Thoughts as the onion is peeled

The "onion" that is the Jussie Smollett (JS) affair having had new layers "peeled," I've got several thoughts/questions:

1. Why is the matter newsworthy, thus in the news at all?
   
   JS is a minor celebrity, but even were he a major one, he and his doings are of no material consequence to a damn thing that matters. He makes no public policy, nor is he an arbiter of it. He's not an executive running a firm having global or national impact. He's not a renowned intellectual who's accomplishments drive public policy, save lives, etc. He's has no widely acclaimed cultural or humanitarian achievements, nor was he recognized as a paragon of probity.
   
   What JS' been charged with is a boorish act that, were anyone not on a TV show so indicted, few folks would notice, much less discuss. The ignominy of that response is, IMO, what was fitting from the start, to say nothing of now.
   Perhaps JS availed himself of his name recognition to "place" the matter in the media. But even if he did, I still don't see him as relevant enough to have moved news programs (I can't say "networks" because ostensible news networks carry various kinds of content/programs), as opposed to daytime talk and other celebrity gossip-oriented entertainment programs, to have picked-up the story. I mean, really. What of import will people do differently as a result of knowing about JS' alleged charade? Nothing.
   
   Mind, I don't think that everything news programs report and discuss need be "Earth shattering;" however, I do think it all needs to pertain to things and people who actually matter (or once did). As go actors, musicians, magicians, dancers, sports figures, and the like, well, on TMZ, Us Weekly, People, etc., sure they matter, but among fodder options for the nightly news and amid all the consequential things going on in the world that will affect nearly everyone and their descendants, no, they don't matter. Sure give them a brief mention when they die or win an Oscar, Grammy, Tony, build a school, found a cultural movement, etc., but their pedestrian malefactions, IMO, just don't rate.
2. Once again we find liberals accepting facts' relevance, brokering no blind fealty to "flag rally," and ridiculing one of their own, despite the sociopolitical discomfiture of doing so.
   
   As matter's details have emerged, liberal commentators haven't demurred to accept verisimility. They have stopped defending him, and from the get-go quite some doubted JS' credulity based on the circumstantial facts of the initial report. JS, of course, isn't the first person who's found liberals incline to subjugate their pathos to logos. One needn't be a liberal to do that, but it seems in relative preponderance that liberals do and conservatives don't.
3. Assuming the matter culminates in JS being found or pleading guilty, the stunt he pulled strikes me much as does well-heeled folks' shoplifting.
   
   The man is young, handsome, presumably affable, has (maybe soon to be "had") a good job and the potential for a charmed life ahead of him, and he may well have ruined it. Something's got to be amiss in his head.
4. The JS affair illustrates, yet again, that whatever one's aim, lying isn't the way to achieve it. We all know that, yet it seems that for some folks we hold their lies against them and hastily exact upon them the consequences of having lied. We need to do that universally, yet we don't.

Xelor said:

The "onion" that is the Jussie Smollett (JS) affair having had new layers "peeled," I've got several thoughts/questions:

1. Why is the matter newsworthy, thus in the news at all?
   
   JS is a minor celebrity, but even were he a major one, he and his doings are of no material consequence to a damn thing that matters. He makes no public policy, nor is he an arbiter of it. He's not an executive running a firm having global or national impact. He's not a renowned intellectual who's accomplishments drive public policy, save lives, etc. He's has no widely acclaimed cultural or humanitarian achievements, nor was he recognized as a paragon of probity.
   
   What JS' been charged with is a boorish act that, were anyone not on a TV show so indicted, few folks would notice, much less discuss. The ignominy of that response is, IMO, what was fitting from the start, to say nothing of now.
   Perhaps JS availed himself of his name recognition to "place" the matter in the media. But even if he did, I still don't see him as relevant enough to have moved news programs (I can't say "networks" because ostensible news networks carry various kinds of content/programs), as opposed to daytime talk and other celebrity gossip-oriented entertainment programs, to have picked-up the story. I mean, really. What of import will people do differently as a result of knowing about JS' alleged charade? Nothing.
   
