When it comes to the liberal media, there seems to be an unspoken rule to never abandon the narrative, even when it’s been proven false.
We’ve seen this before, of course. Even after it was proven there was no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia in 2016, and that the entire narrative was cooked up by Hillary Clinton and her allies, some refuse to give it up.
And now the same thing is happening with Kyle Rittenhouse.
For many months now, the left has believed that Rittenhouse traveled “across state lines” with an AR-15 with the intent of using it to shoot rioters and looters — dubbed “peaceful protesters” by the media.
The trial established that this was not true.
Yet, on Sunday, CBS’s Face The Nation reporter Mark Strassman claimed that Kyle Rittenhouse came to Kenosha “armed for battle.”
“Rittenhouse drove in from Illinois armed for battle. He knew outage already ran high,” Strassman’s voiceover is heard saying. “Two days earlier, a white cop had shot a black man seven times in the back. The officer was never charged.”
On CBS's Face the Nation, reporter Mark Strassman repeats the debunked LIE that "Rittenhouse drove in from Illinois armed for battle." He was not charged with that and it came out during the trial that the rifle was in Kenosha, where Rittenhouse has family and where he worked. pic.twitter.com/bcCTxzz7G5
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) November 21, 2021
Had anyone at CBS News watched the trial, they would have known that the rifle was purchased by Rittenhouse’s friend, 19-year-old Dominick David Black, who kept the weapon in Wisconsin and who provided it to Rittenhouse to protect himself.
An editor’s note has since been attached to the transcript of the program:
Coverage during “Face the Nation” today of the protests following the verdict in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse stated Rittenhouse “drove in from Illinois armed for battle.” Kyle Rittenhouse testified that he did not drive to Kenosha with a weapon. It was not illegal for Rittenhouse to posses that particular weapon. We apologize for this oversight in language.
Is this supposed to make things right? It doesn’t matter if Strassman was unaware of this key detail or simply ignored it for the purpose of perpetuating the narrative. He should have known the facts first, and accurately reported them.