NationStates

Greetings unwashed denizens of NSG. As many of you are probably aware Jussie Smollett, an actor on the television show Empire, was allegedly attacked a few weeks ago by crazed homophobes/racists. Initially, his story was accepted and circulated widely. There was an outpouring of sympathy for Smollett, as well as anger over his alleged attack. Twitter was full of hopeful messages of support for Smollett and condemnation for his attackers. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

But, as time passed, many people picked up on certain oddities about the story, such as just how racist homophobes would recognize a supporting cast member from a show that, frankly, falls far outside their demographic. There was also the fact that Smollett allegedly had bleach poured on him during the attack, despite the temperature outside being far colder than the freezing point of bleach. Others thought it strange that, despite having his cellphone, he decided to walk home and wait for nearly an hour before phoning the police. He also, when asked by the police to submit his phone records to help the investigation, gave them only a highly redacted record. These and several other curiosities led many to be skeptical of his story.

Now it seems that those who waited before believing his story may have been right to do so. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/02/16/ente ... index.html

CNN wrote: Two law enforcement sources with knowledge of the investigation tell CNN that Chicago Police believe actor Jussie Smollett paid two men to orchestrate an assault on him that he reported late last month.

While the CPD is playing this close to their chest for now, it appears that they may no longer believe the attack happened.

So, discussion time:
1. Do you believe that Smollett is telling the truth?
2. If he is lying, what should the penalty be?
3. Should the media be held accountable for popping off before any facts other than his statements came to light?

My opinion: I think he's probably lying and have thought so from the beginning. His story just seems wrong. I accept the possibility that the attack did happen but it seems very unlikely.

If he is lying I think he should be given the strictest possible charges for wasting police time and contributing to a climate of irrational anger and fear. I worry that this may not be what happens, given the notoriously limp wristed treatment celebrities often receive from the justice system.

I think the media and public figures on Twitter should own up to the fact that they eagerly jumped to support a story that was honestly shaky from the beginning. This one I know won't happen.

So, what say you, NSers?

Update: Multiple unnamed sources within the CPD are reporting to local news organizations that the attack is being investigated as a hoax, though Smollett's attorneys deny these reports. The CPD remains non-commital in its statements to the public, insisting for now only that they desire another interview with Smollett.
https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2019/02/18 ... ttack/amp/

Is he lying? It sure seems that way. If he is proven to be lying then he should be arrested for falsely reporting a crime. As for the media, I don't think they should be punished in this case, even if their reporting was less than ideal.

If he is lying he should face punishment for wasting police resources.

It would be great if the media began to wise up with how it jumps on some stuff, but that will never happen.

It does seem likely that he is lying. If he is then yeah he needs to be punished wasting police resources.

It's obvious this guy's full of shit. Two people in MAGA hats walking around during a polar vortex when being outside for more than 20 minutes can kill you looking for a black man to jump?

Bullshit.

You'd think after the Covington case the media would wait before jumping to conclusions...

Bear Stearns wrote:It's obvious this guy's full of shit. Two people in MAGA hats walking around during a polar vortex when being outside for more than 20 minutes can kill you looking for a black man to jump?

Bullshit.

You'd think after the Covington case the media would wait before jumping to conclusions...

Yep. It seemed unbelievable from the beginning.

Why would they? The misrepresentation of the Covington incident garnered them significant profit with virtually no penalty. Advertising is king and the advertisers don't care if you're printing the truth as long as you're bringing in those sweet clicks.

Bear Stearns wrote:It's obvious this guy's full of shit. Two people in MAGA hats walking around during a polar vortex when being outside for more than 20 minutes can kill you looking for a black man to jump?

Bullshit.

You'd think after the Covington case the media would wait before jumping to conclusions...

Remember, basing reporting on evidence available at the time is jumping to conclusions and is bad.

At least until it's going a way conservatives like.

What I don't get is the why. What does he gain from this lie?

It always pretty clearly seemed like he was full of shit to me tbh. Parts of his original story just seemed weird and not how someone would actually act in that situation.

It is pretty amusing how so many people bought into it though, I wonder how many are gonna be willing to go back and condemn him now.

Fartsniffage wrote:What I don't get is the why. What does he gain from this lie?

Public sympathy, name exposure etc etc.

