Above is the initial headline MSNBC put up this week regarding Jose Ibarra, the illegal alien found guilty of murdering 22-year-old Laken Riley. It’s pretty amazing, even for MSNBC.
Riley was the George nursing student murdered and raped in February by the member of the notorious Venezualan gang, Tren de Aragua. Iberra was illegally in the U.S. but the insane Democratic policies pandering to illegals had seemed to have worked in concert to keep him here so he could inflict maximum carnage.
He attacked his victim while she was running on a trail at the University of Georgia campus in Athens, and the murder immediately crystalized public outrage over the Biden administration’s handling of illegal border crossings. It should have: it was a perfect tipping point for a long-running national debate that shouldn’t be a debate. While lawmakers in Georgia quickly passed tougher rules on immigration after the killing and Trump’s supporters used the tragedy to highlight his signature issue, Democrats and the progressive extremists on MSNBC rushed to issue excuses and rationalizations to insist that illegal immigrants are mostly the salt of earth, my least favorite theme being the idiotic and deceitful argument that immigrants commit fewer crimes in proportion to their numbers than American citizens.
[Arrgh. 1. The data is misleading. 2. The issue is illegal immigrants, which the Left continues to describe as just “immigrants” so it can accuse conservatives of opposing all immigration. 3. All crimes committed by illegal immigrants should not have been committed at all and are the result of progressive open border madness and its fatuous accompanying appeal to emotion, “These are just human beings trying to have a better life for themselves and their families.” I’m sorry I mentioned this. The “fewer crimes” cheat makes me furious. I apologize for the tangent. ]
It is quite possible that the murder and the issue it dramatized elected Donald Trump. Ibarra faced charges including malice murder and aggravated assault with the intent to rape. Judge H. Patrick Haggard of State Superior Court in Athens-Clarke County found him guilty this week and sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole after a four-day bench trial. The judge announced the verdict almost immediately after attorneys concluded their arguments; he repeated a prosecutor’s earlier statement that the “evidence was overwhelming and powerful.”
Yet MSNBC framed the murderer as the victim. The headline exemplifies how antithetical to journalism and public service—and reality— the full-time progressive propaganda network has become. Its extreme commitment to twisting the news wouldn’t allow the ideologues who work there to even accept the conclusion that the tragic murder compelled, because that conclusion might be harmful to Democrats. Can’t have that.
Eventually, after it became too obvious that this headline was offensive even to a lot of the network’s sheep-like fans, MSNBC stealth edited it to this…
The latest example of how disgusting MSNBC is and how unethical its instincts are came as its morning flagship show, “Morning Joe,” demonstrated that its hosts’ vituperative insistence that Donald Trump was going to destroy democracy and the nation was a dishonest, politically-driven sham. Joe and Mika quickly ran off to Mar-A-Largo to meet with Hitler, er, Trump. The show’s ratings then cratered, and it has become increasingly likely that Comcast, which owns MSNBC, will sell it. There is even speculation that Elon Musk, who has money to burn, could be persuaded to buy it and perform a similar exorcism on this mess that he did on Twitter.
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
What, if any, good purpose does MSNBC serve that would justify preserving it?
Me? I see none. It distorts the news. It actively encourages division. Its hosts cannot be believed, and many of them are racists. The objective of MSNBC is literally to spread propaganda designed to indoctrinate viewers into hatred of their nation and anyone who opposes radical leftist ideology.
MSNBC shares responsibility for the unprecedented freak-out of so many Harris voters after the election, the weird emotional reaction of children, and, we will soon see, the protests and violence about to erupt. Progressive bias in news reporting and punditry is more than sufficiently covered by the rest of the mainstream media. I believe removing MSNBC from the political scene would be a net benefit to all, and an ethics win.
Is there a counter argument?
Ethics Alarms 
I really don’t have a problem with the original headline. It’s clumsy, but its meaning – particularly coupled with the sub-head – is pretty much the same as the revised headline. From my perspective, only someone actually LOOKING for the perp to be made into a victim would read it that way.
To your quiz question: yes, I think MSNBC has its place in the mediasphere. Although news outlets can certainly whip up passions, they also reflect the views of their audiences (most of whom primarily want their existing opinions confirmed).MSNBC, as rotten as it is, gives anyone who cares about such things an eye into what extreme progressives actually think and say. I’d rather have that sort of thing out in the open, where people who can actually think can keep an eye on it.
Huh. If the meaning is the same, then why was it changed? There was no doubt, reasonable or otherwise, that Lakin’s murderer was guilty. Why did he deserve “a chance”? That headline would have been appropriate for Derek Chauvin, who had to be convicted despite many holes in the case, because the BLM fury had to be slaked. I would have been dubious about that headline anywhere, because it suggests a rush to judgment and an unfair trial…which is what happened to Chauvin.
Again, I think that ABC, PBS, CBS< NPR, the Times and the Post, among others, provide sufficient intelligence into what extreme progressives actually think and say without as completely misleading their viewers and readers
Arthur, what about that headline does not imply Ibarra was never going to be able to get a fair trial? The implication is so strong it’s virtually a denotation.
I read that headline as asserting that a wrong was done to the killer, that something bad was perpetrated upon him. That’s the usual meaning of ‘he never had a chance’ I think.
I am really not too keen on the substitute headline either, but when you approach the matter from the viewpoint that the killer was also a victim, that kind of what you get.
I do wonder if he got a bench trial in exchange for not seeking the death penalty (I assume Georgia has it).
======================
To answer the original question, I was sorry to see Air America go off the air, because it seemed like a good thing to have both sides on the radio. But liberals never did seem to get the radio thingy, where you actually need to entertain your audience to get listeners. That was Rush’s greatest strength, I believe.
I am not so sure about MSNBC. I catch an earful of it from time to time (my oldest sister is a devoted watcher). Besides the lies and constant misinformation, what gets me is just how hateful everyone there seems to be. It’s got to be corrosive to their lives and souls, constantly spewing all that bile.
I don’t know. Maybe if they fired their highest paid hosts, the rest might get the message. Or maybe they say just what their audience wants to hear — but that audience is very, very small.
‘Never stood a chance’ denotes hopeless situations where the odds are stacked against someone. A vicious rapist/murderer being sentenced isn’t it.
I immediately thought the headline meant that the killer was never going to get a fair trial.
As for MSNBC. This a cable offering with plenty of other options.
“Is there a counter argument?”
Short Answer: No
Long Answer: HELL NO!
FUN FACTS: From the bedrock Conservative HuffPo MSNBC Almost Entirely Dominated By Opinion: Pew Study
News Content: FoxNews 45 % MSNBC 15 %
Opinion Content: FoxNews 55 % MSNBC 85 %.
Et tu, HuffPo?
MSNBC has 55 % more opinion content and a mere 1/3 the news content of FoxNews.
PWS
MSNBC = Must Sell Network By Christmas
(last night on Gutfeld!)
Bingo.
No, they are no different except in scale to the internet “influencers” that are paid or sponsored shills for the writer of the checks. There is no there there.
The question is whether we really need a network dedicated solely to destroying the United States? Wasn’t it something called “Air America” that fairly quickly fell on its face and disappeared. MSNBC should go the same way. People like Rachel Maddow and the Morning Joe crew would be forced onto the internet. And perhaps NBC would have an opportunity to salvage what’s left of its equally tattered reputation.