CNN: Questions As To Whether Jussie Smollett Faked Attack (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

It's knell 

He's on a roll...

 

[avoiding injuries]

I’m not seeing any apologies yet from these leading Democrats for pushing this hoax. 

They did get the anti-lynching bill passed through the senate a few days ago. 

 

[Slapdash]

He's on a roll...

Shirley you knew that  

 

[pantherclub]

Try to keep up. We've been thiiiiiiiiis close to the final "death kneel" since 2003...

I am not going to pick a fight with you but you cannot argue that traffic on this board has basically slowed to a crawl.  There are a lot of factors for sure but over moderation is most certainly up there.  Favoring posters like Tim and protecting him isnt doing you any favors.

 

[zftcg]

Anyone else notice the irony of people waxing indignant about all the suckers who jumped to conclusions before all the facts were in doing the exact same thing about the hoax story? I haven't been following it super-closely, but as far as I can tell the only evidence we actually have of a hoax so far are some anonymous leaks from the Chicago police. I'm not saying I have any evidence that those leaks are wrong; based on what I've heard, it does sound like Smollett probably faked the attack. Still, I don't see how your takeaway from this entire incident could be anything other than "Beware of incomplete stories, especially the ones that confirm your existing biases."

I get it. You want everyone to know how finely-tuned your BS detector is, how you never bought what Smollett was selling for a minute. But do everyone -- yourself above all -- a favor and wait an extra couple days before taking your victory lap.

 

[sho nuff]

That's naive. Regardless of ideology, when people in that type of power with that type of following "react", it pushes the story forward. They realize this full well. 

I’d disagree...as I said early I’d wish they’d wait a bit and not just quickly react.  But that isn’t where we are. 

But the complaint rings hollow when it comes mostly from this who excuse other things so much.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Original CNN report:  Empire actor Jussie Smollett was attacked in the early morning hours on Tuesday in what Chicago police are calling a possible hate crime

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/entertainment/jussie-smollett-attack/index.html

"Empire" actor Jussie Smollett was attacked in the early morning hours on Tuesday in what Chicago police are calling a possible hate crime.

Smollett was attacked by two people who were "yelling out racial and homophobic slurs" and "poured an unknown chemical substance on the victim," police said.

This is sublinked:

The star of the tv show "Empire," Jussie Smollett, was attacked by two assailants early Monday morning in Downtown Chicago according to Chicago Police Department Spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi. 

Smollett, 36, was walking on the 300 block of E. North Lower Water Street when two men approached him and “gained his attention by yelling out racial and homophobic slurs towards him,” Guglielmi says in a statement.

CNN specifically reported what had happened. The police reported x, y and z. 

- I agree journalists and pundits ran way ahead of this, but this report was exactly as it was.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I’d disagree...as I said early I’d wish they’d wait a bit and not just quickly react.  But that isn’t where we are. 

But the complaint rings hollow when it comes mostly from this who excuse other things so much.

We'll just disagree then. And no idea what you mean about the complaint ringing hollow. I don't excuse other things. People with giant followings in positions of influence don't get to just and say they were just reacting. Their reactions move the discussion. 

 

[sho nuff]

It's all in the language, choice of words, etc. And quite blatant.

Original CNN report:  Empire actor Jussie Smollett was attacked in the early morning hours on Tuesday in what Chicago police are calling a possible hate crime.

Most recent CNN report:  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.

CNN's original headline was premature, inflammatory and falsely definitive.

And then, after more factual information about the attack being fake what do they do? Instead of denouncing the fakeness they go in the other direction and use word choices that cast doubt on the veracity of their sources. 

LOL if you think CNN would use this approach on a Trump-related topic.

FOX is equally guilty on conservative topics. So is the Wall St. Journal. But any reasonable person starting from scratch reading the "news" will quickly come to the conclusion that liberal outlets >> conservative outlets.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/entertainment/jussie-smollett-attack/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/16/entertainment/jussie-smollett-attack/index.html

It said possible right in that first thing from cnn.

And none of that is liberal or hugely liberal to report it the way they did.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I am not going to pick a fight with you but you cannot argue that traffic on this board has basically slowed to a crawl.  There are a lot of factors for sure but over moderation is most certainly up there.  Favoring posters like Tim and protecting him isnt doing you any favors.

I absolutely will argue that. The board is extremely active as it has been for years. The board has been on it's death bed since day one if you listen to some. That's ok. And no idea what you mean about protecting Tim but you believe whatever helps you there. All good. 

