I generally avoid commenting on these outrage stories because we never have adequate information until weeks or months later, at which point everyone has more or less cemented their version of what happened. Looking at the “chilling” video that social media has been circulating, it strikes me as a classic case of self-defense, only mitigated at this junction by public fury. What I’m more interested in is the way media outlets shape narratives using the wonderful tool of pictures.
Some of you will recall how in 2013 the press kept circulating the following picture of Trayvon Martin, making him appear like a little baby who was attacked by an older man:
In reality, a more accurate description of his personality was encompassed by the following images:
Now you might say, what difference does it make? Well, perhaps you failed to notice, but your brain did. The current case has a similar flair to it. Media outlets began by circulating the following picture:
Seems like a real nice guy, who was just victimized by evil people who were jealous of his running ability. A few days later, an even more gratuitously self-anointing picture was introduced:
Wow. He really looks like a perfect angel. Probably a gym teacher or school counselor. What could anyone possible have against him? But then, if we dig deep enough, this version comes out, from a previous arrest:
BIG difference. Again, there will be shilling and cucking about how it doesn’t matter, yet if you notice, the media didn’t trot out any happy, sympathetic pics of the McMichaels:
Are we not Willie Hortoning the McMichaels just to feel better about ourselves? And keep in mind, the flow of outrageous stories about black on black or black on white violence ceases to halt, but this is the only one that seems to matter.