"The most effective of the influencers turned commentators, like @houseinhabit’s Jessica Reed Kraus, know this. Kraus is a San Clemente, California, mother who got her start in the content mines as a lifestyle blogger (picture lots of wavy-haired sons, surfboards, pools, and exposed ceiling beams). Over the past year or so, she morphed into a trial-obsessed Instagrammer.
"Her gossipy roller-coaster ride through evidence and pop culture has earned her almost 1 million Instagram followers and apparently thousands of paid Substack subscribers.... Kraus folds together her own commentary, court evidence, trial video, and professional photos to which she surely cannot claim copyright. ('Photoshoot in The Bahamas day after claiming she was "beaten within an inch of her life,"' Kraus posted over a skin-baring image of Heard.) She also has a clever natural sense for cheering on a surprising side: Just as she was strongly, disturbingly sympathetic to Ghislaine Maxwell, she was a chief instigator of the anti-Heard story line.... Kraus is just one of hundreds who racked up huge numbers and built followers during the trial.... Now that the trial is over, these creators and many more are left with huge audiences.... If the innovators stay in the game, they’ll find out just how lousy the media business can be."From "The Mainstream Media Lost the Depp-Heard Trial/And the lifestyle influencers turned court correspondents won" by Choire Sicha (Intelligencer).
From the top-rated comment over there: "The 'mainstream media' coverage seemed to start with the assumption that Heard was 100% truthful, Depp was as good as a convicted abuser, and that all cases of women accusing men of abuse should be taken at face value without any effort of proof or consistency.... Tiktokkers covering it while potentially coming from their own subjective positions seemed to understand the trial better than the mainstream media which decided from the beginning that Heard was 100% the victim and continues to see anything other than that as somehow setting back the Me Too cause rather than strengthening it by sorting through false or seriously questionable accusations with care and focusing on clearer cut cases of pattern abuse."
Posts
17 comments:
"The 'mainstream media' coverage seemed to start with the assumption . . ."
They always do. The assumption that the prog narrative is correct and must be confirmed. Regardless of topic. Day after day.
For nice proggy women Heard is useful not only in undermining the #MeToo and #BelieveAllWomen charade but also in exposing the MSM as assumption-driven propaganda peddlers. But the insight won't stick, because in the end they like the propaganda more. (Supreme Court ends abortion and forces women to have babies! Florida attacks LGBTs with Don't Say Gay bill! Climate change is an existential threat but EVs and green energy will solve it! Etc. etc.)
"The 'mainstream media' coverage seemed to start with the assumption that Heard was 100% truthful."
You cannot have a career in mainstream media if you do not toe the Democrat Party line. Period. It is career suicide if you step outside the established DNC narrative. Everybody who works for mainstream media is painfully aware of this fact. That's why 100% of the mainstream media "believes all women." It is a requirement to continue to get paid.
Everybody whose house payment isn't dependent on these mainstream outlets is free to have an opinion that might diverge from what the DNC imposes on their stenographers and thus gain viewership.
There's probably no truth to the rumor that credentialed journos are organizing a rally where they plan to march with Tiki Torches chanting, "You will not replace us!"
Remember- all men are guilty except white privileged democrat Bill Clinton.
Um, is that really "publishing"? The person who commits every fleeting thought they have to ink on broadsheet or tabloid or physical book isn't likely to have much of a reputation (although we all wonder about the exceptions).
I got a weird vibe from Heard the first time I saw them together explaining how they got the dog past the stringent Australian authorities.
Same thing with Rittenhouse, careerist journalists would not touch the truth, and so their readers were shocked by the outcome.
Sussman was different because judge and jury were in the same tank as the journalists, so the facts never mattered, as the jury forman implied with her statement “the prosecution might have proven some small lie, but it didn’t matter in the overall picture.”
The picture being that framing Trump was for the general good, I guess.
My understanding is that we are all at the end of our tolerance for Heard v Depp reporting. Completely 100% done with these people. Sure it’s a distraction from the collapse of the country under the weight of Biden’s mismanagement but their story is as relevant as Fatty Arbuckle and frankly less interesting. Some writers turn away from the horrors in front of them, like babies with no food and supersurging homicide stats, and focus on the trivial just to make deadline. But now is a good time to wake up and smell the shit cuz it’s hitting the fan right now, a huge industrial scale fan and shit from sea to shining sea.
America has long blown up unique cases like the Depp/Heard case into representing something far greater for society. Of course, it is seldom true. But it's the way that the human mind works. Now the internet makes it possible to do this with a large number of cases, and to fight over them endlessly. For the most part, silly stuff but stuff people like doing. It's just not my game.
