Below is my column in USA Today on the Rittenhouse trial and the role of media coverage in fueling anger in such cases by misrepresenting or ignoring key evidence. After the verdict, a riot was declared in Portland and protests erupted around the country. Fortunately, there was not the type of arson and destruction seen in Kenosha last year. While the media often denounces “misinformation” or “disinformation” (and even supports censorship in some cases), it rarely acknowledges its own distortions from the Russian collusion scandal to the Hunter Biden laptop controversy to the Lafayette Park incident. Indeed, after the verdict, many of these same figures doubled down in denouncing the decision without acknowledging the evidence supporting the reasonable doubt of these jurors.
Here is the column:
The full acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse is now in. The result was hardly a surprise to many of us who watched the trial rather than the media coverage. The jury spent days carefully considering the evidence and could not find a single count that was supported beyond a reasonable doubt.
In rendering its verdict, the jury fulfilled its core function in our legal system. The jury was designed to protect an individual from becoming the grist of a criminal justice system. As the Supreme Court noted in Duncan v. Louisiana (1968):
“Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge.”
The American jury is designed to stand between the mob and a defendant; between the government and the accused. The thin line of a dozen citizens can prove the most unassailable wall for justice in our system.
The media’s guilty verdict
There was, however, a second verdict in that courtroom for those who have been maintaining a distorted or incomplete account to this trial. From the outset, politicians and media figures insisted that this was a case of murders committed by a white supremacist. Then-presidential candidate Joe Biden labeled Rittenhouse a “white supremacist” in a tweet showing his photo and demanded to know why then-President Donald Trump did not “disavow white supremacists.” Much of the media followed suit with an echo chamber of coverage that led some people to believe that these were essentially executions on the streets of Kenosha. Columnist Elie Mystal called the trial a sham.
The pressure clearly had an impact on the prosecution, which overcharged Rittenhouse (including with a count that was invalid). The case began to fall apart as the prosecution called its witnesses, who contradicted the core elements of these charges.
What happened next was even more chilling. Faced with a collapsing case in court, many of the same media outlets struck out at the judge, the jury, and the legal system. MSNBC host Tiffany Cross advocated for the judge’s removal. Rittenhouse was mocked for his “male, white tears” on national television. Georgetown law professor Paul Butler called the trial “white privilege on steroids.”
The danger of such reckless legal analysis is now evident. Judging from the coverage, one could have easily concluded that a conviction in this case was inescapable. Many reports prioritized still pictures of Rittenhouse walking menacingly with his rifle and omitted many of the countervailing facts that occupied much of the trial. Many viewers may not have learned that Rittenhouse spent his time cleaning graffiti off the high school.
The prosecutors argued that Rittenhouse provoked his first victim, 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum. Videotapes show the opposite, that Rosenbaum clearly pursued Rittenhouse. Casual trial observers would be unaware that Rosenbaum was a convicted sex offender who witnesses described as threatening to kill Rittenhouse.
A racist trial in a racist justice system?
Most people seem to disagree with the decision of Rittenhouse and others to show up at the protests armed. However, many also perceived the alleged victims as rioters who were engaged in violent acts, including attacks on Rittenhouse.
In our siloed society, people rely on news sources that tend to confirm their bias and presuppositions in such trials.
The problem is that such coverage is self-fulfilling.
By misrepresenting and not reporting key facts, media increased the likelihood that the acquittal will be read as confirmation of a racist trial in a racist justice system. That fuels the type of rioting that we saw in Kenosha after the shooting of Jacob Blake in a scuffling with police. Ironically, that case was also widely misrepresented in much of the media.
The Blake case was the subject of both state and federal investigations that rejected charges against the officer. Yet, the inaccurate coverage of that case continued to enrage viewers who were not fully informed of the facts leading up to the use of force. The various investigations found that the officers were required to arrest Blake on charges of third-degree sexual assault, criminal trespass and disorderly conduct. Two different officers used a taser on Blake, which failed. Investigations also found that Blake was armed and resisting arrest.
The growing disconnect between actual crimes and their coverage is unlikely to change in our age of rage. Rittenhouse had to be convicted to fulfill the narrative and any acquittal had to be evidence of a racist jury picked to carryout racist justice.
That is what occurred in the Rittenhouse trial. The jury stood between a mob and a defendant to see that objective justice was done. On that chaotic night on Aug. 25, 2020, in Kenosha, few things were clear. What is clear however is that the shooting – and those killed and accused – became vehicles for broader narratives. Those popular portrayals crashed in Kenosha on a wall of 12 jurors who ruled by proof rather than passion.
Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is also a legal analyst for Fox News.
I wonder if Darrel Brooks crossed state lines to participate in that parade.
In more than forty years of trying cases before juries, even in the cases I lost, only once did I feel that a jury had gone off track. In my experience, it is that rare. I suspect most trial lawyers would have the same opinion. By contrast, I no longer can count the number of times I have seen “reporters” and commentators go off track, with just the most recent being the false coverage and dishonest analysis of the Rittenhouse case. Some have suggested loosening the New York Times v. Sullivan protection given the media when dealing with public figures so it will be easier to sue them. This argument is appealing, especially when we hear the media argue that they should be protected even when they have made a person a public figure with wall-to-wall coverage. I think it is worth considering though that when the media has incurred substantial civil liability (Nick Sandmann) it obviously had no effect on their false reporting and commentary. Juries, on the other hand, face no threat of civil liability for their verdicts and yet they nearly always follow the evidence, even when there is a mob surrounding the courthouse. I do not pretend to know how to instill honesty in reporters and commentators. I suspect the only real solution is to ignore them until they go away.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10230145/Pictured-Driver-SUV-plowed-crowds-Waukesha-Christmas-parade.html?fbclid=IwAR0SMq4XvmVqQgXC_9VLW8b8EvMFc_kD172DJ5TpbBWxXJucl0CfsK7F9To
Video…and still frame photo evidence provides sufficient information to determine this was a deliberate act of Domestic Terrorism.
