Juror #2 is the only one who gets the news from X and also the only one who gets news from Truth Social. This person has no other news source. (Of course, it's possible that the jurors weren't accurate/truthful about their news sources.)
There are 2 jurors, #5 and #6, who get news from TikTok, but #5 also looks at Google and #6 looks at Facebook, Google, and the NYT. Juror #4 is the odd/wise person who identified no news source at all.
Interesting that only one juror reads the NY Post and that's also the only juror who listens to public radio. This person also reads the NYT and the Wall Street Journal.
Anyway, seeing those dots so widely scattered across this grid, do you feel reasonably good about this jury?
पोस्ट्स
७५ टिप्पण्या:
One juror said Truth Social and twitter? How did that person make it into the jury?
Too many NYT readers. Trump is toast.
I’m not sure all those dots widely reading NYT shows diversity.
Only one juror watches NY1!
I LOVE NY1!
It is everything local news should be.
Kind of like 1010 WINS, but on TV.
Whenever I stay in a hotel in NYC, the TV goes on NY1 and stays there the whole time.
I wish every city had its own version of NY1
JSM
Novel Case? Sure, why not! NYT loved the Weimar so much. Pulitzer material is in sight.
"Widely scattered" except for that solid yellow bar across from the New York Times.
X, Google, FaceBook, TikTok, even Truth Social are all secondary sources. Nobody 'gets news' from them. They read articles, either reporting or opinion, created by original sources and flagged by the services or other users.
The anti-Trump hack in black is going to craft the criminal element questions to avoid discussion of the weakest elements of Bragg's case (NDAs are not illegal and NY can't enforce Federal election law). Unless the jury goes entirely off the reservation or a really obstinate pro-Trump juror snuck in, the verdict is going to be 'guilty'.
No.
The cornerstone of NYT is problematic. The NYT openly advocated against objective journalism specifically when it came to Trump, and followed through on their stance.
Widely scattered? Most of them get their news from the New York Times, which is way to the left of center and which is anti-Trump all day, every day.
Just one that reads the Post? No, I do not feel reasonably comfortable with this jury, based on where they collect their news.
Nope. Too many NYT readers.
Looking at the above bingo card, Trump is toast. Of course we knew that when the judge refused a change venue.
They'll dismiss the trouble makers before the judgement...
I don't see the Althouse blog in the mix. They're all losers.
Getting news from Google, FB, and X is meaningless. Google is an aggregator. All three will show you news sources that are similar to what you have been interested in the past. I'm not that familiar with news from TikTok. What I've seen appears to be more opinion than news. For any of the social media sources, who they follow on there matters more than the fact they get their news from that source.
I have a hard time believing someone watches both FOX and MSNBC.
I think this is mostly meaningless. It was released to give an appearance of diversity of thought but does not, to me, prove that.
It's New York City and they couldn't find one Transgender Juror?
I became absolutely convinced that a jury biased against Trump was selected. The only question was: was that news source distribution representative of New York City so that a representative jury was a biased jury or was the news source distribution not representative indicating that a biased jury had been picked out of a less biased population?
This is a city that is paying millions to house illegal immigrants while it leaves citizens in squalor. The money IS there, it just isn't going to citizens. But the citizens have elected the government that screws them. They are unfair to themselves so what can Trump expect? If they could be fair to Trump, they could save themselves. It's all a single vile mess.
One finance guy. He'll be gone...
It only takes one to hang a jury.
Since the trial is being held in New York City, it is no surprise that so many jurors read the New York Times.
And why do we use the term “hung jury?”
Looks like a very upscale liberal jury w/9 NYT readers and only 1 Post reader. Looks like only one Republican. Pfft.
Interesting there was no option for jurors to say they get news from blogs, i.e. places like Althouse, Power Line, Zero Hedge, etc
You need testosterone measurements for judgment.
I caught some of Clay and Buck yesterday. Clay Travis has done as much detailed analysis as I have heard, and His opinion? Trump is toast.
