Sunday 17 February 2019

Rooting for Jussie

Yes, I know it's a long post, but.... 👀....

I've been following a series of tweets from DB over the past couple of weeks or so, watching and waiting to see how things develop. Unlike much of the mainstream media, including the BBC, DB was onto how this story was likely pan out from the very start. (It broke on 29 January).

His latest tweet posts a thread on the subject by Amy Curtis that is well worth reading, especially after this 'breaking news':

  • The media won’t ask why, but I will.
  • He did it because he thought he’d get away w/ it. And he was almost right. The media bought it. Hollywood bought it. The left at large bought it. There wasn’t one ounce of skepticism. Not one hard line of questioning. Not one moment to pause before writing/tweeting support.
  • It fit the narrative perfectly. ORANGE MAN BAD. MAGA RACIST. No matter how implausible the story. No matter how ridiculous the circumstances. No matter how perfect. The left bought it. Hook, line, sinker. Jussie Smollett did this because he thought he could get away w/ it.
  • And while the police/DA may not let him (I’m pessimistic they’ll punish him, TBQH), the left won’t hold him accountable. He’ll be excused. “Living under the Trump regime made him do this!”.
  • You want another look at privilege? It’s Jussie Smollett. He used his privilege — his knowing the media/Hollywood would buy his lie without question — to further a political narrative they do desperately want to be true on a wide scale. They *want* more victims of hate crimes.
  • And in that privilege, Jussie Smollett has made it SO MUCH harder for the unprivileged ACTUAL victims of crimes to have their story heard and believed. To have something done to change that hatred when it REALLY happens and REALLY matters.
  • And the people who *should* be most upset about his lies — the supposed, self-appointed firefighter journalists and the leftists who claim to be champions of the little guy (including the Democrat 2020 candidates) — will ignore it. Excuse it. Blame Trump. 
  • They’ll gladly throw real victims under the bus in order to give Jussie Smollet’s false story more weight than it deserves. That’s how much they “care.” About actual hatred. And about actual privilege.

Bearing in mind DB's tweets - including this from yesterday:
Yesterday I pointed out the BBC was trying to encourage sympathy for Jussie Smollett by using just his first name 9 times in one article ( …). Not usual editorial style. I see they've stopped the practice today: …
- I thought I'd review the BBC website's coverage [including a totals per article of the ways Jussie Smollett's name is used].

The BBC News website began reporting the story on 29 January, with a report headlined Jussie Smollett: Empire star victim of suspected hate crime in Chicago. It began, "Police in Chicago say they are investigating a suspected homophobic and racist attack on a star of the US TV drama Empire." 
[Jussie Smollett - 1; Smollett - 4]

Report 2 came on 30 January, headlined Empire's Jussie Smollett: Stars show support after attack. This went through four versions and featured various celebrities reacting on the assumption that the attack was racist and homophobic. The link was made to Donald Trump's campaign. Its final version began:

[Jussie Smollett - 2; Jussie - 2]

Report 3 on 1 February, headlined Jussie Smollett: Police want to question two people over US actor attack, tells us "The suspects are reported to have shouted "racial and homophobic slurs" and Jussie says they referenced MAGA - the slogan Make America Great Again" and features more celebrities saying things like "another brother that has tasted the brutality of hatred and racism and bigotry."
[Jussie Smollett - 1; Jussie - 3]

Report 4, also on 1 February and headlined Jussie Smollett speaks about 'racist and homophobic' attack for first time, begins:

[Jussie Smollett - 1; Jussie - 3]

Report 5, on 3 February, had the headline Empire's Jussie Smollett: I will always stand for love. This began:

[Jussie Smollett - 1; Jussie - 4]

The story then disappeared from the BBC website for twelve days until on 15 February, Report 6 appeared with this headline: Jussie Smollett: 'No evidence' Empire actor attack was staged. This was a piece that sprang to his defence, as you can see from the opening paragraphs:

Go down a bit and you read this:
As time has passed and no progress has been made with the investigation, some have cast doubts about Jussie's version of events.
The article goes into surprisingly little details about those doubts.
[Jussie Smollett - 1; Mr Smollett - 1; Jussie - 9]

Later on the same day came Report 7, headlined Jussie Smollett: Brothers held over 'attack' on Empire actor. This was still on his side, but doubts had evidently begun creeping in:

[Jussie Smollett - 3; Jussie - 1]

With yesterday's Report 8, headlined Jussie Smollett: Suspects held over attack on actor released, the BBC seemed to emit a sigh of relief. This article began:

It's still on his side, isn't it? That said, look at the stats here and spot the change:
[Smollett - 1; Jussie Smollett - 2; Mr Smollett - 1; Jussie - 0]

Today's Report 9 was originally headlined Jussie Smollett 'paid Nigerian brothers to attack him but has now changed to Jussie Smollett had no role in own attack, lawyers say. The BBC are obviously not giving up on Jussie (or their narrative) quite yet. The article, almost conceding defeat, originally read:

But, hope seemingly springing eternal, it now reads:

Version 1: [Smollett - 4; Jussie Smollett - 1; Jussie - 0]
Version 2: [Smollett - 4; Jussie Smollett - 1; Jussie - 0]

So the story continues to unfold and the BBC's reputation (once more) appears to be hanging by a thread. 

Where next for this story? 


  1. There is no thread strong enough to carry the burden of the BBC's crashing reputation. Especially that of Murican Booty and his gaggle of unsupervised TDS MAGAphobic rodents.

    Even Damocles would likely baulk at being accorded any BBC title.

  2. Murican booty Lol! Sopel I presume.

  3. It does get cryptic around here from time to time. I doubt the crossword solver would be any help with that one!

  4. I don't get this habit of referring to black men (black women too?) by forename only. I've just read a comment stating that Chuka disagreed with Corbyn's leadership, as Peston's tweet noted.

    Why not use the surname - Umunna - as they've done for the others?

    1. Well Boris , the habit is to use the most unique part of someones name
      .. ask Hillary


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.