{"id":11609,"date":"2025-07-24T09:29:10","date_gmt":"2025-07-24T16:29:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11609"},"modified":"2025-07-24T09:35:20","modified_gmt":"2025-07-24T16:35:20","slug":"exceptionally-bad-reporting-on-the-glossip-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11609","title":{"rendered":"Exceptionally Bad Reporting on the Glossip Case"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reporting on court cases is often bad, but NBC has an exceptionally atrocious report on the\u00a0Glossip<\/em> case here<\/a>. The article says:<\/p>\n

The witness, Justin Sneed, admitted killing Van Treese but told prosecutors that the killing was at Glossip’s direction in exchange for $10,000. Sneed, a motel handyman, was sentenced to life for the crime, while Glossip was given the death penalty.<\/p>\n

In the Supreme Court’s majority ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that prosecutors “knew Sneed\u2019s statements were false” and that \u201cbecause Sneed\u2019s testimony was the only direct evidence of Glossip’s guilt of capital murder, the jury\u2019s assessment of Sneed’s credibility was necessarily determinative here.”<\/p>\n

Anyone reading that who did not already know the facts of the case would take it to mean that the Supreme Court held that the prosecutors knew Sneed’s statements about the crime were false. That is, a reader would naturally read it to say that the statements referred to in the second paragraph are those described in the first.<\/p>\n

But that implication is false. No court has ever held that Sneed’s statements about the crime are false. The statements in the Supreme Court case involved collateral matters about Sneed’s treatment with lithium while in jail.<\/p>\n

Did the reporter intentionally mislead the public, or is he just incredibly sloppy and careless? Either way, a major American news organization has published a story that will lead people to believe something that is outright false about a controversial case.<\/p>\n

I suspect this is a case of sloppiness combined with confirmation bias. When incoming information tends to support a narrative we already believe, we are less inclined to check it carefully. That is human nature, and it is not possible to eliminate it completely. But among journalists, professionalism\u00a0should<\/em> provide a partial check. Journalists\u00a0should<\/em> be aware of their own biases and consciously seek to scrutinize purported facts the same whether they confirm or refute the journalist’s prior beliefs. But professionalism is in dwindling supply.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Reporting on court cases is often bad, but NBC has an exceptionally atrocious report on the\u00a0Glossip case here. The article says: The witness, Justin Sneed, admitted killing Van Treese but told prosecutors that the killing was at Glossip’s direction in exchange for $10,000. Sneed, a motel handyman, was sentenced to life for the crime, while Glossip was given the death penalty. In the Supreme Court’s majority ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that prosecutors “knew Sneed\u2019s statements were false” and that \u201cbecause Sneed\u2019s testimony was the only direct evidence of Glossip’s guilt of capital murder, the jury\u2019s assessment of Sneed’s credibility was necessarily determinative here.” Anyone reading that who did not already know the facts of the case would take it to mean that the Supreme Court held that the prosecutors knew Sneed’s statements about the crime were false. That is, a reader would naturally read it to say that the statements referred to in the second paragraph are those described in the first. But that implication is false. No court has ever held that Sneed’s statements about the crime are false. The statements in the Supreme Court case involved collateral matters about Sneed’s treatment with lithium while in jail.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[28,37],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11609","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-journalism","category-notorious-cases"],"yoast_head":"\nExceptionally Bad Reporting on the Glossip Case - Crime & Consequences<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11609\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Exceptionally Bad Reporting on the Glossip Case - Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Reporting on court cases is often bad, but NBC has an exceptionally atrocious report on the\u00a0Glossip case here. The article says: The witness, Justin Sneed, admitted killing Van Treese but told prosecutors that the killing was at Glossip’s direction in exchange for $10,000. Sneed, a motel handyman, was sentenced to life for the crime, while Glossip was given the death penalty. In the Supreme Court’s majority ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that prosecutors “knew Sneed\u2019s statements were false” and that \u201cbecause Sneed\u2019s testimony was the only direct evidence of Glossip’s guilt of capital murder, the jury\u2019s assessment of Sneed’s credibility was necessarily determinative here.” Anyone reading that who did not already know the facts of the case would take it to mean that the Supreme Court held that the prosecutors knew Sneed’s statements about the crime were false. That is, a reader would naturally read it to say that the statements referred to in the second paragraph are those described in the first. But that implication is false. No court has ever held that Sneed’s statements about the crime are false. The statements in the Supreme Court case involved collateral matters about Sneed’s treatment with lithium while in jail.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11609\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-07-24T16:29:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-07-24T16:35:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"300\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11609\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11609\",\"name\":\"Exceptionally Bad Reporting on the Glossip Case - Crime & Consequences\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-07-24T16:29:10+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-07-24T16:35:20+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11609#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11609\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11609#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Exceptionally Bad Reporting on the Glossip Case\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\",\"name\":\"Crime & Consequences\",\"description\":\"Crime and criminal law\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\",\"name\":\"Kent Scheidegger\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.cjlf.org\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Exceptionally Bad Reporting on the Glossip Case - Crime & Consequences","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11609","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Exceptionally Bad Reporting on the Glossip Case - Crime & Consequences","og_description":"Reporting on court cases is often bad, but NBC has an exceptionally atrocious report on the\u00a0Glossip case here. The article says: The witness, Justin Sneed, admitted killing Van Treese but told prosecutors that the killing was at Glossip’s direction in exchange for $10,000. Sneed, a motel handyman, was sentenced to life for the crime, while Glossip was given the death penalty. In the Supreme Court’s majority ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that prosecutors “knew Sneed\u2019s statements were false” and that \u201cbecause Sneed\u2019s testimony was the only direct evidence of Glossip’s guilt of capital murder, the jury\u2019s assessment of Sneed’s credibility was necessarily determinative here.” Anyone reading that who did not already know the facts of the case would take it to mean that the Supreme Court held that the prosecutors knew Sneed’s statements about the crime were false. That is, a reader would naturally read it to say that the statements referred to in the second paragraph are those described in the first. But that implication is false. No court has ever held that Sneed’s statements about the crime are false. The statements in the Supreme Court case involved collateral matters about Sneed’s treatment with lithium while in jail.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11609","og_site_name":"Crime & Consequences","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/","article_published_time":"2025-07-24T16:29:10+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-07-24T16:35:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":300,"height":400,"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Kent Scheidegger","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Kent Scheidegger","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11609","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11609","name":"Exceptionally Bad Reporting on the Glossip Case - Crime & Consequences","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-07-24T16:29:10+00:00","dateModified":"2025-07-24T16:35:20+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11609#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11609"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11609#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Exceptionally Bad Reporting on the Glossip Case"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/","name":"Crime & Consequences","description":"Crime and criminal law","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356","name":"Kent Scheidegger","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.cjlf.org"],"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11609","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11609"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11609\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11612,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11609\/revisions\/11612"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11609"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11609"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11609"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}