Derek Chauvin’s Questionable Guiltiness In Court
By: Alexander Chidester
Tags: Bias, News, George Floyd

Derek Chauvin’s Questionable Guiltiness In Court

On May 25, 2020, there was a widespread event in Minnesota where a police officer named Derek Chauvin supposedly caused the death of an American American named George Floyd. Recently, there was a trial based on this entire event with Derek Chauvin against the side supporting George Floyd, and Chauvin was found guilty by the jury. Both HuffPost (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/derek-chauvin-guilty-george-floyd_n_60799545e4b0bc5a3a561efb) and DailyWire (https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-jury-finds-derek-chauvin-guilty) have covered the event of Derek Chauvin being faced in trial, although each of these news sources use different information which gives their own audience a very different perception of the event. When someone reads the post made by DailyWire, they would believe that Chauvin’s side of the case is more justified and would think the verdict was a bit unfair. On the other hand, a person reading HuffPost’s story would feel heavy sympathy for ones that have been affected by George Floyd’s death and unregretfully agree with the verdict.

One important thing to note is that both stories support the opposite political sides, and that is what makes the stories perceptions so different. First of all, both articles mention that Derek Chauvin was found guilty, although HuffPost includes “on all charges in George Floyd’s death” in its title. This keeps the reader in mind of what Chauvin has done wrong, and gives them a reason to have a negative perception of him as soon as possible. HuffPost then briefly explains what Chauvin has done wrong, and sourced words from Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison saying George Floyd “was loved by his family and his friends … But that isn’t why he mattered. He mattered because he was a human being,” which was used early in the article. This quote gives the reader a sense of how harsh and depressing the reality is for any person to be murdered by another individual, which makes Chauvin seem more heartless for doing so. In addition, the article continues by explaining how Floyd “had recently lost his job due to the coronavirus pandemic, and had tested positive for the virus in early April. He was still grieving for his deceased mother.” This extra information almost forces the reader to feel sympathy for George Floyd, and causes the action of Chauvin to seem even more brutal and sorrowful. HuffPost simply did not need to include the details about George Floyd’s background to explain the event of the trial, but it clearly adds a more emotional effect to the reader once they understand how much Floyd was suffering beforehand. The final compelling detail is the fact that they reveal “Floyd had used a counterfeit $20 bill to buy cigarettes,” near the end of the article. This action of stacking causes the reader to be completely unaware of Floyd’s wrongdoing until much later, which makes Chauvin look like his violence against Floyd was completely unjustified for the majority of the article and gives the reader a very negative perception of Chauvin whilst hearing the main information.

On the other side, DailyWire tries to focus more on the big picture of the event and reasoning that backs up Chavin’s side in trial. First thing to note is that DailyWire’s headline says “Jury Finds Derek Chauvin Guilty,” which makes the reader aware that Chauvin is guilty, but they are not aware right away of the crime he committed, and this gives them a fresh first-look into the event. In DailyWire’s article, it explains the story that led to this court decision by saying that Floyd “allegedly gave counterfeit money at a convenience store. Following a struggle to get Floyd into the back of a police cruiser, viral video shows that Chauvin kneeled on Floyd’s neck and back for nearly nine minutes to detain Floyd,” very early in the media post. This very quickly gives the reader an understanding of both sides of the argument, which makes sure the reader can form their own opinion on the scenario without any extra information to lure them into supporting one specific side. In addition, DailyWire explained many points that Chauvin’s attorney, Eric Nelson, stated in trial, such as him arguing “that it was virtually impossible for the jurors to get away from the outside press and messages,” which HuffPost did not mention at all in their post. This statement by Nelson would persuade the reader to consider possible unfairness in the trial against Chauvin, which would lure them to support Chauvin more than Floyd’s side because of Nelson supporting arguments. Most notably, DailyWire does not mention any emotional quotes or extra information from Floyd’s family or Floyd supporters, while HuffPost thoroughly went through the topic. This makes the reader mainly focus on Chauvin’s side rather than being affected by negative emotions which Floyd supporters expressed; although DailyWire is technically gatekeeping this information, these are emotionally powerful statements that could distract the reader from the main point that the company is trying to provide.

To finalize, it’s no big surprise that HuffPost and DailyWire cover the story very differently. HuffPost is in fact a very liberal news source, while DailyWire leans more towards conservatism in what they believe. HuffPost would of course be the news source that would be more in favor of justice and punishing someone for cruelty, especially on the topic of race, and they will stop at nothing to persuade readers that an action needs to be done after Floyd’s death. On the other side, DailyWire, since they are more conservative, would likely be biased on the topic of race, and they would leave out as much extra information they can that would make the public upset and riled up. Since conservatives tend to dislike change and believe the state of the country is okay, this is no surprise. Overall, I personally believe that DailyWire explained the event more thoroughly since they used less emotionally powerful extraneous messages. They described the trial in a way which the reader, who may not have heard about the event before, would understand it and formulate their own opinions on the situation without hearing the depressing and touching statements from Floyd’s grieving loved ones. Although DailyWire may have gone over the top with explaining Nelson’s arguments, those points were important to note for the story nevertheless; a writer who is more liberal would not even mention those points because most articles about this subject are in the perception of its specified political standpoint.