The mainstream media noticed the frenzy only once it was in full swing. In essays and op-eds, we chastised these influencer detectives (Click Tracys?), who were seemingly hearing different testimony than we were.
Which is to say, they were honestly reporting, and you "media" scumbags were lying and pushing your narrative.
We were busy believing women, while women online were calling for Heard’s head — and they, more than us, were shaping the general public’s understanding of the trial.
"We were busy believing women"
Not "we were busy honestly reporting on the trial", but "we were busy believing women".
And then they whine that people followed the non-liars, instead
Critter said...
America has long blown up unique cases like the Depp/Heard case into representing something far greater for society. Of course, it is seldom true.
But in this case I believe it is.
The "press" had a narrative. it was backed by the companies Google (YouTube) Facebook, Twitter, and by all the major press.
But "plucky little underdogs" were able to get access to the same data as the "elite", and the ones who reported honestly were rewarded with clicks, ego boost, and cash.
Heard and Depp are not a major deal.
Out self appointed lords and masters not being able to control the narrative, however, IS a big deal
Oh, and according to the twit at "The Intelligencer", what happened?
The people who reported the most, honestly, got all the rewards.
If you're just planning on telling the truth about an event that's being live streamed, it's a LOT easier to get things out quickly. Testimony happens, your'e following along, something interesting happens, you grab a quick clip, ad your commentary, and post.
You don't have to spend a lot of time asking "will this help my narrative?" You don't have to make shit up, or edit a clip to get the message you want, you just grab, add a quick comment, and post.
So the truth goes all the way around the world before the lies even get their boots on.
Boy the time some lefty has edited down a clip to saw that which helps the narrative, the whole clip has been shot out by 20 different people.
Which means once you do get your lie out there, people can immediately jump on you with the full clip / context
This could be a really good day for the decent human beings of America
Even though Depp joked about assassinating Trump it wasn't enough to change their minds.
Wonder if that was a dillerbate tactic hoping to gain media favor.
Think about anything you actually know about, or of which you have personal experience.
Now, think about the accuracy and the reliability of the news coverage you've seen on that thing.
Is there any case where you've seen the media "get it right" past the mere fact that an event has taken place? Were any of their "interpretations" and "understandings" of what you know yourself to be true even close to that reality?
First time I saw Michael Crichton's piece on the Gell-Mann Amnesia, the reaction of recognition I had was so strong it was almost physical. I've been reading newspapers all my life, up until the internet replaced them. And, I'm here to tell you, the amount of bad information and outright fraud in our "mass media" market is stunning.
I spent a year in Iraq, sitting in 101st Airborne Division HQ as a liaison NCO. They kept CNN, MSNBC, FOX, and a couple of other "sources" up on the screens when we weren't doing briefings, simply for awareness of what was being said about what we were doing and so forth. In that year, not once did what I see on the screen match what I had for situation reports and internal communications in front of me on the laptop screen. NOT ONCE. Everything that the media was saying was a circus-funhouse mirror of what we knew to be ground truth regarding Iraq. The distortions and outright lies were incredible, as well as the clear fact that most of the media was not on our side, at all. I have no idea whose side they were on, but it was not the US military's or the people of Iraq. They demonstrated more care and concern for their "sources" in the insurgency than they did for anyone or anything trying to fix the situation. We caught the "Pulitzer-prize winning" photographer for the New York Times who just "happened to be there" when they killed those election observers. He was captured in a known insurgent safe house with explosives residue on his hands, and it was about 100% certain that he was complicit in scores of killings. He was on the payroll of multiple "media outlets", who promptly protested his detention.
Media be all f*cked up, yo... It's about time people figured that out. It's not entirely a Democratic or ideological thing, either--It's mostly that the vast majority of them are utter dolts with below-room temperature IQ scores and an utter inability to connect "cause" with "effect".
Even now the media continue to push their narrative - in this case by an article highlighting the supposed vacuousness of "a chief instigator of the anti-Heard story line." As if anyone paying attention couldn't form their own opinion that Heard was, as they say, an "unreliable narrator."
Over the past year or so, she morphed into a trial-obsessed Instagrammer
Not much of a morph. I saw the "tr" and was expecting, almost hoping, for another trans story.
I can't help but wonder what would have happened if the Kermit Gosnell trial had gotten the Law-Vlogger's level of expert attention.
Kermit WHO?
*sigh*. Exactly.
Post a Comment