Mainstream media coverage of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial has been unquestionably bad, horribly skewed, and deliberately biased – something even some liberals are acknowledging as the jury deliberations are set to begin after hearing two weeks of testimony.
Largely because the prosecution has torpedoed its own case against Rittenhouse, and also because presiding judge Bruce Schroeder has admonished the prosection a number of times over questionable tactics, the mainstream media have made a not-so-subtle shift to questioning the character and impartiality of Schroeder in what are obvious attempts to have him removed from the trial and if not that, at the very least to make people believe if the verdict doesn’t go the way the media/left want it, that the way he handled the trial had a hand in it.
Examples of this include the ridiculous attacks over his “God Bless the USA” cellphone ringtone, which was heard last week as the defense was speaking, as well as another baseless and ridiculous media-driven attack on Schroeder over comments he made one day last week regarding a timeline for the arrival of the Asian food that had presumably been ordered for him and members of the court. He was making a supply chain crisis joke, but the media falsely painted it as an “inappropriate Asian food joke.”
The latest media attack on Schroeder comes today from the Associated Press, who pulled the tried and true “some say” tactic (this time in the form of “some observers say”) to suggest that Schroeder was playing favorites with the defense:
What makes a fair trial? As Kyle Rittenhouse's trial unfolds, some observers have been struck by the judge's apparent deference to the defendant.https://t.co/Zul1lNMaO6
— The Associated Press (@AP) November 17, 2021
In the piece, they did note that much of what Schroeder did during this trial and others was pretty standard fare for judges who in reality are supposed to show deference to the defense, as it’s the prosecution’s job to prove their case, not the defense’s.
But the AP also complained that the “optics” of some of what Schroeder had done during this trial was causing “experts” (several of who they were magically able to find) to question whether or not he’d gone too far, like when he’d had people clap on Veterans Day for a witness for the defense who happened to be a veteran.
Well, although I’m not a lawyer and I’m certainly not a “legal expert,” it doesn’t take either to understand the reasons why Schroeder would show deference to the defense, though because we’re talking “experts” here I’ll quote one lawyer from Twitter who responded accordingly:
“That was the #journalism take. Here’s the take as a prosecutor – criminal trials are purposely structured to favor the defendant. Read all about it in 8th grade civics,” said Ohio attorney Mark Weaver.
Another Twitter user likened the AP piece to a “struggle session” the news organization was having over how to cover the trial. Indeed they, like many media outlets, are struggling over having to reframe the case since it has fallen apart so spectacularly for the prosecution.
Unfortunately, this type of slanted coverage (some of which Schroeder complained about earlier today) only fuels the fire of radical activists who are looking for any reason to burn a city to the ground in the event a trial doesn’t go “their way.” We can only hope and pray that the thought of what could happen to their city does not factor into the jury’s deliberations on this case because if it does then the entire justice system completely falls apart.
Now more than ever would be a good time to pray for Kenosha.