   Mind, I don't think that everything news programs report and discuss need be "Earth shattering;" however, I do think it all needs to pertain to things and people who actually matter (or once did). As go actors, musicians, magicians, dancers, sports figures, and the like, well, on TMZ, Us Weekly, People, etc., sure they matter, but among fodder options for the nightly news and amid all the consequential things going on in the world that will affect nearly everyone and their descendants, no, they don't matter. Sure give them a brief mention when they die or win an Oscar, Grammy, Tony, build a school, found a cultural movement, etc., but their pedestrian malefactions, IMO, just don't rate.
2. Once again we find liberals accepting facts' relevance, brokering no blind fealty to "flag rally," and ridiculing one of their own, despite the sociopolitical discomfiture of doing so.
   
   As matter's details have emerged, liberal commentators haven't demurred to accept verisimility. They have stopped defending him, and from the get-go quite some doubted JS' credulity based on the circumstantial facts of the initial report. JS, of course, isn't the first person who's found liberals incline to subjugate their pathos to logos. One needn't be a liberal to do that, but it seems in relative preponderance that liberals do and conservatives don't.
3. Assuming the matter culminates in JS being found or pleading guilty, the stunt he pulled strikes me much as does well-heeled folks' shoplifting.
   
   The man is young, handsome, presumably affable, has (maybe soon to be "had") a good job and the potential for a charmed life ahead of him, and he may well have ruined it. Something's got to be amiss in his head.
4. The JS affair illustrates, yet again, that whatever one's aim, lying isn't the way to achieve it. We all know that, yet it seems that for some folks we hold their lies against them and hastily exact upon them the consequences of having lied. We need to do that universally, yet we don't.

Click to expand...

I think the issue is two fold in Smollett' case.
One being that he has been extremely vocal in the political arena and even going so far as to partner up with Kamala Harris in several occasions. This coupled with the apparently political nature of the attack, not to mention the racial leanings of it. Just opened the flood gates for the media to jump so heavily on the story. This being fueled by JS's repeated mentions in the media and on social media, only served to throw those gates open further.

Secondly, this is mostly on the backs of the Chicago PD as well. Seeing their history with such crimes and the amount of crimes concerning people like Smollett, be them gay, or a minority. It made the case just too high profile for them to submit the normal amount of bodies to the job and it placed a new lens on their office as a whole.

The terminology for this would be a perfect storm. If only to account for the **** that was to hit the fan in the end.

Xelor said:

The "onion" that is the Jussie Smollett (JS) affair having had new layers "peeled," I've got several thoughts/questions:

1. Why is the matter newsworthy, thus in the news at all?
   
   JS is a minor celebrity, but even were he a major one, he and his doings are of no material consequence to a damn thing that matters. He makes no public policy, nor is he an arbiter of it. He's not an executive running a firm having global or national impact. He's not a renowned intellectual who's accomplishments drive public policy, save lives, etc. He's has no widely acclaimed cultural or humanitarian achievements, nor was he recognized as a paragon of probity.
   
   What JS' been charged with is a boorish act that, were anyone not on a TV show so indicted, few folks would notice, much less discuss. The ignominy of that response is, IMO, what was fitting from the start, to say nothing of now.
   Perhaps JS availed himself of his name recognition to "place" the matter in the media. But even if he did, I still don't see him as relevant enough to have moved news programs (I can't say "networks" because ostensible news networks carry various kinds of content/programs), as opposed to daytime talk and other celebrity gossip-oriented entertainment programs, to have picked-up the story. I mean, really. What of import will people do differently as a result of knowing about JS' alleged charade? Nothing.
   
   Mind, I don't think that everything news programs report and discuss need be "Earth shattering;" however, I do think it all needs to pertain to things and people who actually matter (or once did). As go actors, musicians, magicians, dancers, sports figures, and the like, well, on TMZ, Us Weekly, People, etc., sure they matter, but among fodder options for the nightly news and amid all the consequential things going on in the world that will affect nearly everyone and their descendants, no, they don't matter. Sure give them a brief mention when they die or win an Oscar, Grammy, Tony, build a school, found a cultural movement, etc., but their pedestrian malefactions, IMO, just don't rate.
2. Once again we find liberals accepting facts' relevance, brokering no blind fealty to "flag rally," and ridiculing one of their own, despite the sociopolitical discomfiture of doing so.
   
