Reserving Judgement
The Jussie Smollett case is a mess. There is an aspect of it, no matter what one believes about Smollett's account, dealing with the bias in favor of authority where news organizations are concerned, which should be examined.
The public discussion is being shaped by the perspective taken by news organizations, and it's a perspective which shouldn't be given automatic, unthinking acceptance. A significant portion of this discussion is being shaped through an examination of the reaction to Smollett's allegations. It's focusing on the immediate support given Smollett, and presented as an example of the failure in social media dynamics to wait for evidence to be presented where allegations are concerned. It's being talked about as something harmful to our politics, dialog and ability to make collective decisions.
Everyone who is saying, “This is an excellent example of why we shouldn’t have an instantaneous reaction to allegations” is immediately placing faith in Chicago Police Departments allegations of Smollett perpetrating a hoax, even as they council those who placed faith in Smollett to not be so hasty in the future. This perspective demonstrates a bias in favor of individuals and institutions of authority. With this instance in particular, it demonstrates the strength of this bias, its depth in the institution of journalism because there is ample evidence to suggest the Chicago Police Department and the individuals who represent it have demonstrated they aren't worthy of public faith.
CPD has repeatedly acted in direct opposition to any reasonable standard which would suggest the public place faith in them. Beyond the Smollett case, this perspective which ignores when an institutions or organization has repeatedly abused or acted in direct contrast to public trust results in the lack of will for reform or outright rethinking the entire structure of these institutions and organizations.
CPD ran a CIA style black site, torturing many and "disappearing" 7,000 people. They also spent a year lying about the existence of video that proved Laquan McDonald was unarmed and not moving toward police when they shot and killed him, in direct opposition to what CPD had claimed. In both of these cases, CPD lied to the public, for a year or more.
The current Superintendent, when appointed interim super, went on television and openly said that in his 27 years of policing, he’d never seen misconduct. CPD was committing so many violations of citizens rights in the years prior, they were under a federal consent decree (this is when police departments are being monitored by the Justice Department, under threat of being taken over by the Justice Department if they fail to meet the requirements put in place to prevent further institutional tolerance for or acceptance of the violation of citizens rights), but in 27 years he saw nothing? This seems improbable.
If we're “reserving judgment until the facts come out” it’s probably also important to keep judgement reserved until the facts actually do come out. It’s not rational to take the word of an organization which has very recently engaged in it’s own version of cover ups and hoaxes to mislead the public. This isn’t “a few bad apples,” it’s an entire departments command structure engaging in two high profile cover ups. How are they suddenly a credible authority whose version of events is accepted without question?
This isn't just about the Smollett case. It just happens to be this case which is highlighting the issue, at this moment.
It’s these people though, whose perspective is to just accept the claims of an institution with a very recent, demonstrable history of full scale conspiracy to mislead the public, who are being presented as the “sensible adults.”
If an audience is reading, hearing or seeing an interview with a news organization, and this is the way it’s presented, it sounds rational. If the audience isn't familiar with the Chicago Police Department’s Hoamen Square scandal or the Laquan McDonald shooting, they never question it. It does seem reasonable, until the audience has the facts demonstrating CPD is not reliable where presenting a factual narrative of events to the public is concerned.
Most news organizations are loathe to have someone on who is going to say, “CPD has a very recent, well documented history of lying to the public,” and then laying out the facts which support this statement because it draws too much heat from both conservative circles and from police unions.
To bring up the recent history of CPD misleading the public is not “an attack on the police.” It’s a statement of demonstrable fact. It is rational to decide to withhold judgement until the facts of the case are clear. CPD has yet to demonstrate they have changed the atmosphere and environment of their institution to a degree which makes them the final word on what the facts are or what the facts say.
This perspective, which ignores the recent history of CPD being not just being poor stewards of public trust, but directly abusing public trust, has consequences beyond the Jussie Smollett case. It's a violation of public trust on the part of news organizations, and of the mandate of the press when these facts are left out of the discussion. Additionally, it's not in keeping with the "objective perspective" the majority of news organizations strive for. It's a bias, which may be shared by a majority of their audience, but which has significant consequences in both number and scale.
This perspective, the way these discussions are continually framed in a way which avoids the degree to which law enforcement institutions like the CPD mislead the public, is one of the significant contributing factors preventing a more just and equitable perception of what justice and policing can be.
As the Smollett case is concerned, "the truth will out." It's too big a controversy for the truth not to be revealed. Implicitly trusting any institution with the recent record the Chicago Police Department has does nothing to favor an environment where CPD can be relied on to reveal the truth without national attention and the heat of public scrutiny, and news organizations do the public a disservice by presenting the CPD as if it should be trusted, until it demonstrates a significant change in culture and atmosphere.