>> To admit that the press, in the main, got just about every key fact in the Rittenhouse case wrong — that he crossed state lines with a gun, that he had the gun illegally, that he had no connection to Kenosha, that he was connected to white supremacist groups — has nothing to do with whether Kyle Rittenhouse should have gone to Kenosha…
>> To admit that the press, in the main, got just about every key fact in the Rittenhouse case wrong — that he crossed state lines with a gun, that he had the gun illegally, that he had no connection to Kenosha, that he was connected to white supremacist groups — has nothing to do with whether Kyle Rittenhouse should have gone to Kenosha that day. It has nothing to do with where one stands on the question of open carry. (I am opposed). Or whether or not a teenager should be allowed to walk around with a semiautomatic rifle. (I find it baffling that this is legal.)
Oh, but they DO matter, Bari. The fact that this is how you view the 2nd Amendment, and people who exercise it in ways that are culturally alien to you, are the reason why you spent most of the last year believing the narrative that you outline in the first paragraph: because it upheld your confirmation bias.
For a journalist with decades of experience working for one of the formerly most-respected outlets in the world to have swallowed the "for the public" version of the story when EVERY JOURNALIST HAD ACCESS TO THE FACTS FROM THE BEGINNING suggests that the way Kyle played to your biases mattered tremendously.
It caused you to temporarily abandon your most closely held professional instincts.
Give her some credit. She's willing to reconsider when she gets more information. That puts her ahead of 99% of the rest of the media in my book. Integrity isn't always being right. Sometimes it's just being willing to admit when you were wrong.
"...when she gets more information"??? The information has BEEN there since late-August 2020. Did it need to arrive this week via the trial for her to learn of it? Is she a journalist or just a passive spectator?
I'll give her *some* credit, yes. For conceding (14+ months late!) that she had it wrong all along.
But unless she examines closely WHY she had it wrong all along, AND takes the necessary steps to FIX that problem, there's no assurance that hers won't be a future of lather, rinse, repeat every time one of these comes along. And they'll keep coming along, for sure.
Um, yea, actually the evidence presented at trial IS the thing that cuts through all the media noise. That's why we have trials. And it's why we wait for the trial to impose punishment. It's very hard to discern the truth from among the cacophony of misinformation and lies from the two sides of our partisan media. The trial is where the rubber hits the road and the two narratives have to confront each other and try to validate themselves with evidence. That's not gonna change. Litigation in an adversarial system is just, epistemologically, a better method for discerning truth than journalism is. It always will be because journalists don't have to confront inconvenient facts. Trial lawyers do.
Well, the point is that she wasn't [curious/interested/professional/etc.] enough to examine more "media noise" than just that which fed her preexisting biases.
But thanks just the same for the condescending civics lesson, as if I don't understand that punishment comes *after*, not *before*, the trial, or that "that's why we have trials".
This comment of your is stunning: "It always will be because journalists don't have to confront inconvenient facts."
If that's how it always will be, then those folks *aren't* journalists. Journalists - genuine journalists - don't give a rat's ass about whether facts are "inconvenient". Otherwise, they're advocates or propagandists. Which is Bari, or was Bari, perhaps only until this past week?
I think you're missing my point. Perhaps journalist "should" confront inconvenient facts, but the endeavors are so different that they never will in the way trial lawyers do. They don't have the time to invest that trial lawyers do. They don't have an adversary to face who's immediately going to pounce on any error. And they don't face the negative consequences of failing to do so that trial lawyers to. The incentives, constraints and resources are just entirely different between the two professions. And in all three cases, it's advantage trial lawyers when it comes to drilling down to the truth.
They don't *have* to "in the way trial lawyers do". That's a straw man extraordinaire. It would make Barack Obama, King of Straw Men, blush.
They only need to get outside their damned information bubbles. WE knew this information existed, there's *no* legitimate excuse or explanation for her, a journalist, NOT to have known it until 14 months later.
"...has nothing to do with whether Kyle Rittenhouse should have gone to Kenosha that day..."
That's *another* blind spot of hers. It's NOT up to her as a journalist to make "should" - e.g. value - judgments about when others "should" and "shouldn't" exercise their Constitutional rights.
"Should"...ironically, should NEVER enter the equation with reporters and journalists, other than opinion journalists who are known to be and are explicit about their status as opinionmeisters.