   As matter's details have emerged, liberal commentators haven't demurred to accept verisimility. They have stopped defending him, and from the get-go quite some doubted JS' credulity based on the circumstantial facts of the initial report. JS, of course, isn't the first person who's found liberals incline to subjugate their pathos to logos. One needn't be a liberal to do that, but it seems in relative preponderance that liberals do and conservatives don't.
3. Assuming the matter culminates in JS being found or pleading guilty, the stunt he pulled strikes me much as does well-heeled folks' shoplifting.
   
   The man is young, handsome, presumably affable, has (maybe soon to be "had") a good job and the potential for a charmed life ahead of him, and he may well have ruined it. Something's got to be amiss in his head.
4. The JS affair illustrates, yet again, that whatever one's aim, lying isn't the way to achieve it. We all know that, yet it seems that for some folks we hold their lies against them and hastily exact upon them the consequences of having lied. We need to do that universally, yet we don't.

Click to expand...

The reason this is a big deal is because when the media and the left saw it as an opprotunity to smear trump supporters they made it a big deal. Now its their turn to eat crow and commit to the same unconditional condemnation that they demanded from the ones they defamed. You guys dont get to sweep this umder the rug like it never happened.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Xelor said:

The "onion" that is the Jussie Smollett (JS) affair having had new layers "peeled," I've got several thoughts/questions:

1. Why is the matter newsworthy, thus in the news at all?
   
   JS is a minor celebrity, but even were he a major one, he and his doings are of no material consequence to a damn thing that matters. He makes no public policy, nor is he an arbiter of it. He's not an executive running a firm having global or national impact. He's not a renowned intellectual who's accomplishments drive public policy, save lives, etc. He's has no widely acclaimed cultural or humanitarian achievements, nor was he recognized as a paragon of probity.
   
   What JS' been charged with is a boorish act that, were anyone not on a TV show so indicted, few folks would notice, much less discuss. The ignominy of that response is, IMO, what was fitting from the start, to say nothing of now.
   Perhaps JS availed himself of his name recognition to "place" the matter in the media. But even if he did, I still don't see him as relevant enough to have moved news programs (I can't say "networks" because ostensible news networks carry various kinds of content/programs), as opposed to daytime talk and other celebrity gossip-oriented entertainment programs, to have picked-up the story. I mean, really. What of import will people do differently as a result of knowing about JS' alleged charade? Nothing.
   
   Mind, I don't think that everything news programs report and discuss need be "Earth shattering;" however, I do think it all needs to pertain to things and people who actually matter (or once did). As go actors, musicians, magicians, dancers, sports figures, and the like, well, on TMZ, Us Weekly, People, etc., sure they matter, but among fodder options for the nightly news and amid all the consequential things going on in the world that will affect nearly everyone and their descendants, no, they don't matter. Sure give them a brief mention when they die or win an Oscar, Grammy, Tony, build a school, found a cultural movement, etc., but their pedestrian malefactions, IMO, just don't rate.
2. Once again we find liberals accepting facts' relevance, brokering no blind fealty to "flag rally," and ridiculing one of their own, despite the sociopolitical discomfiture of doing so.
   
   As matter's details have emerged, liberal commentators haven't demurred to accept verisimility. They have stopped defending him, and from the get-go quite some doubted JS' credulity based on the circumstantial facts of the initial report. JS, of course, isn't the first person who's found liberals incline to subjugate their pathos to logos. One needn't be a liberal to do that, but it seems in relative preponderance that liberals do and conservatives don't.
3. Assuming the matter culminates in JS being found or pleading guilty, the stunt he pulled strikes me much as does well-heeled folks' shoplifting.
   
   The man is young, handsome, presumably affable, has (maybe soon to be "had") a good job and the potential for a charmed life ahead of him, and he may well have ruined it. Something's got to be amiss in his head.
4. The JS affair illustrates, yet again, that whatever one's aim, lying isn't the way to achieve it. We all know that, yet it seems that for some folks we hold their lies against them and hastily exact upon them the consequences of having lied. We need to do that universally, yet we don't.

Click to expand...