Scomagia wrote:Greetings unwashed denizens of NSG. As many of you are probably aware Jussie Smollett, an actor on the television show Empire, was allegedly attacked a few weeks ago by crazed homophobes/racists. Initially, his story was accepted and circulated widely. There was an outpouring of sympathy for Smollett, as well as anger over his alleged attack. Twitter was full of hopeful messages of support for Smollett and condemnation for his attackers. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

But, as time passed, many people picked up on certain oddities about the story, such as just how racist homophobes would recognize a supporting cast member from a show that, frankly, falls far outside their demographic. There was also the fact that Smollett allegedly had bleach poured on him during the attack, despite the temperature outside being far colder than the freezing point of bleach. Others thought it strange that, despite having his cellphone, he decided to walk home and wait for nearly an hour before phoning the police. He also, when asked by the police to submit his phone records to help the investigation, gave them only a highly redacted record. These and several other curiosities led many to be skeptical of his story.

Now it seems that those who waited before believing his story may have been right to do so. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/02/16/ente ... index.html

CNN wrote: Two law enforcement sources with knowledge of the investigation tell CNN that Chicago Police believe actor Jussie Smollett paid two men to orchestrate an assault on him that he reported late last month.

While the CPD is playing this close to their chest for now, it appears that they may no longer believe the attack happened.

So, discussion time:
1. Do you believe that Smollett is telling the truth?
2. If he is lying, what should the penalty be?
3. Should the media be held accountable for popping off before any facts other than his statements came to light?

My opinion: I think he's probably lying and have thought so from the beginning. His story just seems wrong. I accept the possibility that the attack did happen but it seems very unlikely.

If he is lying I think he should be given the strictest possible charges for wasting police time and contributing to a climate of irrational anger and fear. I worry that this may not be what happens, given the notoriously limp wristed treatment celebrities often receive from the justice system.

I think the media and public figures on Twitter should own up to the fact that they eagerly jumped to support a story that was honestly shaky from the beginning. This one I know won't happen.

So, what say you, NSers?

1) No. The incident is just too weird for me. It could've happened, but I don't think it did.
2) Whatever punishment there is for false police reports, preferably the harshest to serve as an example.
3) They should, but they won't.

Vassenor wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:It's obvious this guy's full of shit. Two people in MAGA hats walking around during a polar vortex when being outside for more than 20 minutes can kill you looking for a black man to jump?

Bullshit.

You'd think after the Covington case the media would wait before jumping to conclusions...

Remember, basing reporting on evidence available at the time is jumping to conclusions and is bad.

At least until it's going a way conservatives like.

Ahh, this shit again.

when will you get tired of misrepresenting others' points?

Estanglia wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Remember, basing reporting on evidence available at the time is jumping to conclusions and is bad.

At least until it's going a way conservatives like.

Ahh, this shit again.

when will you get tired of misrepresenting others' points?

So what actually is their point then? Because my point is that both incidents they called "jumping to conclusions" were cases of reporting based on what the available evidence at the time said.

Vassenor wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:It's obvious this guy's full of shit. Two people in MAGA hats walking around during a polar vortex when being outside for more than 20 minutes can kill you looking for a black man to jump?

Bullshit.

You'd think after the Covington case the media would wait before jumping to conclusions...

Remember, basing reporting on evidence available at the time is jumping to conclusions and is bad.

At least until it's going a way conservatives like.

The thing is that if you report as soon as something happens your risk of misrepresenting the story dramatically increases. If the media had waited but a day before jumping all over the Covington incident then they would have given a much more complete and honest representation of the event.

In the case of Smollett, waiting a few days would have done the same. See, people often don't actually follow events very closely. If you give them a false understanding from the start then a lot of people will hold on to that even in the face of changing information.

Vassenor wrote:

Estanglia wrote:
Ahh, this shit again.

when will you get tired of misrepresenting others' points?

So what actually is their point then?

That media don't tend to question situations and instead use them to push a political message. And he is not singling out either the left or right since both sides do it.

Seems like you can get away with anything if you wear that red hat and live in America.

-Ocelot- wrote:Seems like you can get away with anything if you wear that red hat and live in America.

I'm, uh, not sure if you've been following but the guy who got attacked set the entire thing up.

Vassenor wrote:

Estanglia wrote:
Ahh, this shit again.

when will you get tired of misrepresenting others' points?

So what actually is their point then?

Everything but the last line of your post.

Adding in the

At least until it's going a way conservatives like.

Makes them sound like hypocrites, which, unless you've got some evidence you'd like to share, is a misrepresentation.