As for the "should" (in order to say "should" one needs to be omniscient), how does she know that what happened in Kenosha that night wouldn't've been WORSE had those three criminals had free rein all night long?
How does she know that Kyle's presence there, in all its other manifestations AND his taking out two thugs and disabling a third thug (who was armed with a pistol), how does she know that Kyle's presence WASN'T on the whole better than had he not been there?
She doesn't. She doesn't have a clue. She has NO business throwing around "should"s.
my read: she up front admits "this is what I heard, then. I was wrong" ... against the onslaught of lies someone who has finite time - even a journalist - to look into every controversial subject is asking too much
I think, that even Mx Wiess - of Austin U founding fame - was red pilled a little ... call this week a win for saner minds prevailing
I think it's fair to say that if you heard it in mainstream media and it's a subject with left/right parameters, you can assume, ipso facto, that they're lying or at a minimum, shading the truth.
The mea culpa is fine. I find the notion "to look into every controversial subject is asking too much" to be an utterly reprehensible notion when the conclusions we draw from those subjects translate to horrific interpersonal conduct.
These aren't opinions about ice cream flavors. These are opinions that lead to calls to destroy people's lives, deny people their freedoms, and forever brand individuals as the worst sorts of evil.
Sorry, I demand that renowned journalists exercise critical thinking at ALL TIMES about journalism.
But to ask her to apply critical thinking on everything is asking her too much. Should she weigh in on how our debt service will be crushing as the US only issued short term notes? Or the underpinnings of the bidding war going on for containers, boxing out those who want to ship less expensive goods in lieu of say more expensive electronics?
I can see you're passionate, given all your comments, but I'm challenged if you're not seeing her as someone trying to understand things, and taking action to make them incrementally better.
For me, I try to not believe anything in the news. Surely she should also know that now. She needs to get closer to the sources of unfiltered information when she intends to form an opinion or know if something is right.
How is it that those of us who have non-journalist jobs had enough time to apply critical thinking to this and other major issues and not be surprised by what came out in the trial...but she, a journalist, didn't have enough time?
The two examples in your comment are complicated, technical issues, and are not analogous to this situation. For Bari to have avoided her mistakes in this Rittenhouse incident didn't require her understanding the interplay between and among complex facts.
All she had to do was step outside her echo chamber bubble! All of the information she learned this week was available to learn - no critical thinking required, just reading - fourteen months ago, and thirteen months ago, and twelve months ago, etc.
>> I am not here to defend Mx Wiess. But to ask her to apply critical thinking on everything is asking her too much.
If you had been my student, this statement would make me fucking cry.
Why are you attempting to imply that an article about Kyle Rittenhouse needs to include her opinion on a half-dozen unrelated topics? I didn't ask that at all.
Straw man.
My point remains that I'd be far more impressed if she had recognized the personal bias that led her to ignore the realities of a criminal trial, rather than "discovering" the facts of the case a year later along with hordes of far more credulous progressive rubes.
My further- larger- point is that Bari did not even have the IMPULSE to critically engage one of the most sensational national stories at its time because the narrative presented fit her bias about young white men and gun ownership. THAT, given Bari's mission for her platform here, feels like an important thing to call one out on.
I take the larger point here to be that the media is deeply failing at Journalism. If Bari writes an article about an issue it's her obligation to ensure that it’s factually correct using long established tenets of journalism (even if she has to say “xyz could not be confirmed “).
BUT just as a consumer of presented news it’s been rational to assume that the necessary rigor and integrity has been used. That is, until this utter collapse of journalistic integrity that started about 15 years ago took hold.
I resent that as a consumer of news I have to research nearly everything because I can’t trust the “journalists”. That’s a sad and dangerous day.
I took Bari’s presentation to us as a strong statement that our complaints about modern journalism are very valid. This and other journalist breakouts from the corporate media prisons give me hope. If it does need to be said though, I’d tell “Bari” (as a representative of honest journalists) to look around and look over the journalism products of the last 10+ years and you’ll see it in spades. It hasn’t just been Ritttenhouse or Justice Kavanaugh.
I’m very critical of Trump’s demeanor but he was falsely accused on hundreds of counts, 24/7 and it did real damage to our country.