There is a pattern that should be easily recognizable. The reason this is a story is simply to push the narrative that Trump supporters are racist bigots intent of harming black people. It is the same reason that the Covington Kids got national headlines. The media thinks they have a story that pushes forward their narrative and jump on it with both feet before doing any sort of actual fact checking.

Nap said:

There is a pattern that should be easily recognizable. The reason this is a story is simply to push the narrative that Trump supporters are racist bigots intent of harming black people. It is the same reason that the Covington Kids got national headlines. The media thinks they have a story that pushes forward their narrative and jump on it with both feet before doing any sort of actual fact checking.

Click to expand...

No, on that point I would argue that it's more of an internal bias when it comes to stories like that. Almost all of these organizations just look at the story of one group and will continue to copy/paste it across the board. Without any concern for actually fact checking the story for themselves.

Could eventually be as simple as one sour apple ruining the bunch and all that.

Xelor said:

The "onion" that is the Jussie Smollett (JS) affair having had new layers "peeled," I've got several thoughts/questions:

1. Why is the matter newsworthy, thus in the news at all?
   
   JS is a minor celebrity, but even were he a major one, he and his doings are of no material consequence to a damn thing that matters. He makes no public policy, nor is he an arbiter of it. He's not an executive running a firm having global or national impact. He's not a renowned intellectual who's accomplishments drive public policy, save lives, etc. He's has no widely acclaimed cultural or humanitarian achievements, nor was he recognized as a paragon of probity.
   
   What JS' been charged with is a boorish act that, were anyone not on a TV show so indicted, few folks would notice, much less discuss. The ignominy of that response is, IMO, what was fitting from the start, to say nothing of now.
   Perhaps JS availed himself of his name recognition to "place" the matter in the media. But even if he did, I still don't see him as relevant enough to have moved news programs (I can't say "networks" because ostensible news networks carry various kinds of content/programs), as opposed to daytime talk and other celebrity gossip-oriented entertainment programs, to have picked-up the story. I mean, really. What of import will people do differently as a result of knowing about JS' alleged charade? Nothing.
   
   Mind, I don't think that everything news programs report and discuss need be "Earth shattering;" however, I do think it all needs to pertain to things and people who actually matter (or once did). As go actors, musicians, magicians, dancers, sports figures, and the like, well, on TMZ, Us Weekly, People, etc., sure they matter, but among fodder options for the nightly news and amid all the consequential things going on in the world that will affect nearly everyone and their descendants, no, they don't matter. Sure give them a brief mention when they die or win an Oscar, Grammy, Tony, build a school, found a cultural movement, etc., but their pedestrian malefactions, IMO, just don't rate.
2. Once again we find liberals accepting facts' relevance, brokering no blind fealty to "flag rally," and ridiculing one of their own, despite the sociopolitical discomfiture of doing so.
   
   As matter's details have emerged, liberal commentators haven't demurred to accept verisimility. They have stopped defending him, and from the get-go quite some doubted JS' credulity based on the circumstantial facts of the initial report. JS, of course, isn't the first person who's found liberals incline to subjugate their pathos to logos. One needn't be a liberal to do that, but it seems in relative preponderance that liberals do and conservatives don't.
3. Assuming the matter culminates in JS being found or pleading guilty, the stunt he pulled strikes me much as does well-heeled folks' shoplifting.
   
   The man is young, handsome, presumably affable, has (maybe soon to be "had") a good job and the potential for a charmed life ahead of him, and he may well have ruined it. Something's got to be amiss in his head.
4. The JS affair illustrates, yet again, that whatever one's aim, lying isn't the way to achieve it. We all know that, yet it seems that for some folks we hold their lies against them and hastily exact upon them the consequences of having lied. We need to do that universally, yet we don't.

Click to expand...

What I find interesting about your post is that you talk about how liberals condemn <insert whatever here> and conservatives don't...while your over arching statement is wondering why JS is even worthy of being in the nightly news, presumably even from the very beginning since you talk about him as having "no material consequence to a damn thing that matters" etc etc.

Essentially this is what your post boils down to for me. "Liberals good, conservatives bad, lets get JS out of the news asap because he's giving liberals a bad name".

Blah...blah...blather....blather. The Left did this. The Right did that.....gibberish.

It now appears to without doubt be a publicity stunt. Our problem is that Celebrity has been elevated to a level of importance in this country that is just absurd.