 

[sho nuff]

We'll just disagree then. And no idea what you mean about the complaint ringing hollow. I don't excuse other things. People with giant followings in positions of influence don't get to just and say they were just reacting. 

Sure we can disagree.  I’d just say the majority of those complaining the most and bringing up who tweeted about it...let me know when they come close to that contempt for others (and Inthink most know what I mean with that).

 

[zftcg]

It's all in the language, choice of words, etc. And quite blatant.

Original CNN report:  Empire actor Jussie Smollett was attacked in the early morning hours on Tuesday in what Chicago police are calling a possible hate crime.

Most recent CNN report:  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.

CNN's original headline was premature, inflammatory and falsely definitive.

And then, after more factual information about the attack being fake what do they do? Instead of denouncing the fakeness they go in the other direction and use word choices that cast doubt on the veracity of their sources. 

LOL if you think CNN would use this approach on a Trump-related topic.

FOX is equally guilty on conservative topics. So is the Wall St. Journal. But any reasonable person starting from scratch reading the "news" will quickly come to the conclusion that liberal outlets >> conservative outlets.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/entertainment/jussie-smollett-attack/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/16/entertainment/jussie-smollett-attack/index.html

Wow, you're really reaching here. CNN's original report was based on the official statement of the Chicago police. That is how news organizations report crime stories literally every day. Go watch your local news for five minutes and you'll see the same thing: "X happened, police report". I mean, what else is CNN supposed to say in that situation?

Meanwhile, the newest story is based on anonymous sources within the department. They can't report anything beyond that because the police haven't made any official statement yet.

 

[pantherclub]

I absolutely will argue that. The board is extremely active as it has been for years. The board has been on it's death bed since day one if you listen to some. That's ok. And no idea what you about protecting Tim but you believe whatever helps you there. All good. 

Dude you pull threads like the Yoga one and anything remotely close to objectifying women, but Tim, on top of everything else states as clear as day he wants a story about someone attacking a gay black man to be true so he can make some point about politics in America, Trump or whatever half baked idea he is trying to push at that moment.    Come on now.

 

[PhantomJB]

- I agree journalists and pundits ran way ahead of this, but this report was exactly as it was.

As I pointed out CNN's wordsmithing tactics are very common and transparent once you know what to look for.

 

[zftcg]

I absolutely will argue that. The board is extremely active as it has been for years. The board has been on it's death bed since day one if you listen to some. That's ok. And no idea what you mean about protecting Tim but you believe whatever helps you there. All good. 

I don't know about that, Joe. I distinctly noticed a drop-off starting right before the end of the year, and then it dropped even further on or around Feb. 3. I've racked my brain trying to think of something that couple explain it, but the only reason I can come up with is your liberal bias. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Sure we can disagree.  I’d just say the majority of those complaining the most and bringing up who tweeted about it...let me know when they come close to that contempt for others (and Inthink most know what I mean with that).

Are you suggesting some people lean more to one side than another and support or call out one side more than another? I'm not sure that's news. But thanks. 

 

[PhantomJB]

Wow, you're really reaching here. CNN's original report was based on the official statement of the Chicago police. That is how news organizations report crime stories literally every day. Go watch your local news for five minutes and you'll see the same thing: "X happened, police report". I mean, what else is CNN supposed to say in that situation?

Meanwhile, the newest story is based on anonymous sources within the department. They can't report anything beyond that because the police haven't made any official statement yet.

Like I said. It happens everywhere. Understanding a news outlet's agenda is essential to understanding the actual truth.

But there's no question. CNN is a news source that is sympathetic to liberal/progressive causes. Just need to apply that filter when reading them is all.

 

[Slapdash]

I don't know about that, Joe. I distinctly noticed a drop-off starting right before the end of the year, and then it dropped even further on or around Feb. 3. I've racked my brain trying to think of something that couple explain it, but the only reason I can come up with is your liberal bias. 

For real though, the board is much less posted on that it used to be.  I don't think that is unique to this board though.  There are a lot more competitors to message boards than there were 10-15 ago  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

As I pointed out CNN's wordsmithing tactics are very common and transparent once you know what to look for.

If you want to make a point about how people only read headlines or summaries on social media, instead of the story itself, I might agree with you. That happens all the time. That’s part of the problem, it seems like reading comprehension has gone down with every year of the internet.

I’d even say MSM, even including Fox’s main news media, is typically liberal, because those are the sorts of people that journalism attracts, I’d agree with you on that. I’d even call someone like Catherine Herridge liberal in the sense she thinks public information should be public, that’s a liberal idea, even if she may be reporting information unfavorable to Dems often.