>> To admit that the press, in the main, got just about every key fact in the Rittenhouse case wrong — that he crossed state lines with a gun, that he had the gun illegally, that he had no connection to Kenosha, that he was connected to white supremacist groups — has nothing to do with whether Kyle Rittenhouse should have gone to Kenosha that day. It has nothing to do with where one stands on the question of open carry. (I am opposed). Or whether or not a teenager should be allowed to walk around with a semiautomatic rifle. (I find it baffling that this is legal.)
Oh, but they DO matter, Bari. The fact that this is how you view the 2nd Amendment, and people who exercise it in ways that are culturally alien to you, are the reason why you spent most of the last year believing the narrative that you outline in the first paragraph: because it upheld your confirmation bias.
For a journalist with decades of experience working for one of the formerly most-respected outlets in the world to have swallowed the "for the public" version of the story when EVERY JOURNALIST HAD ACCESS TO THE FACTS FROM THE BEGINNING suggests that the way Kyle played to your biases mattered tremendously.
It caused you to temporarily abandon your most closely held professional instincts.
Give her some credit. She's willing to reconsider when she gets more information. That puts her ahead of 99% of the rest of the media in my book. Integrity isn't always being right. Sometimes it's just being willing to admit when you were wrong.
"...when she gets more information"??? The information has BEEN there since late-August 2020. Did it need to arrive this week via the trial for her to learn of it? Is she a journalist or just a passive spectator?
I'll give her *some* credit, yes. For conceding (14+ months late!) that she had it wrong all along.
But unless she examines closely WHY she had it wrong all along, AND takes the necessary steps to FIX that problem, there's no assurance that hers won't be a future of lather, rinse, repeat every time one of these comes along. And they'll keep coming along, for sure.
Um, yea, actually the evidence presented at trial IS the thing that cuts through all the media noise. That's why we have trials. And it's why we wait for the trial to impose punishment. It's very hard to discern the truth from among the cacophony of misinformation and lies from the two sides of our partisan media. The trial is where the rubber hits the road and the two narratives have to confront each other and try to validate themselves with evidence. That's not gonna change. Litigation in an adversarial system is just, epistemologically, a better method for discerning truth than journalism is. It always will be because journalists don't have to confront inconvenient facts. Trial lawyers do.
Well, the point is that she wasn't [curious/interested/professional/etc.] enough to examine more "media noise" than just that which fed her preexisting biases.
But thanks just the same for the condescending civics lesson, as if I don't understand that punishment comes *after*, not *before*, the trial, or that "that's why we have trials".
This comment of your is stunning: "It always will be because journalists don't have to confront inconvenient facts."
If that's how it always will be, then those folks *aren't* journalists. Journalists - genuine journalists - don't give a rat's ass about whether facts are "inconvenient". Otherwise, they're advocates or propagandists. Which is Bari, or was Bari, perhaps only until this past week?
I think you're missing my point. Perhaps journalist "should" confront inconvenient facts, but the endeavors are so different that they never will in the way trial lawyers do. They don't have the time to invest that trial lawyers do. They don't have an adversary to face who's immediately going to pounce on any error. And they don't face the negative consequences of failing to do so that trial lawyers to. The incentives, constraints and resources are just entirely different between the two professions. And in all three cases, it's advantage trial lawyers when it comes to drilling down to the truth.
They don't *have* to "in the way trial lawyers do". That's a straw man extraordinaire. It would make Barack Obama, King of Straw Men, blush.
They only need to get outside their damned information bubbles. WE knew this information existed, there's *no* legitimate excuse or explanation for her, a journalist, NOT to have known it until 14 months later.
"...has nothing to do with whether Kyle Rittenhouse should have gone to Kenosha that day..."
That's *another* blind spot of hers. It's NOT up to her as a journalist to make "should" - e.g. value - judgments about when others "should" and "shouldn't" exercise their Constitutional rights.
"Should"...ironically, should NEVER enter the equation with reporters and journalists, other than opinion journalists who are known to be and are explicit about their status as opinionmeisters.
As for the "should" (in order to say "should" one needs to be omniscient), how does she know that what happened in Kenosha that night wouldn't've been WORSE had those three criminals had free rein all night long?