The question on all these trial have never been the decision. We all know they will be guilty verdicts. We all know they will all be overturned.
In this Bragg Carnival ride. The only question is how is Bragg going to explain to the leftist mob, why Bragg will refuse to jail Trump.
The judge's gag order, has Merchen in the Proverbial dog catching the car, scenario. He cant jail Trump. Nor can he Restrict Trumps movements . . .During a campaign. It is clear the gag order is a violation of the 1st amendment.
No.
But I want to meet the person who gets their news from USA Today. Does that person live in a hotel? Does anybody outside of those staying in a hotel that has them stacked up for free actually go out and buy USA Today?
Also- I'm not buying the low numbers of MSNBC viewers. I'm sure there's more than one Joe & Mika viewer in the crowd. I mean...where else do their viewers come from if not from New York?
Ignorance is bliss for #4.
Ignorance is bliss for#4.
Ignorance is bliss for #4.
I would feel better if I were inclined to believe their answers. Juror number 2 is likely a ringer. But, as you point out in your other post, it is counterproductive to feel much of anything about this trial. He is very likely to be convicted anyway, and I have real concerns of my own to stress over. To hell with politics! My life won't be changed in a huge way no matter what happens among these clowns running for office.
no
You go, juror 4!
I’m not liberal and do not read the NYT. But if I lived in New York, I would read the NYT religiously, even though I am not a liberal. So, the prevalence of NYT reading jurors in NYC is not a surprise or a concern.
Trump is fucked. These people are soaked in Progressive propaganda.
The 13-to-1 juror gulf between The New York Times and the New York Post is interesting. Some superficial googling suggests that the local print circulation of the two papers is similar.
The Times' print circulation is around 600k, with a significant percentage of that being national editions, and the Post is around 400k, nearly all of it local to NYC.
Presumably, the Times has a significantly larger online footprint, but 13:1 is still a surprising ratio.
It's difficult to feel good about people who regularly read the NYT. OTOH, if the X/Truth Social person is truthful, it only takes one to hang a jury.
There should be a change of venue.
Interesting that NPR put up the big goose egg.
I’m betting some put the NYT down only because they think, as New Yorkers, they’re expected to read it. Or, they get the Sunday paper only - for the arts and entertainment and other stuff. It’s not a local paper (other than artsy stuff). You want local news? You want a sports section? It’s the NY Post or Daily News. If a local news story has legs, the NYT will pick it up eventually but after those other two. When I lived there, my answers would have been NY Post, NY1, WSJ. Post and WSJ still apply. I miss NY1.
Many if not most New Yorkers will be loathe to admit to reading anything other than the NYT. It is considered vulgar to read the post but I expect many do so on the sly. The NYT is devoted to bringing down Trump and it is not unusual to find negative Trump articles in the food articles or anything to do with the economy, the climate, religion, ethics, rural America, people down on their luck, you name it. This relentless negative press is bound to make an impression that Trump is a liar, crook, bankrupt, racist, misogynist, reckless, buffoon who is anti everything that is good.
That said this is a very stupid case involving some legal gymnastics that even a NYT reader may find offensive.
For a quick read on NYers have a look at the commenters on any article involving Trump. The rage, the spittle, the hatred are proudly on display.Trump will be convicted.
I'm hoping for a Miss Climpson on the jury.
I don't see the Althouse blog in the mix.
Sure you do - all the ones who get their news from the NYT!
"do you feel reasonably good about this jury?"
No. How could I?
It's not a fair charge so of course he won't get a fair trial.
Interesting that the NY Daily News is not listed. It's been around for a century or so, has a circulation similar to the NY Post, and is commonly viewed as one of the low-brow options, along with the Post, of course.
I know little about the slant of the NY Daily News, only that its absence makes this entire exercise unlikely to be dispositive of anything useful.
I regularly read WSJ and WaPo online, Slate.com (also on the left). My MSN "Home Page" leads me to stuff from AP, Reuters, and other MSM sites. I also regularly get news from this blog, Insty, Powerline, and Ace. Not necessarily fair, but definitely balanced.