But in my experience reading news articles themselves are by and large accurate, writers of all stripes follow the rules. The CNN piece you cited is one of them. There are definitely exceptions but that’s not one of them.

 

[timschochet]

I absolutely will argue that. The board is extremely active as it has been for years. The board has been on it's death bed since day one if you listen to some. That's ok. And no idea what you mean about protecting Tim but you believe whatever helps you there. All good. 

BTW Joe my monthly check is due. 

 

[timschochet]

Dude you pull threads like the Yoga one and anything remotely close to objectifying women, but Tim, on top of everything else states as clear as day he wants a story about someone attacking a gay black man to be true so he can make some point about politics in America, Trump or whatever half baked idea he is trying to push at that moment.    Come on now.

We were discussing confirmation bias earlier I believe...

 

[PhantomJB]

But in my experience reading news articles themselves are by and large accurate, writers of all stripes follow the rules. The CNN piece you cited is one of them. There are definitely exceptions but that’s not one of them.

Recent CNN Headline: "Howard Schultz calls Green New Deal immoral"

Actual quote from interview: "It's immoral to suggest that we can tally up 30, 40, 50 trillion of debt to solve a problem that can be solved in a different way." 

This is blatantly shabby and inaccurate reporting by CNN.

Prior to the quote Schultz openly supports climate change as a top priority. The word morality referred to burdening our children with more national debt.

However, instead of reporting more accurately Schultz's climate views, CNN chooses to throw massive shade on Schultz which, oh by the way, just happens to support the Democratic party's political goals.

Come on, man. This stuff is obvious.

ETA:  Apologies for that last part...unnecessary...it's obvious to me at least.

 

[AAABatteries]

you posted "I wanted it to be true"

just stop, log out, take a break.  You are unhinged

Yeah, you took him comment out of context.  Maybe you should log out and take a break.

 

[AAABatteries]

Paul just told us that his Mom died.

I heard his Mom is still alive.

I hope that’s not true because I’d hate to think that Paul would make something like that up.

I CAN’T BELIEVE YOU WANT PAUL’S MOM TO BE DEAD!!!

 

[EYLive]

A lot (too many) of you guys can't stay on topic. There are already threads about media bias. Don't be a chump.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Paul just told us that his Mom died.

I heard his Mom is still alive.

I hope that’s not true because I’d hate to think that Paul would make something like that up.

I CAN’T BELIEVE YOU WANT PAUL’S MOM TO BE DEAD!!!

Irony here is Tim is in the Hall of Fame of twisting people's words and intent around and attacking them here.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

We'll just disagree then. And no idea what you mean about the complaint ringing hollow. I don't excuse other things. People with giant followings in positions of influence don't get to just and say they were just reacting. Their reactions move the discussion. 

Maybe Pelosi et.al. could have been slightly more nuanced in their reactions (alleged attack vs. attack), but I don't have a serious problem with their reactions when this story broke.  They believed the alleged victim, which would have been right 99 times out of 100.  If they issue retractions now, that works for me.  As recently as just a few days ago, I was skeptical of this story but still assigned only about a 20% chance of it being a hoax.  Flat out lies about this sort of thing do happen, but they're very uncommon.

 

[timschochet]

Irony here is Tim is in the Hall of Fame of twisting people's words and intent around and attacking them here.  

Like rain on your wedding day. 

 

[timschochet]

Over at FreeRepublic.com, 9 out of 11 total discussions on the front page are about Jussie Smollett. I predict this, not the national emergency, will be the #1 story on right wing talk radio and will dominate Fox News for days to come...

 

[pbandy1]

But why would he want to? That’s the most bizarre part. Why take such a risk that could ruin your career? For what? 

he's a bit of a SJW for the left.

there is also 'rumors' that he was being written off Empire, which I don't personally believe to be true.

 

[pbandy1]

Then show it...don’t hit and run with this...show something credible that shows a “huge liberal slant” 

I mean, I shouldn't have to show you proof to convince you that there is a significant liberal bias in MSM... if you've watched the news in this country over the years, it should be painfully obvious. It is especially prevalent on Twitter and how articles are tweeted. Anyways:

Recent 2018 study from both Arizona State University and Texas A&M - "Meet the Press: Survey Evidence on Financial Journalists as Information Intermediaries" - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3279453

In 18 follow-up interviews with 462 financial journalists from NYT, WSJ, AP, WaPo and others, 17.63% said they were very liberal, 40.84% said somewhat liberal for a total of 58% journalists who lean left. The other side... 0.46% said they were very conservative, 3.94% said they were somewhat conservative for a total of 4.4% who lean right. 37% said they were moderate. And these were FINANCIAL journalists, not investigative journalists, which should tell you something.