That Smollett did not seem to understand that in the construction of this particular publicity stunt he was going to absorb not just media and PR assets but Chicago Public Safety assets is HIS problem.

That we have elevate Celebrity to the level we have elevated it to in this country is OUR problem. It is partially responsible for the dunce cap we have in the WH.

Fat Donald in one sense is Smollett to the third power. They are in that sense expressions of the same problem assuming that this Smollett mess plays out as it appears to be playing out.

Xelor said:

The "onion" that is the Jussie Smollett (JS) affair having had new layers "peeled," I've got several thoughts/questions:

1. Why is the matter newsworthy, thus in the news at all?
   
   JS is a minor celebrity, but even were he a major one, he and his doings are of no material consequence to a damn thing that matters. He makes no public policy, nor is he an arbiter of it. He's not an executive running a firm having global or national impact. He's not a renowned intellectual who's accomplishments drive public policy, save lives, etc. He's has no widely acclaimed cultural or humanitarian achievements, nor was he recognized as a paragon of probity.
   
   What JS' been charged with is a boorish act that, were anyone not on a TV show so indicted, few folks would notice, much less discuss. The ignominy of that response is, IMO, what was fitting from the start, to say nothing of now.
   Perhaps JS availed himself of his name recognition to "place" the matter in the media. But even if he did, I still don't see him as relevant enough to have moved news programs (I can't say "networks" because ostensible news networks carry various kinds of content/programs), as opposed to daytime talk and other celebrity gossip-oriented entertainment programs, to have picked-up the story. I mean, really. What of import will people do differently as a result of knowing about JS' alleged charade? Nothing.
   
   Mind, I don't think that everything news programs report and discuss need be "Earth shattering;" however, I do think it all needs to pertain to things and people who actually matter (or once did). As go actors, musicians, magicians, dancers, sports figures, and the like, well, on TMZ, Us Weekly, People, etc., sure they matter, but among fodder options for the nightly news and amid all the consequential things going on in the world that will affect nearly everyone and their descendants, no, they don't matter. Sure give them a brief mention when they die or win an Oscar, Grammy, Tony, build a school, found a cultural movement, etc., but their pedestrian malefactions, IMO, just don't rate.
2. Once again we find liberals accepting facts' relevance, brokering no blind fealty to "flag rally," and ridiculing one of their own, despite the sociopolitical discomfiture of doing so.
   
   As matter's details have emerged, liberal commentators haven't demurred to accept verisimility. They have stopped defending him, and from the get-go quite some doubted JS' credulity based on the circumstantial facts of the initial report. JS, of course, isn't the first person who's found liberals incline to subjugate their pathos to logos. One needn't be a liberal to do that, but it seems in relative preponderance that liberals do and conservatives don't.
3. Assuming the matter culminates in JS being found or pleading guilty, the stunt he pulled strikes me much as does well-heeled folks' shoplifting.
   
   The man is young, handsome, presumably affable, has (maybe soon to be "had") a good job and the potential for a charmed life ahead of him, and he may well have ruined it. Something's got to be amiss in his head.
4. The JS affair illustrates, yet again, that whatever one's aim, lying isn't the way to achieve it. We all know that, yet it seems that for some folks we hold their lies against them and hastily exact upon them the consequences of having lied. We need to do that universally, yet we don't.

Click to expand...

It repersents a simple example of the MSM NEWS mentality. "Look here, not here," would describe a type of censorship by omission. Let's not print Global Warming. Let's not print Venezuela. Let's not print Syria. Let's not print Yemen. Let's not print Libya. Let's not print deficit. Let's not print Investigative Reporting and serious issues of the USA and World. That is what I see. News triviality to keep the masses distracted from serious negative issues. I think it is organized and intentional.
/

DaveFagan said:

It repersents a simple example of the MSM NEWS mentality. "Look here, not here," would describe a type of censorship by omission. Let's not print Global Warming. Let's not print Venezuela. Let's not print Syria. Let's not print Yemen. Let's not print Libya. Let's not print deficit. Let's not print Investigative Reporting and serious issues of the USA and World. That is what I see. News triviality to keep the masses distracted from serious negative issues. I think it is organized and intentional.
/

Click to expand...

