Jussie Smollett

With hate crimes statistically on the rise in the U.S.- there has been one event in particular that has caught the attention of many news outlets. Whether to push a political agenda or to find justice amidst a mass of confusion, the case of Jussie Smollett, actor for hit show Empire, has been a heated and controversial story since the alleged attack on January 29, 2019. Since then many previously unknown facts have come to light. 

As all of you who are weekly readers of the blog know, we value viewpoints and debate here at FlashNews, and today we hope to capture all sides of the argument. To successfully do that we will 1)be exploring the facts- what's been reported and what statements have been made, 2) we will address the two major the opinions and baizes that muddy the water around this actor's alleged attack and 3) pulling evidence where we can to reach a solid conclusion.

What We Know

The alleged attack happened on a cold morning on the 29th of January. Jussie arrived in Chicago earlier that night and went out to get some food.

"I went to Subway, got the order," Smollett said in an interview with Good Morning America, "and as I was crossing the intersection I heard 'f*** Empire n*****' so I turned around and I said 'What did you just say to me?' and I see the attacker, masked. And he said 'This MAGA country n***** " and punched me in the face." (ABC 2019)

Jussie goes on to recount that the second attacker emerged and the two began to beat him- one of them dousing him with bleach, and the other throwing a noose around his neck- until they ran off. (ABC 2019)

After going through surveillance cameras and asking around, the Chicago police identified two strangers that seemed to be in the right place at the right time to be considered suspects. They followed the tracks to find out that "the two were personal trainers to Smollett". They had worked closely with Smollett for years and had. (France 2019)

On February 21, Jussie Smollett was arrested on suspicion of filling a false police report. Superintendent of the Chicago police,  Eddie Johnson said "Smollett first attempted to gain attention by sending a false letter that relied on racial, homophobic and political language, When that didn't work, Smollett paid $3,500 to stage this attack and drag Chicago's reputation through the mud in the process," Johnson said. "And why? The stunt was orchestrated by Smollett because he was dissatisfied with his salary. So he concocted a story about being attacked."(France 2019)

On March 14th, however, Smollett pleaded "Not Guilty" to the charges. "I have been truthful and consistent on every level since day one," Smollet said in response to the charges"I would not be my mother's son if I was capable of one drop of what I've been accused of."

Opposing Viewpoints

Political agendas often make it difficult to tell what is newsworthy and what is not. If the hate crime happened, then some would argue that President Trump had something to do with inspiring the men to attack Jussie Smollett. Trump's Rhetoric has been attacked on many occasions and disputably has led certain individuals to do illegal actions. 

If the hate crime was faked, then the right could then argue that news outlets were too hasty to assume a position on the act and that they used the story to further their own narratives. With the common "fake-news" claim, this could be a blow to the left.

Issues of racism and hate crimes definitely are a tentative subject, which also affects the way that these issues have been reported. They are not to be taken lightly, but evidence is needed when assessing a potential crime.

For

The fourteenth amendment states that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This means that any citizen of the United States is innocent of any crime until proven guilty. 

Because Jussie Smollett hasn't pleaded guilty- after receiving several chances to do so - we are to assume that he is innocent. Even though the evidence could make certain suggestions, it has not entirely condemned or exonerated him from the crime, therefore we cannot assume malice

Against

Many argue the evidence is quite conclusive. Take for example Jussie Smollet's call history. Jussie made calls to the Osundairo brothers several times throughout the night of the instant, both before and after the attack. Security footage verifies that the brothers were there at the right time. (Rumore 2019) One could only assume that they had been planning the attack.

Another piece of evidence that is quite convincing is the brother's testimony. The Chicago Tribune reads "Police initially treated the incident as a hate crime, but their focus turned to Smollett after the two brothers who were alleged to have been his attackers told police that Smollett had paid them $3,500 to stage the attack, with a promise of an additional $500 later." (Meisner, 2019)

The statement continues, "on Feb. 19, another detective interviewed a manager of a TCF Bank branch located in a Jewel grocery store about a $3,500 check written by Smollett that had been deposited by one of the brothers, the records show." There is pretty hard evidence that the payment was made for faking the hate crime

The other issue that could be argued is how the media reacted. After the attack, several government figures including a speaker for the house Nanci Pelosi, presidential candidate Cory Booker, and presidential candidate Kamala Harris were very quick to react to the attack with outrage and support, but others were more skeptical. 