On the other side of the spectrum, just 0.46% said they were “very conservative” and 3.94% described themselves as “somewhat conservative,” for a total of 4.4% of respondents leaning right. The other 37.12% said they were moderate.

Additionally, in terms of donations for Trump/Clinton, the Center of Public Integrity (known as an independent/non-partisan watchdog) found that out of 430 journalists, 88% donated to Clinton.

There is also the AllSides media bias ratings, which are based on blind-bias surveys, editorial reviews, 3rd party research (i.e. studies), user ratings and so on. Their findings:

Left: Huffington Post, MSNBC, Mother Jones

Lean left: ABC, CBS, CNN, The Economist, The Guardian, NBC, NPR, Politico, Time, The New Yorker, WaPo

Center: AP, BBC, NPR, Reuters, USA Today, WSJ

Lean right: Fox News, Washington Examiner

Right: Breitbart, NY Post, Daily Mail

It is a safe assumption that most people are getting their news (unfortunately) via watching TV (NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and for conservatives Fox).

 

[EYLive]

Living under an inept and corrupt Trump presidency will drive most people in the opposite direction. If decent intelligent people weren't leaning left before, they sure are now.

 

[jon_mx]

Maybe Pelosi et.al. could have been slightly more nuanced in their reactions (alleged attack vs. attack), but I don't have a serious problem with their reactions when this story broke.  They believed the alleged victim, which would have been right 99 times out of 100.  If they issue retractions now, that works for me.  As recently as just a few days ago, I was skeptical of this story but still assigned only about a 20% chance of it being a hoax.  Flat out lies about this sort of thing do happen, but they're very uncommon.

Normally victims don't lie to police and believing the jist of their story is appropriate.  But when there is money, publicity, or politics involved, you can throw that out the window and you need to look at the story skeptically.  

 

[The Future Champs]

I mean, I shouldn't have to show you proof to convince you that there is a significant liberal bias in MSM... if you've watched the news in this country over the years, it should be painfully obvious. It is especially prevalent on Twitter and how articles are tweeted. Anyways:

Recent 2018 study from both Arizona State University and Texas A&M - "Meet the Press: Survey Evidence on Financial Journalists as Information Intermediaries" - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3279453

In 18 follow-up interviews with 462 financial journalists from NYT, WSJ, AP, WaPo and others, 17.63% said they were very liberal, 40.84% said somewhat liberal for a total of 58% journalists who lean left. The other side... 0.46% said they were very conservative, 3.94% said they were somewhat conservative for a total of 4.4% who lean right. 37% said they were moderate. And these were FINANCIAL journalists, not investigative journalists, which should tell you something.

17.63% said they were “very liberal,” and 40.84% said they were “somewhat liberal,” for a total of 58.47% saying they lean left.

On the other side of the spectrum, just 0.46% said they were “very conservative” and 3.94% described themselves as “somewhat conservative,” for a total of 4.4% of respondents leaning right. The other 37.12% said they were moderate.

Additionally, in terms of donations for Trump/Clinton, the Center of Public Integrity (known as an independent/non-partisan watchdog) found that out of 430 journalists, 88% donated to Clinton.

There is also the AllSides media bias ratings, which are based on blind-bias surveys, editorial reviews, 3rd party research (i.e. studies), user ratings and so on. Their findings:

Left: Huffington Post, MSNBC, Mother Jones

Lean left: ABC, CBS, CNN, The Economist, The Guardian, NBC, NPR, Politico, Time, The New Yorker, WaPo

Center: AP, BBC, NPR, Reuters, USA Today, WSJ

Lean right: Fox News, Washington Examiner

Right: Breitbart, NY Post, Daily Mail

It is a safe assumption that most people are getting their news (unfortunately) via watching TV (NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and for conservatives Fox).

In what ####### world does The Economist lean left, while Fox News only leans right?   

 

[The Future Champs]

Additionally, 88% of journalists donating to Clinton, instead of Trump, might just have something to do with Trump being a 

 

[jon_mx]

Additionally, 88% of journalists donating to Clinton, instead of Trump, might just have something to do with Trump being a 

It was the same for Reagan, both Bushes, and Romney.  

