Opinion

The media framed Kyle Rittenhouse — and won’t come clean even after the prosecution’s case falls apart

Media malpractice has come full circle in Kenosha, Wis.

Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial for the shooting deaths of two people and the wounding of another is nearing its end, with the jury expected to get the case soon. The shootings took place as riots, arson and looting shook Kenosha after police shot Jacob Blake on August 23, 2020. The violence fed off the nationwide riots and looting that followed the May death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody.

From the start, the media misrepresented the Blake case and ensuing riots. They portrayed Blake as an unarmed man who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, subjected to police brutality due to racism.

The truth was far different.

After an intensive investigation, prosecutors declared Blake’s shooting a justifiable use of force. The federal Justice Department reached the same conclusion. Contrary to media portraits, Blake was armed with a knife and was shot when he turned in a slashing motion at a policeman within arm’s reach.

While it wouldn’t be fair to say the media coverage caused the Kenosha riots, the press downplayed the mayhem and ramped up the hysteria. As with the Black Lives Matter riots in Minneapolis and beyond, the mainstream media incessantly focused away from the violence, despite almost 20 related deaths and more than $1 billion in damage.

Perhaps the most notorious example is CNN reporter Omar Jimenez standing in front of burning buildings in Kenosha with the on-air chyron reading, “Fiery but mostly peaceful protests after police shooting.” The phrase “mostly peaceful” is now a popular internet meme used to mock distorted mainstream media coverage.

It’s happening again with the Rittenhouse case, which was born in the Kenosha riots. From the media coverage leading up to the trial, one would think Rittenhouse was a white supremacist militia member who traveled to Kenosha to shoot up peaceful protesters.

But as has been widely documented, the case is going poorly for the prosecution. While I’m not predicting an outcome, having followed the case carefully, I can say that Rittenhouse has a strong case for self-defense.

One of the deceased, Joseph Rosenbaum, was a clearly violent person who had threatened to kill Rittenhouse, chased him down and went to grab Rittenhouse’s rifle when shot. The other dead man, Anthony Huber, was beating Rittenhouse with a skateboard in a swinging manner when shot.

Gaige Grosskreutz, who was wounded, admitted under cross-examination that he ran after Rittenhouse and closed the gap (but denied he was “chasing” him) — and that Rittenhouse only fired on him when Grosskreutz lowered his loaded Glock pistol to point directly at Rittenhouse from three feet away.

Most of this evidence came out of the prosecution case. When the defense called him to testify, Rittenhouse stuck to the same story witnesses told.

With trial evidence inconsistent with the news’ narrative, there could have been a major media mea culpa. Instead, headlines and framing continue that pre-trial narrative, even if inconvenient facts appear deep down in the articles. As the editors who run these stories and draft the headlines know, many if not most people don’t get far beyond the headlines and opening paragraphs.

Thus, NBC News breathlessly headlines a news report about the prosecution’s forensic pathologist testifying that Rosenbaum was in a “horizontal” position, “suggesting the victim wasn’t a threat when he was gunned down.” It’s not until the bottom of the article that NBC acknowledges that same expert testified the wound positioning was consistent with Rosenbaum diving towards Rittenhouse. Left out of the story was his testimony that gunpowder residue was consistent with Rosenbaum grabbing the muzzle of the gun when he was shot, just as Rittenhouse and witnesses said.

The headline highlight of Grosskreutz’s testimony according to a Daily Beast report was that he “tried to surrender” to Rittenhouse. Similar misleading narratives frame the case at the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today and elsewhere. Reading only these publications, it would be reasonable to believe the original story of Rittenhouse as a shooter run amok, despite the trial testimony to the contrary.

From the inception of the Blake shooting, to the riots and now to the Rittenhouse trial, media malpractice has framed a Kenosha narrative completely divorced from reality.

William A. Jacobson is a clinical professor of law at Cornell Law School and founder of the Legal Insurrection politics and law website.