How does she know that Kyle's presence there, in all its other manifestations AND his taking out two thugs and disabling a third thug (who was armed with a pistol), how does she know that Kyle's presence WASN'T on the whole better than had he not been there?
She doesn't. She doesn't have a clue. She has NO business throwing around "should"s.
my read: she up front admits "this is what I heard, then. I was wrong" ... against the onslaught of lies someone who has finite time - even a journalist - to look into every controversial subject is asking too much
I think, that even Mx Wiess - of Austin U founding fame - was red pilled a little ... call this week a win for saner minds prevailing
I think it's fair to say that if you heard it in mainstream media and it's a subject with left/right parameters, you can assume, ipso facto, that they're lying or at a minimum, shading the truth.
The mea culpa is fine. I find the notion "to look into every controversial subject is asking too much" to be an utterly reprehensible notion when the conclusions we draw from those subjects translate to horrific interpersonal conduct.
These aren't opinions about ice cream flavors. These are opinions that lead to calls to destroy people's lives, deny people their freedoms, and forever brand individuals as the worst sorts of evil.
Sorry, I demand that renowned journalists exercise critical thinking at ALL TIMES about journalism.
I am not here to defend Mx Wiess.
But to ask her to apply critical thinking on everything is asking her too much. Should she weigh in on how our debt service will be crushing as the US only issued short term notes? Or the underpinnings of the bidding war going on for containers, boxing out those who want to ship less expensive goods in lieu of say more expensive electronics?
I can see you're passionate, given all your comments, but I'm challenged if you're not seeing her as someone trying to understand things, and taking action to make them incrementally better.
For me, I try to not believe anything in the news. Surely she should also know that now. She needs to get closer to the sources of unfiltered information when she intends to form an opinion or know if something is right.
How is it that those of us who have non-journalist jobs had enough time to apply critical thinking to this and other major issues and not be surprised by what came out in the trial...but she, a journalist, didn't have enough time?
The two examples in your comment are complicated, technical issues, and are not analogous to this situation. For Bari to have avoided her mistakes in this Rittenhouse incident didn't require her understanding the interplay between and among complex facts.
All she had to do was step outside her echo chamber bubble! All of the information she learned this week was available to learn - no critical thinking required, just reading - fourteen months ago, and thirteen months ago, and twelve months ago, etc.
>> I am not here to defend Mx Wiess. But to ask her to apply critical thinking on everything is asking her too much.
If you had been my student, this statement would make me fucking cry.
Why are you attempting to imply that an article about Kyle Rittenhouse needs to include her opinion on a half-dozen unrelated topics? I didn't ask that at all.
Straw man.
My point remains that I'd be far more impressed if she had recognized the personal bias that led her to ignore the realities of a criminal trial, rather than "discovering" the facts of the case a year later along with hordes of far more credulous progressive rubes.
My further- larger- point is that Bari did not even have the IMPULSE to critically engage one of the most sensational national stories at its time because the narrative presented fit her bias about young white men and gun ownership. THAT, given Bari's mission for her platform here, feels like an important thing to call one out on.
I take the larger point here to be that the media is deeply failing at Journalism. If Bari writes an article about an issue it's her obligation to ensure that it’s factually correct using long established tenets of journalism (even if she has to say “xyz could not be confirmed “).
BUT just as a consumer of presented news it’s been rational to assume that the necessary rigor and integrity has been used. That is, until this utter collapse of journalistic integrity that started about 15 years ago took hold.
I resent that as a consumer of news I have to research nearly everything because I can’t trust the “journalists”. That’s a sad and dangerous day.
I took Bari’s presentation to us as a strong statement that our complaints about modern journalism are very valid. This and other journalist breakouts from the corporate media prisons give me hope. If it does need to be said though, I’d tell “Bari” (as a representative of honest journalists) to look around and look over the journalism products of the last 10+ years and you’ll see it in spades. It hasn’t just been Ritttenhouse or Justice Kavanaugh.
I’m very critical of Trump’s demeanor but he was falsely accused on hundreds of counts, 24/7 and it did real damage to our country.
she said she f'd up!
I assess even she was red pilled some more
take solace in those two things, and as some soviet era general said, better is the enemy of good enough
(Voltaire was perfection is the enemy of the good)
Communists learn to lower their expectations. Perfection is impossible. Better is propaganda. Good is something one hopes for.