 

[knowledge dropper]

I’m not seeing any apologies yet from these leading Democrats for pushing this hoax. 

They need to be careful they don’t say anything that will upset the base in the primaries.  

 

[lod001]

This guy is just another unhinged lefty who came up with a really stupid idea to attack Trump. Somehow 2 guys all bundled up can tell that another guy, all bundled up, is gay. A lengthy prison term is warranted for that racist scheme.

 

[GoBirds]

This guy is just another unhinged lefty who came up with a really stupid idea to attack Trump. Somehow 2 guys all bundled up can tell that another guy, all bundled up, is gay. A lengthy prison term is warranted for that racist scheme.

Just think of how many crazy ideas like this don’t get exposed. 

 

[avoiding injuries]

Just think of how many crazy ideas like this don’t get exposed. 

Well, this thread here wasn’t started until yesterday. A couple weeks after the story broke. (Not sure if it was discussed in other threads, but it definitely deserved its own)

 

[parasaurolophus]

Anyone else notice the irony of people waxing indignant about all the suckers who jumped to conclusions before all the facts were in doing the exact same thing about the hoax story? I haven't been following it super-closely, but as far as I can tell the only evidence we actually have of a hoax so far are some anonymous leaks from the Chicago police. I'm not saying I have any evidence that those leaks are wrong; based on what I've heard, it does sound like Smollett probably faked the attack. Still, I don't see how your takeaway from this entire incident could be anything other than "Beware of incomplete stories, especially the ones that confirm your existing biases."

This is a very poor representation of what we know about this case. 

We know he has lied. We know the details provided do not make logical sense. 

We dont need to know the exact depths of how this was perpetrated to know this story was bs. 

Even if it turns out that he was meeting these two guys to discuss payment for past personal training sessions and he stiffed them so they beat him up does that somehow make it better? We know it wasnt two white guys shouting this is maga country. 

There is enough we know for certain to know that the original story was bs. Thats all we need. Whether it was planned in advance, rehearsed, etc. Really just determines if he should go to jail or not. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

Ok  

THIS   was in the guns thread I believe, but can't remember who provided the link originally.  

What is being argued is that there is a difference between liberal slant and huge liberal bias.  Also I hear people talk about Fox's slant as though it's the same level as NPR's or NYT's slant.

 

[GoBirds]

Well, this thread here wasn’t started until yesterday. A couple weeks after the story broke. (Not sure if it was discussed in other threads, but it definitely deserved its own)

Apparently there was one started initially but it was deleted by mods. I haven't followed though that's just what I saw posted. 

 

[adonis]

If he broke the law, put him in jail or whatever the appropriate penalty is.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

THIS   was in the guns thread I believe, but can't remember who provided the link originally.  

What is being argued is that there is a difference between liberal slant and huge liberal bias.  Also I hear people talk about Fox's slant as though it's the same level as NPR's or NYT's slant.

Cnn not being at least solidly in the "skews liberal" makes me wonder about that chart

 

[timschochet]

Since this topic is in the political forum, let’s look at what is important about the issue of hate crimes, which are based on statistics, not anecdotes: 

https://www.hrc.org/blog/new-fbi-statistics-show-alarming-increase-in-number-of-reported-hate-crimes

These numbers are from the FBI and there are two vital facts: 

1. Since the start of the Trump era, the number of hate crimes have jumped by 17%, an unprecedented increase. 

2. The vast majority of reported hate crimes are real. 

It looks very much like Jussie Smollett falsified his claim of a hate crime, amd that’s awful and pathetic. But nobody should take any larger meaning from it. The truth is that hate crimes are occurring at a higher rate than ever. 

 

[timschochet]

Cnn not being at least solidly in the "skews liberal" makes me wonder about that chart

I don’t think CNN skews liberal at all. 

In fact I find them annoyingly neutral. Annoying because no matter what the subject is, whenever there is a discussion they feel the absolute need to have both conservatives and liberals in the panel. Not every issue requires this IMO. 

 

[Osaurus]

I don’t think CNN skews liberal at all. 

In fact I find them annoyingly neutral. Annoying because no matter what the subject is, whenever there is a discussion they feel the absolute need to have both conservatives and liberals in the panel. Not every issue requires this IMO. 

Seriously?  

 

[timschochet]

Seriously?  

Yes. 

 

[Cowboysfan8]

I don’t think CNN skews liberal at all. 

I didn't expect you to

Like pretty much every topic in the PSF we could go round and round for hours and drop it feeling the same way we did at the beginning or just let it go now

I'm not going round and round for hours