The one is a cause and the other is an effect. MSM at least in the form of Cable News does not have reporting assets. They have CELEBRITIES.....talking head pundits and pretty faces and a scant few reporters to keep up the facade that they are actually "news sources". That is how their money and assets are spread because THEY have sold out to celebrity and sizzle and ratings.

All they do is pull news pieces from the few remaining reporting assets we have in this country and in fact in this world and opine on them all day long. They are not capable of reporting a darned thing. In fact, William Arkin resigned from NBC for exactly that reason claiming on his way out the door that there was simply no space provided for "reporting" in the modern era of Network and Cable News. He is correct.

None of them have news reporters on the ground reporting from Yemen or any other place we might like to know more about. There are Free Agent Journalists on the ground reporting and when they have something that Producers and Editors in their cushy NY studios think can be more sizzling hot, more of a BOMBSHELL than some Celebrity BS or some idiot trumpian tweet (same thing), they give it some air time.

The combination of the Internet and loosening Public Service requirements on Broadcast and Cable Networks has created a cesspool of sizzle. We are getting just about what we deserve in more ways than one. Some hours of the day of Cable News for example are utter drivel....complete and total nonsense.

I wouldn't feel one bit sorry for Jussie Smollet actually did get his ass kicked really good after this racist Me Too fake victim-hood

Xelor said:

The "onion" that is the Jussie Smollett (JS) affair having had new layers "peeled," I've got several thoughts/questions:

1. Why is the matter newsworthy, thus in the news at all?
   
   JS is a minor celebrity, but even were he a major one, he and his doings are of no material consequence to a damn thing that matters. He makes no public policy, nor is he an arbiter of it. He's not an executive running a firm having global or national impact. He's not a renowned intellectual who's accomplishments drive public policy, save lives, etc. He's has no widely acclaimed cultural or humanitarian achievements, nor was he recognized as a paragon of probity.
   
   What JS' been charged with is a boorish act that, were anyone not on a TV show so indicted, few folks would notice, much less discuss. The ignominy of that response is, IMO, what was fitting from the start, to say nothing of now.
   Perhaps JS availed himself of his name recognition to "place" the matter in the media. But even if he did, I still don't see him as relevant enough to have moved news programs (I can't say "networks" because ostensible news networks carry various kinds of content/programs), as opposed to daytime talk and other celebrity gossip-oriented entertainment programs, to have picked-up the story. I mean, really. What of import will people do differently as a result of knowing about JS' alleged charade? Nothing.
   
   Mind, I don't think that everything news programs report and discuss need be "Earth shattering;" however, I do think it all needs to pertain to things and people who actually matter (or once did). As go actors, musicians, magicians, dancers, sports figures, and the like, well, on TMZ, Us Weekly, People, etc., sure they matter, but among fodder options for the nightly news and amid all the consequential things going on in the world that will affect nearly everyone and their descendants, no, they don't matter. Sure give them a brief mention when they die or win an Oscar, Grammy, Tony, build a school, found a cultural movement, etc., but their pedestrian malefactions, IMO, just don't rate.
2. Once again we find liberals accepting facts' relevance, brokering no blind fealty to "flag rally," and ridiculing one of their own, despite the sociopolitical discomfiture of doing so.
   
   As matter's details have emerged, liberal commentators haven't demurred to accept verisimility. They have stopped defending him, and from the get-go quite some doubted JS' credulity based on the circumstantial facts of the initial report. JS, of course, isn't the first person who's found liberals incline to subjugate their pathos to logos. One needn't be a liberal to do that, but it seems in relative preponderance that liberals do and conservatives don't.
3. Assuming the matter culminates in JS being found or pleading guilty, the stunt he pulled strikes me much as does well-heeled folks' shoplifting.
   
   The man is young, handsome, presumably affable, has (maybe soon to be "had") a good job and the potential for a charmed life ahead of him, and he may well have ruined it. Something's got to be amiss in his head.
4. The JS affair illustrates, yet again, that whatever one's aim, lying isn't the way to achieve it. We all know that, yet it seems that for some folks we hold their lies against them and hastily exact upon them the consequences of having lied. We need to do that universally, yet we don't.

Click to expand...

