An attempt by journalists to discredit Johnny Depp’s legal victory over Amber Heard as “misogyny” is why readers are losing faith in inherited journalism, writes Jack Houghton.
The media claims that “misogyny” is the reason Johnny Depp imposed his ex-wife Amber Heard in a U.S. court has lost the trust of his readers.
You don’t have to look far to find video clips of the defamation lawsuit on social media platforms.
There were countless dramatic moments when Heard was questioned by the now famous lawyer Camille Vasquez who gave millions of people around the world an answer to the only question that mattered.
Was Amber Heard credible?
If the court of public opinion could issue an edict, the answer was clearly no.
Just follow the hashtags on TikTok to see that #JusticeForJohnnyDepp content had been viewed more than 15 billion times over the course of the test, while #IStandWithAmberHeard clips made a whopping 8.2 million.
But in some legacy media, editorial support oscillated clearly in favor of Heard.
One of the most disgusting articles was published by The Guardian.
Instead of analyzing the evidence as presented in court, author Moira Donegan refused to accept that Heard had lied.
This is despite the fact that the jury found that Heard not only lied, but acted maliciously when he intentionally spread these lies.
“The Amber Heard-Johnny Depp trial was an orgy of misogyny,” he wrote.
“The reaction against #Me Too has been going on for a long time. But that seems like a turning point.
“The strange, illogical and unfair sentence has the effect of sanctioning Depp’s alleged abuse of Heard and punishing Heard for speaking out.”
Activists operating under the guise of target viewers are upset about what this means for their cause.
They don’t care about Heard, the fact that she’s facing bankruptcy, or the comments her young daughter can read online.
They care that their cause has received a blow.
And that goes to the heart of the matter with the #MeToo movement.
Individual cases of sexual or physical violence should not be combined with others.
Each allegation must be evaluated in isolation. Many are true and many are not.
That is why we have courts.
Instead, many media outlets want us to see cases as collectivized examples of cultural trends.
The problem with this narrative is that when a court finds that a woman has lied about her experience, #MeToo activists find it hard to separate that notion from their reality.
Or as The Guardian said, when a decision goes against a woman, all women are being attacked with “vitriol.”
“While most of the vitriol is nominally aimed at Heard, it’s hard to get the impression that it’s really aimed at all women, and in particular those of us who talked about gender abuse and sexual violence. during the heyday of the #MeToo movement.
“We are in a time of virulent anti – feminist reaction, and the modest gains that were made at that time are being retracted by a large – scale show of guilt by the victims on a large scale.
“A woman has become a symbol of a movement that many see with fear and hatred, and is being punished by this movement. In this way, Heard is still in an abusive relationship. But now it’s not just with Depp, it’s with the whole country. “
Depp and Heard clearly had a horrible, toxic relationship, and it certainly wasn’t blameless, but to paint this judgment as an attack on all women is absurd.
The jury was asked to find out if Heard’s specific comments were defamatory and whether Heard acted maliciously.
It is not fair to argue that investigating these serious allegations in a civil court amounts to an attack on all women.
Remember, Heard was also able to successfully argue that Depp’s former lawyer’s comments challenged his reputation, hardly a verdict a sexist jury clique would make.
And that leads to the next, weirder argument that these activist journalists are launching.
“(The result) will have a devastating effect on the survivors, who will be silenced now, knowing that they cannot talk about their violent experiences at the hands of men without the threat of a defamatory defamation suit.
“In this sense, women’s discourse has become much less free.”
And Heard was just as quick to jump on the bandwagon of free speech.
“I’m sad to have lost this case, but I’m even sadder because I seem to have lost my right as an American to speak freely and openly,” she wrote in an Instagram post that blocked user comments. .
Yes, Amber Heard is now concerned about free speech, although she has just successfully sued Johnny Depp for defamation.
It is this kind of inconsistency that makes Heard’s words difficult to swallow and his testimonial videos prone to virality.
However, we must be careful not to draw overwhelming cultural conclusions from the conduct of a false person.
Likewise, as journalists, we must maintain skepticism before publishing life-threatening allegations with limited evidence.
Jack Houghton is the host of The Media Show and tonight at 8pm he will address this topic and the most important media stories of the week. Watch live or on demand on Foxtel or Sky News on Flash.