It's minor, but very irritating when you keep doing it.

-Ocelot- wrote:Seems like you can get away with anything if you wear that red hat and live in America.

So you think the attack happened?

Washington Resistance Army wrote:It always pretty clearly seemed like he was full of shit to me tbh. Parts of his original story just seemed weird and not how someone would actually act in that situation.

It is pretty amusing how so many people bought into it though, I wonder how many are gonna be willing to go back and condemn him now.

There's no reason not to assume he's a good faith actor, similar to how it was just a more logical assumption to believe the MAGAbomber was legitimate instead of some hoax (which many people alleged)

Of course, if the story is untrue (which, to be fair...) then he's an idiot who made it harder to argue against conspiracy theories like "crisis actors" and "false flags" because now people have an actual example to point to.

Fucking disgraceful.

Scomagia wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Remember, basing reporting on evidence available at the time is jumping to conclusions and is bad.

At least until it's going a way conservatives like.

The thing is that if you report as soon as something happens your risk of misrepresenting the story dramatically increases. If the media had waited but a day before jumping all over the Covington incident then they would have given a much more complete and honest representation of the event.

In the case of Smollett, waiting a few days would have done the same. See, people often don't actually follow events very closely. If you give them a false understanding from the start then a lot of people will hold on to that even in the face of changing information.

Yeah...good luck with that.

Scomagia wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Remember, basing reporting on evidence available at the time is jumping to conclusions and is bad.

At least until it's going a way conservatives like.

The thing is that if you report as soon as something happens your risk of misrepresenting the story dramatically increases. If the media had waited but a day before jumping all over the Covington incident then they would have given a much more complete and honest representation of the event.

In the case of Smollett, waiting a few days would have done the same. See, people often don't actually follow events very closely. If you give them a false understanding from the start then a lot of people will hold on to that even in the face of changing information.

So how do you plan to kill the 24 hour news cycle?

Scomagia wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Remember, basing reporting on evidence available at the time is jumping to conclusions and is bad.

At least until it's going a way conservatives like.

The thing is that if you report as soon as something happens your risk of misrepresenting the story dramatically increases. If the media had waited but a day before jumping all over the Covington incident then they would have given a much more complete and honest representation of the event.

In the case of Smollett, waiting a few days would have done the same. See, people often don't actually follow events very closely. If you give them a false understanding from the start then a lot of people will hold on to that even in the face of changing information.

You can't wait a day after the fact because someone else will have reported such a juicy story first, which means that you lose out on potential viewers and lose money. Shareholders are sad. Nobody wins.

You can't end this kind of reporting without ending the 24 hour news cycle, but the market craves it.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

-Ocelot- wrote:Seems like you can get away with anything if you wear that red hat and live in America.

I'm, uh, not sure if you've been following but the guy who got attacked set the entire thing up.

I know. just like the MAGA kids who were forced into mocking the vietnam vet.

Vassenor wrote:

Scomagia wrote:The thing is that if you report as soon as something happens your risk of misrepresenting the story dramatically increases. If the media had waited but a day before jumping all over the Covington incident then they would have given a much more complete and honest representation of the event.

In the case of Smollett, waiting a few days would have done the same. See, people often don't actually follow events very closely. If you give them a false understanding from the start then a lot of people will hold on to that even in the face of changing information.

So how do you plan to kill the 24 hour news cycle?

That's an inane response. You suggested that just rushing to the presses was fine. I pointed out how that is not so and that it's counter-productive to good journalism. I never suggested I had a solution to that problem.

An industry-wide switch from the advertising based model to a subscription based model might help but I doubt it's a total solution.

Scomagia wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So how do you plan to kill the 24 hour news cycle?

That's an inane response. You suggested that just rushing to the presses was fine. I pointed out how that is not so and that it's counter-productive to good journalism. I never suggested I had a solution to that problem.

An industry-wide switch from the advertising based model to a subscription based model might help but I doubt it's a total solution.

So basically end free access to information.

Scomagia wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So how do you plan to kill the 24 hour news cycle?

That's an inane response. You suggested that just rushing to the presses was fine. I pointed out how that is not so and that it's counter-productive to good journalism. I never suggested I had a solution to that problem.

An industry-wide switch from the advertising based model to a subscription based model might help but I doubt it's a total solution.

But it's been like 16 days between him first speaking about it and the police changing the direction of their investigation. How long should news sources wait before reporting the news?