This was a fantastically stupid stunt to pull. But I guess now everyone knows his name.

Note that:

1) the real danger is that the Postal Inspectors will track down who sent him the threat letter. That’s a federal felony.

2) the CPD has a mechanism where, if found guilty, he will be paying for the resources diverted because of his false report. That’s gonna cost him.

3) in the meantime, between the letter and his court appearance, about 20 people have been murdered in Chicago with about 100 wounded by gunfire. Only six arrests have been made.

jnug said:

Blah...blah...blather....blather. The Left did this. The Right did that.....gibberish.

It now appears to without doubt be a publicity stunt. Our problem is that Celebrity has been elevated to a level of importance in this country that is just absurd.

That Smollett did not seem to understand that in the construction of this particular publicity stunt he was going to absorb not just media and PR assets but Chicago Public Safety assets is HIS problem.

That we have elevate Celebrity to the level we have elevated it to in this country is OUR problem. It is partially responsible for the dunce cap we have in the WH.

Fat Donald in one sense is Smollett to the third power. They are in that sense expressions of the same problem assuming that this Smollett mess plays out as it appears to be playing out.

Click to expand...

An excellent thread here, and yours is probably the best description of my thoughts on the matter. Like everybody else was sucked in by Jussie's story, so was the media. Instead of being complicit as they are in so many other stories, they too were fooled by Jussie's actions.

Some on the CT side think he was in cahoots with K. Harris and another politician whose name escapes me at the moment.

A trivial crime really, but a sign of the times.

Thoreau72 said:

An excellent thread here, and yours is probably the best description of my thoughts on the matter. Like everybody else was sucked in by Jussie's story, so was the media. Instead of being complicit as they are in so many other stories, they too were fooled by Jussie's actions.

Some on the CT side think he was in cahoots with K. Harris and another politician whose name escapes me at the moment.

A trivial crime really, but a sign of the times.

Click to expand...

No one was ‘fooled’.

The media reported what he said and what the CPD said.

Threegoofs said:

No one was ‘fooled’.

The media reported what he said and what the CPD said.

Click to expand...

That is true. I and many others including the media (apparently) were fooled by JS. We believed his story, but like so many stories told these days in the media, it failed under close examination.

Thoreau72 said:

That is true. I and many others including the media (apparently) were fooled by JS. We believed his story, but like so many stories told these days in the media, it failed under close examination.

Click to expand...

By ‘no one’ I meant ‘The Media’.

They reported the story as it was told.

You might have been fooled, but judging from your past posts and CT theories, you’ll pretty much fall for anything. Not a real high bar, there...

News Media certainly allowed its own issues to cause it to knee jerk set its hair on fire which led to massive editorializing which led to more setting of hair on fire. The Robert's interview was totally uncalled for in its place in time regardless of how this eventually turns out.

Wrong interview...wrong interviewer....wrong...wrong...wrong!

Threegoofs said:

By ‘no one’ I meant ‘The Media’.

They reported the story as it was told.

You might have been fooled, but judging from your past posts and CT theories, you’ll pretty much fall for anything. Not a real high bar, there...

Click to expand...

Yes, I've been fooled many times, but I was conditioned from an early age to admit when I'm wrong. I have done that. JS fooled me and the media too, it appears. I was wrong. It turns out he was quite an amateur, as so many things revealed his deception. I fall quickly sometimes, but manage to get back on my feet.

Some people are easily deceived and go many years before they realize they were fooled. C'est la vie.

Had Jessie not added the claim that the attackers yelled "This is MAGA country", it probably would have been a one or two days of minor mention in the media, and gone away

Some additional thoughts and observations:

• Black and gay folks seem, based on what I've heard from TV commentators and the smattering of Black folks with whom I've discussed the matter, have been far tougher on JS (from the start, frankly) than have been whites.
  
  As one of my Black friends explained, Blacks have long suffered the effects of deleterious generalizations. JS' notoriety just creates an opportunity for replays and resurrections of those generalizations and, in turn, makes for more work to combat them. I don't know to what extent either will occur, but I understand the phenomenon and concern and acknowledge their legitimacy.
• The JS matter offers multiple learning/illustrative opportunities. One is how crucial it is to refrain from forming opinions about matters one doesn't well understand.
  
