A jury of the city of Kenosha in the state of Wisconsin is fully acquitted 18-year-old boy Kyle Rittenhouse, in August last year shot dead two members BLM shares and ranivshego third. This decision split America into two camps, which has already resulted in massive protests. Perhaps, since the time of the case of the black athlete and actor O. Jay Simpson, acquitted in 1995 in the case of the murder of his ex-wife, there has not been a more resonant court decision that caused such a split in society on racial grounds.
But if in the 90s the US democratic press took the court’s decision with a bang, now it mostly curses the judges, the US judicial system, lawyers and actually calls for the reprisal of the acquitted young man. Indeed, the American media from the very beginning became active participants in this process, prosecutors, and justice officials who sentenced Rittenhouse from the very first minutes of the appearance of the frames in which he shot at the BLM protesters. And now in America, a discussion is flaring up not only about the fairness of the court verdict, but also about the unsightly role of the media in this process.
The well-known journalist Bari Weiss, who scandalously left the post of editor of The New York Times, the flagship of the democratic press, spoke especially well about this role. She admitted that until the trial of Rittenhouse, based on publications, she was sure that in August 2020, a young racist, having illegally acquired a weapon and brought it from another state, shot him dead in cold blood.peaceful protesters. As a result, several weeks of trial revealed that almost all of these statements were lies. It turned out that Rittenhouse had never been a member of racist organizations and did not express such views, the weapon was legal and he did not transport it from state to state, he was not going to use it until the “peaceful protesters” attacked him, and in Kenosha he helped to protect from looting and arson of their workplace. While CNN reporters have tried to present the burning, “mostly peaceful protest.”
During the trial, Weiss realized that the press and the current politicians had deliberately lied to her all this time. But not everyone followed the course of the proceedings so closely, and therefore were shocked by the verdict. Moreover, many of them, judging by the heated debates in social networks, are firmly convinced that the victims of the “white racist” are, of course, black. That is why the “racist” jury took the side of the murderer.
And how else can the public react to the news if it reads the words of the famous writer Chelsea Hendler: “Kyle Rittenhouse killed two people and was found innocent. “. Well, it’s clear from this categorical statement that the victims were certainly not white.
But all the media are crammed with such statements, not to mention so-cial networks. Black Cong-resswoman Corey Bush, h-erself a BLM activist, said: “Judge. Jury. Accused. This is white supremacy in action. This system is not meant to hold white supremacists accountable.” She echoed the legal commentator edition of The Nation Eli Mistan: “There is no justice and no peace here and if you oppose it, white people come to shoot you And wants it most white people….” This is the main narrative of the democratic media in the process: white people can kill members of racial minorities with impunity.
Therefore, many readers do not even suspect that all three of Rittenhouse’s victims (including the wounded one) are also white. This fact is most often simply omitted. For example, in Mistal’s small column, the word “white” is mentioned more than 20 times, he emphasizes that Rittenhouse, the judge, the jury of the jury are white, but manages to never mention the racial origin of the victims. Because otherwise it would be difficult to substantiate the main conclusion : “The system of white justice <…> was created in order to free white people like Rittenhouse – white vigilantes who kill for the sake of preservation of wh-iteness.” Note that such sta-tements are not considered racist in the United States.
It is impossible not to recall here the role of social networks in the campaign against the innocent, as it now turns out, young man. From the very beginning of the media harassment against him, Facebook simply began to delete any post and comment in which it saw an excuse for Ritten-house’s actions. That is, you can scold and blame, it is forbidden to seek an exc-use. Moreover, the social network even blocked the ability to search for the name of the shooter and fought hard with the statements that its “fact checkers” declared fakes.
For example, the network’s fact-checking platform PolitiFact has dismissed user claims that Rittenhouse had the right to bear arms as a lie. After the corresponding decision of the court, which rejected this accusation, it became clear that it was the “fact checkers” of Facebook who were lying. By the way, not a single social network did not check the fantastic story from the aforementioned C-orey Bush that she and ot-her BLM activists were sh-ot by “white racists” – this is not interesting for Fac-ebook. As journalist Rich-ard Lowry rightly pointed out, this case “demonstrates that the people who are obsessed with fighting disinformation are the most misguided themselves.”
It is no coincidence that Rittenhouse is now actively advised to file lawsuits against all those media outlets that have spread many fakes about him over the past year and a half. In particular, such advice was given by his peer Nicholas Sandmann, another victim of lies in the American media. This is the same student wearing the Trump ‘s Make America Great Again cap whose photographs, surrounded by colorful activists, went around the world in 2019. At first he was presented by the press as a “white racist” mocking an elderly Indian, but after more complete videos of the incident appeared, it turned out that everything was happening exactly the opposite – it was he who was attacked by anti-Trump activists, insulted and provoked…. Since that incident, Sandmann has filed lawsuits against a number of leading media outlets, receiving compensation from some. Now he advises Rittenhouse to follow the same path. If that happens, both CNN and Facebook could be bad.
By the way, Rittenhouse has every right to sue the incumbent President Joe Biden, who during last y-ear’s election campaign us-ed the image of a “shooter in Kenosha”, classifying h-im as a racist. Now the pre-sident said he was angry w-ith the court’s decision, but called for respect for it. Vice President Kamala Ha-rris (herself a former prosecutor) showed clear contempt for the court, commenting on his decision as follows: “The verdict speaks for itself. For most of my career, I have worked to make our criminal justice system fairer. it is clear that much remains to be done. “
At the same time, few people pay attention to the courts considering the opposite cases, when the “correct”, from the point of view of the Democrats, arrows killed the “wrong”, that is, pro-Trump activists. For example, in the midst of the trial over the bodyguard of the film crew, who shot a participant in the action in Denver in October last year. But no one is particularly interested in the course of this trial, and the shooter’s lawyers focus on the alleged ultra-right views of the murdered man – they say, it matters.
The couple of McCloskey’s lawyers, who fired guns at BLM activists last year in an attempt to drive them out of their private property, were only remembered now, when they showed up at Kenosha’s court to support Rittenhouse. But they were convicted for that case (the governor of the state later pardoned them) and are now trying to defend their lawyer’s licenses.
At the same time, the verdict to Jacob Chance, who became known to the whole world in January this year thanks to his Viking outfit during the appearance of Trump’s supporters in the Capitol, received the full support of the democratic press. She was not embarrassed by the fact that the activist, charged with inflicting damage of only one hundred dollars, received almost 3.5 years in prison. Calls to throw Steve Bannon, a former Trump adviser, behind bars, are now the norm among Democratic commentators. As the well-known TV presenter Tucker Carlson reasonably believes, Bannon is wanted to be arrested solely for his views.
And the political verdict has already been passed by the media and social networks. If the court does not follow this predetermined verdict, as it did in the Rittenhouse case, well, so much the worse for the court. Then the media will come for the judges and jury, subjecting them to harassment no worse than the one to which they subjected the “a priori guilty racist.” This is how the current justice system in the United States works. It is all the more ridiculous to see how the State Depart-ment or the US Embassy make some statements about “political sentences” in Russia or some other countries of the world. They would have to deal with their own justice system before teaching others.