@GottaLaff I looked again and realized the New Yorker's who don't read the Times either don't follow the news at all or get news from TikTok or Google! It's wild. And perhaps a sign of how extra terrible it is that the news site everyone in NYC visits employs so many trash op-ed columnists.
@GottaLaff
That's a bizarre survey. AP and Reuters are my two top sources.
Military times is not even listed. Neither is the Atlantic. The survey also doesn't include the bulk of the lunatic fringe offerings.
Can they sequester the jury? It only takes one. Is there no justice? I can’t deal with another train wreck. It makes me glad I’m old & won’t live to see the results of triumphant Fascism destroying the world as we knew it.
@JudyOlo The prosecution vetted these people too, so I’m guessing they said something like they read it at one time, or currently, to see what’s out there, but not necessarily more than that.
@GottaLaff@Ralph058 Several media outlets have identified #1 as “the foreperson.” Do you know if this is just a temporary designation until members of the jury elect someone to represent them?
@GottaLaff Yikes. Three news sources cited by five jurors on the list are Murdoch properties: NYPost, Fox, WSJ.
Google and Facebook aren't news sources but aggregators, so we don't know that the five jurors who cited it as a source are also consuming Murdoch media through those platforms.
TikTok, X, and Truth Social may have news outlets but who knows if they're consuming more Murdoch through those sites.
@raynetoday The prosecution vetted these people too, so I’m guessing they said something like they read it at one time, or currently, to see what’s out there, but not necessarily more than that.
@GottaLaff I suspect having already lost a sizeable number of juror candidates when they were asked if they could be fair, they couldn't weed too finely on media.
There are two whose media consumption is sketchy -- [2] who relies on Truth Social and X, and [5] who claimed Google and TikTok. Number [2] is worrisome.
@jawarajabbi The prosecution vetted these people too, so I’m guessing they said something like they read it at one time, or currently, to see what’s out there, but not necessarily more than that.
#2 replaced the nurse who was worried about being IDed, so was added a little later in the process. The prosecution would have had fewer peremptory challenges left by then (if any), and may have wanted to save them for potential jurors with more red flags 🤷♀️
It's also possible they'd already looked into him a bit, and found that data reassuring.
Agreed. Daily Mail (England) also posts a ton of rage-bait, and is massively transphobic. But I think that's the Irish juror, so maybe more a habitual reader rather than seeking it out for that specific content, as some American extremists do.