Senator Harris has since been criticized for her claim calling it a "modern day lynching" before the facts came out. (Harris 2019) Msnbc and Huffington Post came out with articles and essays about the situation calling out those on the right for being skeptical about the claims made.

Conclusion

Through the evidence does suggest that Jussie Smollet did fake a hate crime, it would be wrong to convict him for being guilty until there is sufficient evidence. That being said, the evidence that the crime was faked far outweighs the evidence that it was not. We'll see how it all unravels, and if further evidence comes out.

Bibliography

News, ABC. “Jussie Smollett FULL Interview on Alleged Attack | ABC News Exclusive.” YouTube, YouTube, 15 Feb. 2019, www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXLx5OY21Bk.

France, Lisa Respers. “The Many Twists and Turns in the Jussie Smollett Investigation.” CNN, Cable News Network, 26 Mar. 2019, www.cnn.com/2019/02/15/entertainment/jussie-smollett-attack-details/index.html.

Harris, Kamala (@kamalaharris). “Tweet Message.” 29 January @019, 4:30. Tweet.

LII Staff. “14th Amendment.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, 17 May 2018, www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv.

Meisner, Jason, and Jeremy Gorner. “Chicago Police Files on Jussie Smollett Investigation Show behind-the-Scenes Maneuvers.” Chicagotribune.com, 5 Apr. 2019, www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-jussie-smollett-chicago-police-investigation-20190327-story.html.

Rumore, Kori, and Jemal R. Brinson. “The Jussie Smollett Incident: Minute-by-Minute of That Cold January Night.” Chicagotribune.com, 25 Feb. 2019, www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-viz-jussie-smollett-incident-night-details-htmlstory.html.

Rhetorical Notes

1. What was your purpose in writing your investigative report? My purpose was to state the facts and then identify 2 opposing viewpoints to come to a less biased conclusion, that the reader could trust.

2. Which audience did you choose? Why did you choose this audience? I chose the readers of my political blog. These are the kinds of people that enjoy politics and already know a bit about the biases and polar viewpoints of both sides. I chose this group, because I wanted to be informative and outright about my bias, and let the readers see the issue for what it is.

3. How did the audience influence your writing voice? Your content? Your formatting? The writing is professional in some ways, and quite causal in others. A few times throughout the blog post I directly talk to my readers, which you would never see in a news article- but at the same time, I say the facts directly and with no fluff in the writing. The formatting is also a bit different because I used headings, pictures, and short paragraphs like they do in blogs. Also the obvious formatting of it being an actual blog post.

4. What roles did ethos, pathos, and logos play in your evaluation? Ethos was accomplished by showing multiple viewpoints and coming to a middle ground in my conclusion- instead of leaning one way or the other. I emphasized pathos by showing how the different sides were using this story to push their own agendas. Logos was constant throughout the blog post because I used exact dates, numbers, and quotes- to show that I am reliable.

5. Given what you’ve stated above, how effectively do you think you accomplished your purpose? I think I have done this quite effectively. I put quite a bit of research into many viewpoints, and i think that it shows in my writing. I also think its effective that i lay out all the facts, show the viewpoints- hopefully letting my reader come to their own opinion- and then finish by stating my conclusion.

6. How did this assignment help you understand the value and characteristics of evidence? I feel like having direct quotes and facts tied to what happened seriously helped my credibility, and made the tone of my blog a lot more professional. The evidence made my final conclusion much more powerful

Research Notes

1. What information did you find that was relevant to your audience and purpose? I think that the interview with Jussie Smollett and the sources from the Chicago Tribune really gave my readers an insight into what they could trust. Those two sources contradicted each other, but I believe it helped give my readers a better view on the matter and helped them formulate an opinion.

2. What challenges did you have while doing your research? There were very few sources that had actual facts. The majority were opinion based articles or had no evidence backing what they said. I also struggled with seeing just how much has been written about Jussie Smollett. There was so much information to sift through, and the majority of it was not very useful.

3. What strategies did you use in your research? How well did they work? I used several types of sources, and that seemed to help immensely. The interview video, the CNN article, the sources from Chicago- they all had a different tone and a different way of stating the facts. By looking at them all, I feel like I was able to come to a much better conclusion than if I had only looked at one of them. One part of my research that did not go so well was that I would write something, and then look for a source to support it. I think if I were going to do this assignment again I would have found the quotes and paraphrasing first, and then filled in the rest with my writing.