What Cosby Supporters Highlight About the Media and Justice

By Huey Machiavelli
4/28/18

Can due process be a reasonable expectation in a world where the media exists not to inform, but to shape public opinion? It’s long been customary, and rightfully so, for justice to be blind. For jurors to be presented a case wherein no significant pre-existing knowledge is known, in concert of an objective and accurate representation of the facts. But what if justice isn’t blind? We live in a country where the past sexual histories of women can not be admissible in court; rules which were established for the purpose of not perverting a jury’s perception of a defendant’s character. A principle, although arguable (and good arguments can be made against this arrangement of events), stands as precedent and has stood as so in most courts around the country since the 1970s and 80s, and with a federally established Rape Shield Law established in 1994, with the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). As the name suggests, the Violence Against Women Act established precedent and protocol which shielded the identities and sexual pasts of from public and and even judicial scrutiny. The relevant question to be asked here is: Why only women? Are men not equal under the law? Wouldn’t it also be a reasonable assumption that the admission of a male’s sexual past could pervert the supposed objectivity of the court, or influence jurors who may of may not see such behavior as morally acceptable?

Cosby’s publicists recently appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America, professing his innocent and unequivocally defending their belief in that Cosby was not guilty of the sexualy transgressions against Andrea Constand. During their discussion with reporter, George Stephanopoulos, they highlighted the fact that Juror number eleven was known by the Judge Steve O’neal, Mr. Cosby’s defense, as well as the prosecutor, to have been biased ahead of trial and advocated for his fellow jurors to speedily find Cosby guilty, and “why waste our time?”, indicating that the trial was not impartial, and thus, void of any semblance of justice. Cosby’s representative, Andrew Wyatt, layed down the case at 2.25, with a follow up from his fellow Cosby representative, Ebonee Benson, only to face an objection by Stephanopoulos.

Wyatt: “You had juror number 11, George, who said before the trial started that Mr. Cosby was guilty, and why even wait? He said why even wait?”
Bensen: “Our defense attorneys fought hard to make sure that juror did not end up in that box, and yet and still, you had a person with a 100 complete bias sitting there, not interest in any evidence that was presented by the defense. They heard evidence, but a bias was already there.”
Stephanopoulos attempts to gain to control of the conversation.
Stephanopoulos: “Hold on a second. 60 women have accused Bill Cosby of various indiscretions, of sexual harassment. You’re saying all these women, all 60 women are lying?
Benson: ‘May I ask a question? Since when are all people honest?”

This troublesome exchange highlights a troublesome reality of the Cosby case, which is the fact that regardless of the holes in Ms. Constands story, the lies she was caught in, as well as the reality of a tainted jury, Good Morning America, as well as the majority of the other mainstream media who profess their objectivity, display an unwavering and definite bias against Bill Cosby solely on the basis of the number of his accusers, and not the specific evidence of the one specific case. This highlights the reality that Ms. Constand’s case, regardless of one’s opinion of Cosby and his alleged transgressions, was without standing and wholy speculation. This case had less to do with Cosby’s alleged crimes against Andrea Constand, more to do with the media’s portrayal of Cosby’s sexual history.
The pen is mightier than the sword; and the media transgresses the Court of Law.