A Blind Man and the BBC Show America the Truth
The assassination attempt on Trump has put media trust back in the spotlight
Most of the US’ major TV networks were in a car park when Gary O'Donoghue was scooping them. The BBC’s senior North American correspondent, who just so happens to be legally blind, came across an eyewitness of the apparent assassination attempt on Donald Trump.
What followed in Butler City, Pennsylvania, was a thorough breakdown of how the shooter, now known as 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, had tried to kill the ex-President from a white rooftop just 400 feet from Trump’s rally. In the process, Crooks left one person dead and two others critically injured as multiple rifle rounds volleyed into the crowd.
Greg Smith’s testimony to O'Donoghue was so important because other media outlets had decided to interview attendees of the rally, some of whom thought the shots came from a nearby water tower.
But Smith, and his family, were crucially situated outside of the event’s perimeter and had planned to listen to Trump from afar. Before he was felled, Smith claimed Crooks was “bear crawling” up the roof and that he pointed him out to Secret Service and local law enforcement before the tragic incident took place.
There should be no doubt that this eyewitness account (and others) will help the now FBI-led investigation into the shooting. In the meantime, the interview has gone viral, with O'Donoghue rightfully being praised for his cool and non-partisan questions.
Watching it back, the BBC man showed so much composure he might as well be interviewing a councillor about a planning dispute, not a highly shocking moment in recent American history.
O'Donoghue let Smith talk and only prompted him for further information, even asking Smith if he knew what type of firearm the shooter was using – it has since been identified as a semi-automatic rifle.
But the firearm’s make, model, stock and ammunition are currently unclear (these details are important in and of themselves, but also for the wider US gun control debate).
There are now at least seven different bodies investigating the incident, including the ATF, the Secret Service and the GOP-led House of Representatives, so you might hope this information comes to light.
Unfortunately, and despite Trump supporters, some of which were in attendance, immediately and wrongfully blaming the media for the shooting, it seems US outlets have slipped back to old habits.
Instead of trying to grill the authorities at press conferences or demanding public statements on the probe’s developments, they are citing unnamed ‘sources’ who have refused to go on-the-record.
The best way to build trust with all of the American people would be to keep this information open and public.
If it’s too soon to say anything or not deemed appropriate, the authorities, who could be jockeying for position given the long list of investigatory bodies, should keep schtum. The media shouldn’t be helping them.
Let’s not forget there was little follow-up of the Hur Report, which outlined President Biden’s frailties, in February. It took the pre-general election CNN debate between Trump and Biden in late June to highlight the issue in a way which couldn’t be ignored.
This is why overseas outlets could have an important role to play in the Trump shooting. Cold, hard non-partisan reporting is the way forward. Just ask Gary O'Donoghue.
🤔 Other things in tech and media I’ve found interesting
Labour’s AI bill. The FT is reporting that Keir Starmer’s government will pass dedicated AI legislation focused on LLM standards and safety in the King’s Speech. Rishi Sunak originally tried to avoid introducing such a bill in a bid to regulate the general technology through existing bodies (OfCom for media, the FCA for finance and so on). You can read more on Labour’s AI strategy here.
Elon takes on the EU. The EU has claimed that Elon Musk and X have breached its Digital Services Act. One of the specific allegations is that the platform’s blue checks, which are now paid-for, had misled users into thinking some content was trustworthy when it might not have been. Elon said he would fight the case. But there is a big question for the EU here: based on its recent track-record, does it primarily just want to be seen as super-regulator of tech, rather than an innovator?
Awkward questions for OpenAI. Fortune has pointed out that Sam Altman’s company has unveiled a five-tiered classification system to track its progress towards AGI. But there is no mention/definition of AGI in that list. OpenAI’s core mission is to “ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity”. Ben Evans has written about the ontological issues surrounding AGI in the past. If you can’t define it, does it exist?
🎥 Video essays
📖 Essays
How disinformation is forcing a paradigm shift in media theory
Welcome to the age of electronic cottages and information elites
Operation Southside: Inside the UK media’s plan to reconcile with Labour
📧 Contact
For high-praise, tips or gripes, please contact the editor at iansilvera@gmail.com or via @ianjsilvera. Follow on LinkedIn here.
196 can be found here
195 can be found here
194 can be found here
193 can be found here
192 can be found here