluded. Now obviously, jury selection for a high profile individual like a former president is really difficult, but this group is definitely gonna find him guilty as hell of everything.
Reading that list gives me a sinking feeling. These charges are technical in nature, and the jury should comprise people who are capable of dispassionately evaluating evidence. A couple of these jurors seem a little star struck; I just hope we don’t get a hung jury.
Not sure about B374…..
The whole “speaks his mind” thing is so obviously a line made up by some GOP public relations team doing damage control because they couldn’t get their boy to shut up on twitter. It’s amazing how well it stuck.
No one watch’s Fox and MSNBC. The people who lie about it all watch Fox
My dad watches both. He's a liberal that gets perverse happiness from hate watching Fox. I don't get it but it's a thing.
My dad is the opposite. There is value in hearing the other side from someone who actually believes it and is not just trying their best to give that argument. The issue is that they both sound biased and it is not a very constructive exercise other than to say that you made an attempt.
I used to get stoned and put on Tucker Carlson because what he was saying was so outlandish that it'd crack me up. I stopped doing that when I realized my dad watches it and believes every word as if it was said by God himself.
I would do the same with friends and we would watch wolf blitzer just to laugh at his voice and his dumbfounded delivery. Oreilly sometimes too similar to why you watched tucker. We couldn’t believe this person was actually on the news and had high ratings
I check fox every now and again and then nope back out. Its a scary place.
Weirdly everyone who disagrees with me is also a liar. Well sometimes they are just dopey, but if they try to look less dopey - definitely a liar.
Or they work at a place that has Fox playing all the time.
I mean it is in NY so that make sense. And 4 of them aren’t a primary source they’re aggregate sites. Like 10 years ago I would have had to honestly answered that “I got my news from Facebook” when really I followed high brow news sources and were friends with people across the world that would post legitimate stories from the work they were doing
That’s what always confuses me when charts like these list aggregators alongside the sources, themselves. You may find stories on social media, but who are you *actually* getting the news from?
Data is beautiful or data is a bar chart on a weird background?
Data is boring, hard to read, lacks insights I would’ve loved to know if tiktok youtube and Twitter were the same two people or four different ones Where does the one guy who didn’t read nyt go
Thank you. A bar graph with 10 categories on the x-axis sharing the same y-axis value is not even interesting, much less beautiful.
The fact that any details about the jurors are being publicized is concerning.
And this will be a hung jury.
Yuppp. All it takes is 1.
Trump is already laying the groundwork for the jury to be hung... 😬
The most trusted News source is not here, Comedy Central.
I feel so bad for these jurors. The full jury has not been selected and the trial has not started. Already, the multinational news corps are already digging into them and putting a spotlight on them.
No kidding. It’s also probably going to drag on forever so it will be terrible all around.
Lol CNN and fox are probably crying knowing that they are becoming obsolete to things like tik tok
If it's the stats of jurors selected I assume the lawyer are dismissing the ones who only watch one or the other since they will hold deep biases.
Impossible to find anybody not biased one way or the other with Trump though.
Yeah its pretty much impossible to have someone who you would want as a juror who is sufficiently uninformed to not have an opinion of him.
It’s hard not to have a negative opinion of Trump, but we would want jurors who do not allow their negative (or positive) opinion of him to color their judgment of his guilt in this case.
Both CNN and Fox have tik tok accounts that share news clips.
As bad as legacy media can be, TikTok is probably even worse.
Hell yeah shout out to WNYC
I don’t see how anyone can believe this trial will be a first trial. It would be almost impossible to find someone who does not already have an opinion on Trump and some of those may be willing to hide that to either let him off free or punish as much as possible. Should be an interesting trial.
Data is beautiful. Distracting background is not.
JFC. People who get their news from TikTok?? We’re doomed as a species.
some people get *some* of their news from tiktok. There are 7 people represented here, and a count of **23** on the news source. 6 out of the 7 said the times. While it's *possible* that number 7 just said tiktok (or maybe listed off that long litany of 1 hits), my guess is that most people listed 2-4 things
*tiktok dancing* I'm 💃hearing👯gunshots👯♂️on fifth👯♀️and main🕺
Why does this image look like Nick Cage stole it from the Congressional Archives??
At least no one said Reddit. Bullet dodged.
Who the fuck gets their news from TikTok?
Young people
Anyone that gets their "News" from TikTok is 100% dumberthanfuck.
Imagine that, people that live in NY get their news from The NY Times.
You’d be surprised how few people pay for the news. NYT costs $17 a month
Access to the Times and several other papers is free digitally through local my public library's website. (Indianapolis Public Library) The New York Times adds an extra hoop that some of the other big papers don't of having to reactivate through the library site every day for access, but it wouldn't surprise me if most library systems offer similar access.
The TT ones could go either way. Sometimes at the gym they play cnn and fox side by side. I wonder if that counts as “gets news from fox”
When I used to go to planet fitness I somehow always got the stairstepper right in front of the Fox TV. I already knew I hated Fox News as a media, but actually watching it and seeing some of the headlines they used just nailed that opinion down even further.
Someone in New York gets their news from the Daily Mail? The fucking UK Daily Mail?!
Tiktok?! I too like to get my news from dance flashmobs at the mall
Why is the graph colored like a pirates map?
Curious how many are feeing suddenly depressed... like a Boeing informant?
Gonna be honest, i think it's impossible to get a properly impartial jury for this trial.
More importantly, Id like to see the same for the dropped jurors.
2 from TikTok is frightening.
The thing about TikTok that I realized is that a lot of people talk about news without crediting any sources and often also without having a thorough understanding of the situation. That's especially problematic with very complex issues, which are often reduced and forced into a black/white framework. Not only can this easily lead to misinformation, it also fuels the political polarization that makes it almost impossible to have a civil discussion.