If I were a Trump supporter who wanted onto the jury, I know how I would answer.
Trump has little chance with any NYC jury. He's Derek Chauvin without a badge.
Only one juror who watches Fox News, the #1 news channel in the country. Clearly this is a representative jury.. 🤮
Squirrel. There shouldn't be a trial. Why should I feel good about any part of it?
Disappointed that no juror listed Althouse.
"One juror said Truth Social and twitter? How did that person make it into the jury?"
Easy answer- the prosecutors knew he/she was lying.
"Widely scattered?" Too many getting "news" from NYT.
News: ZeroHedge, Instapundit. News and Opinion: Althouse.
So 18 sources and only 3 or 4 'conservative' or middle of the road outlets.
Seems fair...
The chosen news sources tells me there might be a hung jury, but not a well hung jury.
“Anyway, seeing those dots so widely scattered across this grid, do you feel reasonably good about this jury?”
Thanks for the chuckle!
>Ann Althouse said...
Anyway, seeing those dots so widely scattered across this grid, do you feel reasonably good about this jury?<
Well, given that this grid is 90% composed of left wing news organizations, um...no, I don't feel good about this jury at all. Nor should anyone who hopes for Trump to have a fair trial.
(One struggles to hope that your question was tongue in cheek.)
People are known to lie in the selection process.
Don’t quite understand their definition of “get your news from”. In a typical week I am likely directed to 80% of those sites via links to something else I have been reading. I don’t have any broadcast/streaming channels I regularly have something scheduled to watch or not miss. Often pause on something as surfing by. Do only bookmarked sites count?
An exercise to provide an illusion of due diligence.
Nope.
Krumhorn
Who would say they get their news from Reuters? That one is a reporter.
Calling it now: Juror #2, who claims to get his news from Truth Social and X, is a fraud and a leftist ringer who wangled his way onto the jury with a wink and a nod from the prosecutors.
Also, why are we given no information about the jurors' political party registrations?
so 2 are possible to hang the jury? [Fox and Truth]
are jury allowed to access media during trial ?
how can they be stopped?
since Trump is hobbled so also the jury?
The vast majority get their news from the NYT. who the hell believes they will be fair and impartial?
Can the Defense bring up the fact both the Feds and the former NY DA passed on prosecuting Trump for this?
Considering this case should never have been brought to trial in the first place, the fact that there is a jury makes me feel awful. Remember, this is the case that the DOJ passed on since it was not viable, and they have every motivation to go forward with it. The only reason it was brought to trial in New York was because (a) the DA is out to get Trump, explicitly, and this is an effective way to do so, (b) they found a judge who is out to get Trump, and (c) New York City's jury pool is probably only second to the D.C. jury pool as far as jurors refusing to follow their oaths in favor of political outcomes. He's going to be convicted regardless of evidence. It will be overturned on appeal.
Do keep in mind that they interviewed one of the excused jurors who claimed she could be unbiased. She basically described Trump as just short of Hitler but didn't think this would negatively impact her judgment. My guess that is the middle of the jury pool.
Well, given that this grid is 90% composed of left wing news organizations, um...no, I don't feel good about this jury at all. Nor should anyone who hopes for Trump to have a fair trial.
Nothing about this trial, or any of the others, is fair.
Think about how big a roll of the dice this is for the Left. All of these prosecutions are based on the most flimsy and novel pretexts, all of them are obviously coordinated by bigfoot Democrats, some of them in the White House itself, all of them were obviously timed for the election season, and any one of these unprecedented Stalinist show trials would have been roundly condemned by prominent members of both parties at any time before 2016. They really, really fear Trump and his supporters.
And they should fear us. This sort of banana-republic persecution is the kind of thing that leads directly to civil wars and revolutions. I used to be a patriot who respected the government and the loyal opposition. But I now consider the Federal government totally illegitimate and worthy of reduction to no more than 10 percent of its current size. Our intelligence and security agencies are little better than a private Stasi secret police for the Democrat Party, and should be abolished. The Democrats as a whole are now a more dangerous foe of liberty than Putin or Xi. I am done with sharing a flag and a nation with these enemy scum.