  Concomitant with my perplexity/astonishment that the matter made the news, I paid little "early" attention to it. Accordingly, I construed what little in terms of my own experiences and habits. That was improvident for anticipating accurately subsequent events.
  
  For example, as a city dweller, it struck me as "normal enough" to, at a wee morning hour, develop a taste for something one lacks in the cupboard/fridge, or simply be disinclined to cook while wanting something hot, and just go "down the street" to an open store to get it. Would 20-below temperatures dissuade me from doing so? No. My garage is heated (not to the temp inside the house), so I wouldn't notice the cold until I got out of the car. I probably wouldn't walk to the store, but that'd be due to the hour, not the weather, because I wouldn't want to increase my risk of facing the sort of assault JS alleged happened to him. (Downtown DC is quite safe, but that doesn't mean I'm going to expose myself to risk I don't have to, no matter how slight the risk...But I'm 60, not 30-something, and I heed the lessons of my past, as well as being a somewhat, but far from perfect, vicarious learner.)

dixon01767 said:

Had Jessie not added the claim that the attackers yelled "This is MAGA country", it probably would have been a one or two days of minor mention in the media, and gone away

Click to expand...

Well, there're multiple things that wouldn't be were he not to have done them. Foremost in my mind is his fabricating the story in the first place, MAGA country or not.

Maybe I differ from others in that the "MAGA country" bit is irrelevant, or very minor at best. The man alleged to have been beaten and had a rope wrapped around his neck. To me, it wouldn't/doesn't much matter whether a "MAGA country" person did so. The "MAGA country" utterance would be a tangentially aggravating element, but not what'd make the assault opprobrious. What I'm saying is that, IMO, if the matter is going to be deemed newsworthy, it'd be so on account of the nature of the assault itself, not due to the "MAGA country" remark.

You are correct, it is a mundane crime that shouldn't merit much attention. But it was a political football. If the story was true then partisan hacks on the left would feel like they scored a point against everyone on the right and if the story was made up then partisan hacks on the right would feel like they scored a point against everyone on the left. It is all about scoring points nowadays.

Xelor said:

Well, there're multiple things that wouldn't be were he not to have done them. Foremost in my mind is his fabricating the story in the first place, MAGA country or not.

Maybe I differ from others in that the "MAGA country" bit is irrelevant, or very minor at best. The man alleged to have been beaten and had a rope wrapped around his neck. To me, it wouldn't/doesn't much matter whether a "MAGA country" person did so. The "MAGA country" utterance would be a tangentially aggravating element, but not what'd make the assault opprobrious. What I'm saying is that, IMO, if the matter is going to be deemed newsworthy, it'd be so on account of the nature of the assault itself, not due to the "MAGA country" remark.

Click to expand...

The nature of the "horrific" assault was a self inflicted scratch on the cheek. It was BIG news because of the MAGA comment.

Skeptic Bob said:

You are correct, it is a mundane crime that shouldn't merit much attention. But it was a political football. If the story was true then partisan hacks on the left would feel like they scored a point against everyone on the right and if the story was made up then partisan hacks on the right would feel like they scored a point against everyone on the left. It is all about scoring points nowadays.

Click to expand...

Not for me it isn't. It's about holding these fools, on the right and the left to account for their reckless behavior. That's what I want out of it.


Tim-

Skeptic Bob said:

You are correct, it is a mundane crime that shouldn't merit much attention. But it was a political football. If the story was true then partisan hacks on the left would feel like they scored a point against everyone on the right and if the story was made up then partisan hacks on the right would feel like they scored a point against everyone on the left. It is all about scoring points nowadays.

Click to expand...

Well, they on the left who rushed to make this into a statement about the US during and because of a Trump Presidency, were trying to score political points with the BS they spew. The right wins points by default when it is revealed it was all BS.

dixon01767 said:

Well, they on the left who rushed to make this into a statement about the US during and because of a Trump Presidency, were trying to score political points with the BS they spew. The right wins points by default when it is revealed it was all BS.

Click to expand...

The above remark illustrates just how reprehensibly jejune, banal, just effing childish too many people in the US are. NOBODY wins when resources -- however great or small -- are wasted due to the dissembling of others.