If it fits the narrative too perfectly, it probably didn't happen. This is a lesson that the American media should've learned during the Covington Catholic hoax back in January, and then again during the Jussie Smollett hoax in February. Yet once again, the mainstream media has demonstrated its inability to resist reporting on just about anything that supports their desired narrative.
Over the weekend, Erica Thomas, a black Georgia lawmaker, posted a video to her Facebook account. In this video, she shared a story claiming that a white man had berated her in a grocery store for having more than 10 items in an express checkout line. In tears, she described how the man told her to "go back where you came from."
It took less than a day for this to become a national story, the New York Times reporting on it with the headline, "'The Hate is Real': Black Georgia Lawmaker Berated at Supermarket."
This story emerged a week after President Trump sent his infamous tweets telling the progressive Democrat congresswomen to "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came." The supermarket story seemed to fit the prevailing narrative perfectly. It was the puzzle piece that demonstrated that Trump's rhetoric was having a real and immediate impact on the lives of racial minorities. A white male Trump supporter used the President's exact words to harass a black female Democrat. All week, the media had been suggesting that his rhetoric was dangerous, and this story was the evidence.
Unfortunately for them, that wasn't the entire story.
The man came out and denied that he said anything racist or along the lines of "go back where you came from." He admitted that he had confronted the woman for having too many items in the express lane, but he claimed that calling her "lazy" was the worst of his comments. Additionally, the man said that he was Cuban and had voted Democrat his entire life -- two facts that aren't particularly beneficial to the prevailing narrative.
Erica Thomas was asked about the man's specific comments. She stated, “I don’t want to say he said, ‘Go back to your country,’ or ‘Go back to where you came from.’ But he was making those types of references is what I remember.” This contradicts the original claims that she made in her video and on her twitter.
The more the story is investigated, the less genuine it appears. There isn't a way to determine the validity of the story, but it seems far more questionable than the headlines would suggest. This was a story with very little evidence that was reported on with a sense of certainty because it fit the narrative.
When a story is narrative-driven and not evidence-driven, it is affected in two ways.
First, the media is motivated to report on a certain story because it helps push the desired narrative. This story helped establish the narrative that Trump's rhetoric was having a real and immediate impact on the lives of racial minorities.
Second, the narrative impacts the way that a story is reported. Because the media already believes the narrative that motivated them to report on a story, they see the narrative as evidence that the story is genuine. The logic goes like this: "Erica Thomas must be telling the truth, because of course something like that would happen in Trump's America." This causes the media to report these stories with certainty, and without the skepticism that they often deserve.
When the media makes it a priority to push a certain narrative even at the expense of truth, the American people are forced to view the world through a distorted lens. If someone took the Erica Thomas, Covington Catholic, and Jussie Smollett stories at face value, it would make them more likely to buy into the narrative that Trump's rhetoric is making the United States a terrible, racist country.
The American people should have the freedom to build their own worldview based on their own interpretation of the facts. When the media prioritizes pushing a narrative over presenting the evidence, the American people are more likely to build their worldview on falsehoods.
Over the weekend, Erica Thomas, a black Georgia lawmaker, posted a video to her Facebook account. In this video, she shared a story claiming that a white man had berated her in a grocery store for having more than 10 items in an express checkout line. In tears, she described how the man told her to "go back where you came from."
It took less than a day for this to become a national story, the New York Times reporting on it with the headline, "'The Hate is Real': Black Georgia Lawmaker Berated at Supermarket."
This story emerged a week after President Trump sent his infamous tweets telling the progressive Democrat congresswomen to "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came." The supermarket story seemed to fit the prevailing narrative perfectly. It was the puzzle piece that demonstrated that Trump's rhetoric was having a real and immediate impact on the lives of racial minorities. A white male Trump supporter used the President's exact words to harass a black female Democrat. All week, the media had been suggesting that his rhetoric was dangerous, and this story was the evidence.
Unfortunately for them, that wasn't the entire story.
The man came out and denied that he said anything racist or along the lines of "go back where you came from." He admitted that he had confronted the woman for having too many items in the express lane, but he claimed that calling her "lazy" was the worst of his comments. Additionally, the man said that he was Cuban and had voted Democrat his entire life -- two facts that aren't particularly beneficial to the prevailing narrative.
Erica Thomas was asked about the man's specific comments. She stated, “I don’t want to say he said, ‘Go back to your country,’ or ‘Go back to where you came from.’ But he was making those types of references is what I remember.” This contradicts the original claims that she made in her video and on her twitter.
The more the story is investigated, the less genuine it appears. There isn't a way to determine the validity of the story, but it seems far more questionable than the headlines would suggest. This was a story with very little evidence that was reported on with a sense of certainty because it fit the narrative.
When a story is narrative-driven and not evidence-driven, it is affected in two ways.
First, the media is motivated to report on a certain story because it helps push the desired narrative. This story helped establish the narrative that Trump's rhetoric was having a real and immediate impact on the lives of racial minorities.
Second, the narrative impacts the way that a story is reported. Because the media already believes the narrative that motivated them to report on a story, they see the narrative as evidence that the story is genuine. The logic goes like this: "Erica Thomas must be telling the truth, because of course something like that would happen in Trump's America." This causes the media to report these stories with certainty, and without the skepticism that they often deserve.
When the media makes it a priority to push a certain narrative even at the expense of truth, the American people are forced to view the world through a distorted lens. If someone took the Erica Thomas, Covington Catholic, and Jussie Smollett stories at face value, it would make them more likely to buy into the narrative that Trump's rhetoric is making the United States a terrible, racist country.
The American people should have the freedom to build their own worldview based on their own interpretation of the facts. When the media prioritizes pushing a narrative over presenting the evidence, the American people are more likely to build their worldview on falsehoods.
Comments
Post a Comment