I am getting older and won't be leading any charge against them, but if trouble breaks out, well, I am descended from men who turned out with their flintlock muskets at the Lexington Alarm when they were in their 60's and 70's...
Anyway, seeing those dots so widely scattered across this grid, do you feel reasonably good about this jury?
I think it is pretty funny that you think this is a broad range of sources.
Most of them are just outlets for the same propaganda. There are maybe 4 sources on that list outside the regime bubble and almost nobody in the pool uses them.
The NY Post has the same number of local subscriptions as the NYT's. They should have equal representation here.
13:1. To see a statistical variance like this is the one useful thing in this chart and should lead to obvious conclusions.
They found a way to keep working class people out of the pool and only included the idiot snooty snoots that read the NYTs.
Will the jury be required to accept the prosecution's premise that an asserted but unadjudicated violation of a federal law can be the basis for a violation of a state law or will they have the discretion to reject that premise?
Maybe we'll find out when the trial starts.
I served on my first jury a few years ago. I was a lawyer and couldn't figure out why they let me serve. In the jury room I finally figured out the case was just so bad you had to find the defendant not guilty even though he was not a sympathetic person. They had done a good job of making it seem like the defendant had done "something bad." It involved his violating a restraining order preventing him from contacting his ex-wife. And the aggrieved ex-wife was in continual tears.
Maybe the two lawyers on this jury will do the same thing for Trump. See through the smoke.
But generally, I don't think Trump can get a fair trial in New York City.
It reminds me of the movie, To Kill a Mockingbird. That's worth re-watching. The appearance of justice, but no justice
Biased toward standard New York citizens but that is one Trump supporter - #2.
The 12-person panel must be unanimous for a conviction or an acquittal. But if there’s a hopeless deadlock, the judge would declare a mistrial — and for Trump, that might be nearly as good as an acquittal. His hope lies in the juror who only reads the propaganda in Truth Social and Twitter, #2, and the one who doesn't follow news at all, #4.
No.
Tie me kangaroos down, sport, tie me kangaroos down.
I'm not optimistic about Trump getting a fair trial in NYC, but then, I never was.
leftists are liars. so - NO.
Another example of the mountains of meaningless dreck people volunteer to engorge themselves on. It's symbolic of stupidity. Not ignorant or moron stupidity, it's purpose driven stupidity like drinking a chronically toxic poison.
Somehow I missed the part explaining why we should give the jury candidates the benefit of the doubt - why, in NYC, a hotbed of extreme Progressive Democrat sensibilities, whose electorate votes in more madness election after election, that somehow, nobody in the jury pool 'has it in' for Trump and would lie to get on the jury, just to gain bragging rights for 'sticking it to him'. Really? Remember OJ? What do they call the opposite of 'jury nullification'?
yeah - celebrity trials, baby. And how many New Yorkers hate Trump with the heat from a thousand suns? And even in spite of all that even-handed benefit-of-the-doubt, we have a solid majority getting their news from the NYT, according to this. And those who don't, have a neighbor that does.
So: Spare me. Trump can't get a fair trial. That's the point of this farcical trial, isn't it, Ann? Would they be prosecuting such absurdities if they didn't already have the over/under on that outcome? They'll find him guilty before election day, and any appeals will only come after.
And meanwhile, they'll see about getting Mike Johnson kicked out as Speaker of the House, and set about getting a Democrat appointed, since so many 'Republicans' have suddenly decided to leave in haste. And with that development, the House and the Senate will miraculously find a way to follow the Supreme Court's steer, that only Congress can declare Trump unfit for office. Gosh, what are the odds?
Watch it happen.
What Aggie wrote at 7:51 PM +1000.
I think it's likely that we'll get a hung jury, which is the best you can expect in corrupt NY
"Widely scattered" except for that solid yellow bar across from the New York Times.
Trump will lucky to get out of that courtroom alive, let alone run for President again.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा