i guess that fits with their "vast unnavigable maze" approach to online content but it didn't get much burn. actually it was the main man antonio harvey (of lakers "fame") who showed it to me.

>which is the most confounding thing about it ALL to me. I'm
>not even asking people to convict the dude, but to think
>critically about it at the very least.

right and i mean on one hand i am all for righting wrongs, bringing people to justice, etc, but there is an uneasy aspect of all this. it isn't the "vengeful" part, because a lotta times vengeance is in order. it isn't the tear down the patriarchy/supremacy shit, because that's been needed to be torn down. it's more an overarching self-assuring, self-celebratory I WANNA BE ON THE RIGHT SIDE AND I DON'T WANNA SPEND ANY TIME DETERMINING WHICH SIDE IS RIGHT attitude that permeates everything in the U.S. today. the same reason people on the right couldn't define socialism with a dictionary, the same reason people on the left just automatically decry anything vaguely linked to Trump (anything directly linked is worth decrying) and the same reason two thirds of Americans couldn't pass a fucking test to become citizens of their own fucking country.

>the closest takes I've seen to yours are John Ziegler, whose
>notoriety over skepticism over the coverage of the Penn
>State/JoePa/Sandusky matter has got him the "stamp of tinfoil"
>may discredit him in the eyes of some, and Stereo Williams,
>who appears to have quit his job at the Daily Beast (who is
>towing a very Hillary Clinton-or-else type line on this
>topic), possibly because of the fall-out related to coverage
>of this matter.
>
>in Ziegler's case (who has said he wasn't a fan, or even
>someone who paid much attention), he came into the whole
>thing, and even after watching it, convinced of MJ's guilt.
>then he learned/investigated more, and he's become far more
>skeptical, and even flipped the other way. he was one of those
>who thought the whole Jussie Smollett situation was BS, and
>has compared this situation to that, only he says there's more
>to corroborate Smollett's claims than Wade's at this point.
>
>Williams's take published on Medium seemed very much a mea
>culpa, even with reminders of the necessary discussions and
>his "no dog in the fight" stance.
>
>this seems to be very much limited to the US media. in the UK,
>there is a much wider range of reaction, and in Italy (where
>it flopped the hardest), one piece in Panorama goes all the
>way in, dissecting some of the most graphic claims as they
>were presented.
>
>(granted the Italians DO have a bit of a problem with the
>topic if recent stories are any indication...)
>
>Again, regardless of where people stand, I expect there to be
>more of a spectrum of opinions, not this unilateral bullshit.
>especially in the "liberal" space.

exactly, and of course the more we get wrong in the media, the harder the "fake news"shit slaps. the more iffy accusations are out there, the less the real ones stick. we gotta hold ourselves to higher standards and let screaming idiots be the screaming idiots, not stoop to their level of manufacturing consensus and stifling facts into narratives.