State charges for Murder….and Federal Charges for Terrorism, Murder, and Hate Crimes.
Let’s give another Wisconsin Jury an opportunity to come to a just Verdict.
Now folks….where is the Leftist Media today on this story?
Racism allegations….ban the SUV outcry….screaming he should not have been on the street…..what was he doing participating in a parade rants?
Nope….crickets….as usual.
CNN and MSNBC never present facts that disprove their own ideology.
Such is their commitment to objectivity.
How would you know what CNN or MSNBC present, when all you watch are Fox, OAN, News Max, Breitbart and other alt-right sources? Oh, that’s right–they told you this about CNN and MSNBC, so it must be true, along with the Big Lie–right? Where’s the proof of widespread voter fraud? I want to see it.
ALM! All Lives Matter! Black Lives Matter! Redskins Matter! Chinese Lives Matter! Russian Lives Matter! Humans From Ferguson Matter!
The liberal media exists to fight the truth, and to do damage control wherever the truth threatens their worldview.
Like a Biden said while campaigning for votes, labeling Rittenhouse as a white supremacist to puff up his bona fides, actual events of racism, far exceed the supply. Lies are required, to keep the anger fueled.
Also the language needs all new terms and definitions. Micro aggression, anyone? Try to defend your self after being accused of something that has a fluid definition and no know elements.
I’m not upset by the lies the media are pushing after the verdict. Go ahead and label me a racists. It is clear you are lying, and I have a mountain of evidence to support me. I welcome the left and the race hustlers being exposed for what they are.
When I first heard about the parade, and before I knew anything about the suspect,
my gut told me that it was probably a person of color angry about the Rittenhouse verdict.
My gut was correct.
My gut was correct.
I had suspicions last night. Confirmed by the news this morning that refused to identify the driver. At 5 am with multiple reports refusing to name a name, I knew it was a black person with a criminal record.
More people need to read or listen to a news piece, then ask yourself if you now understand the, Who, What, Why, Where, Whow? If you dont have those answers, you have not been informed, you were subjected to propaganda
Here is a video by Darrell Brooks, who is suspected of committing the Waukesha parade massacre.
There’s no evidence yet that this is connected in any way to Rittenhouse. In fact, Brooks has a long rap sheet and was recently released on bond by another do-nothing liberal prosecutor who thinks criminals can be trusted to behave while waiting trial. Brooks doesn’t even seem to be the kind of person who would have an opinion on the Rittenhouse trial one way or another. He’s just a cheap career criminal pretending to be a rap artist.
I wonder where Darrel Brooks got the idea to do that.
Who or what persuaded him that plowing over innocent white children was the right thing to do?
I wonder if CNN or MSNBC will show a picture of the suspect?
Joy Reid is popping open a bottle of Champagne today.
White supremacist children had their Christmas ruined!
Gee, and I thought all minorities were only ever the victims, never the victimizers.
That’s the message put out by the liberal media, anyway.
Outstanding Post!!!
If the juror selection process is fair and illegal evidence suppressed – as the U.S. Constitution mandates – juries are the best check & balance of any justice system. Jurors spend hours and days weighing oath-sworn testimony. Arm chair quarterbacks spend minutes and usually can’t recall the details of any case.
This is why schools should be teaching critical thinking. But how is that possible when so many are inflicted with by a warped sense of reality? It is a contagion worse than COVID. The class should be called, “How to recognize and avoid B.S. “
The antidote is truth. True truth.
Traditional news outlets were once limited in number and to a certain degree were trusted. Cable and network news audiences are dwindling and thus they throw fuel on the fire to get better ratings to keep or gain more viewer. Don Henley expressed his sentiments about the debacle of sensationalism in the song. “Dirty Laundry.”
“When it is all said and done
We haven’t told you a thing
We all know that crap is king.”
I see little difference in the media mob demanding a lynching and the KKK or other mobs that in the past engaged in dragging people from jails or their homes and lynching them. The media encourages this outrage and fury as it attempts to make “news,” all for the purpose of increasing subscriptions, readership, viewership or clicks all intended to increase profits. Make no mistake the media is a for profit industry and outrage is the product it’s selling. It’s time for thoughtful regulation of the media as it cannot police itself as it engages in incitement through false reporting for which an individual would be held legally responsible.
The current efforts to start a race war by so many actually reminds me as well of Charles Manson and ‘The Family’. We have a whole generation, possibly more, of Squeeky Fromms. Recall that Manson is remembered as a serial killer.
I bet next to no one knows about the Lafayette Park truth.
There is an abundance of creative news gathering but an absence of Editorial or Ownership Responsibility.
It isn’t just the media that is at fault.
Lefties like to be lied to. So the media delivers and lies to them.
We can see posters like Natacha who write long and tedious posts (mostly directed at Karen) that bear little resemblance to reality.
And look at all the posters who evidence TDS.
These people do not want facts,they want bias confirmation.
So the media lies to them.
Let’s see how the media plays WAUKESHA once the driver is confirmed, will he be a racist supremacist?
More likely he’ll be a “victim” of white supremacy. But if they do go down that rabbit hole, I think it’ll be a bridge too far. The fact that a career criminal mowed down children at Christmas will be hard even for liberals to rationalize.
The media should be fined for purposely in-sighting riots by forecasting and reporting misinformation. At the minimum but the maximum they should lose their jobs and be arrested.