The instant an allegation hits the wire involving a high-profile politician, the machinery of outrage grinds into gear. The headlines follow a weary, predictable script. Accusation. Denial. Partisan warfare. We saw it again with the claims made by Lonna Drewes against Eric Swalwell. The standard media play is to treat the allegation as a political football, tossing it back and forth to see which side can gain ten yards of moral high ground.
This approach is a disservice to justice, the parties involved, and the public's intelligence. We are living through the era of the "unverified scoop," where the speed of the news cycle has completely decapitated the presumption of innocence and the necessity of due diligence. When we treat a police report filing as a guilty verdict—or, conversely, as a purely political hit job without looking at the facts—we surrender our ability to think critically.
The High Cost of the Headline Rush
Most newsrooms operate on a "publish first, verify later" philosophy. It is a race to the bottom. In the case of Drewes and Swalwell, the rush to categorize the story as either a "bombshell" or a "distraction" ignores the messy reality of the legal system. I have watched political careers evaporate over claims that later dissolved under the slightest evidentiary pressure. I have also seen genuine victims silenced because their stories were co-opted by political hacks and turned into partisan memes.
The "lazy consensus" here is that the public has a right to know every detail of an allegation the second a phone call is made to a precinct. That is a lie. The public has a right to a functioning justice system. When the media front-runs a criminal investigation, they contaminate the jury pool, pressure witnesses, and force law enforcement to move at the speed of Twitter rather than the speed of truth.
The Police Report as a Prop
There is a growing trend of using the "intent to file a police report" as a badge of credibility. Let’s be clear: filing a report is a procedural step, not a validation of truth. Anyone can walk into a station and make a statement. The power isn’t in the filing; it’s in the investigation that follows.
When a story leads with "will file a police report," it’s often a psychological tactic to signal seriousness to a distracted audience. It frames the narrative before a single detective has even opened a folder. We need to stop treating the administrative act of reporting as a substitute for the grueling work of corroboration.
- Evidence is not an opinion.
- A statement is not a conviction.
- Political affiliation is not a character reference.
Why We Should Stop Picking Sides Immediately
The reflexive need to "believe" or "dismiss" based on the letter next to a politician's name is a mental parasite. If you find yourself defending Swalwell solely because you hate his opponents, you’ve lost the plot. If you find yourself championing Drewes solely because you want to see a congressman fall, you aren’t interested in justice—you’re interested in a scalp.
I have seen the internal workings of these "scandal" cycles. They are often manufactured or amplified by consultants who view human trauma—genuine or fabricated—as a line item in a campaign budget. By jumping into the fray, the media becomes an unpaid intern for these operatives.
The Nuance of Due Process
Due process isn't a "boring" legal hurdle. It is the only thing standing between a civilized society and a lynch mob. When we demand immediate results from complex sexual assault allegations, we guarantee that those results will be flawed.
Imagine a scenario where a high-ranking official is accused of a crime. In a healthy society, the investigation happens behind closed doors until there is sufficient evidence to charge. In our society, the "charge" happens in a 280-character post, and the "trial" is a series of segments on cable news. By the time it reaches a courtroom, the truth is a secondary concern to the brand damage already sustained.
The False Binary of Modern Reporting
The competitor’s coverage frames this as a binary choice: is she a victim, or is he a target? This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how these cases operate. Life is rarely that clean. Cases can be legally insufficient without being "fake." Allegations can be politically motivated and still be rooted in a kernel of truth. Or they can be entirely fictional, designed to exploit the very "believe everyone" culture that was meant to protect the vulnerable.
By stripping away the nuance, the media creates a environment where the loudest voice wins, not the most accurate one. We are training the public to ignore evidence in favor of "vibes."
Stop Asking if it’s True and Start Asking Why Now
This isn't about victim-blaming; it’s about timing-analysis. In politics, timing is never an accident. When an allegation from years or decades ago surfaces exactly when a politician is vulnerable or a news cycle needs a jolt, it warrants skepticism—not of the victim’s pain, but of the engine driving the story into your feed.
I’ve seen millions of dollars spent on "opposition research" specifically designed to find and weaponize these stories. This doesn't mean the stories are false, but it means they are being used as weapons. When you consume this news without acknowledging the weaponization, you are the target.
The Danger of Selective Outrage
The most exhausting part of this cycle is the selective memory of the pundits. The same people who demanded "due process" for their preferred candidates are the ones shouting "believe her" when the target is an opponent. This hypocrisy is why trust in media is at an all-time low.
If your standards for evidence shift based on the voter registration of the accused, you don't have standards. You have a team. And teams belong in stadiums, not in discussions about rape and criminal justice.
The Actionable Truth
If you want to be a responsible consumer of news, do the following:
- Wait 72 hours. The first 72 hours of any scandal are filled with 90% garbage. Wait for the dust to settle.
- Look for the "But." Every article has a sentence hidden near the bottom that admits what they don't know. Read that sentence first.
- Ignore the "Will File." Until a report is filed, investigated, and resulted in a charge, it is an anecdote, not a legal event.
- Check the Source. Is the outlet known for reporting, or for laundering political hits?
The Drewes-Swalwell story will likely follow the same trajectory as a dozen others before it. It will flare up, dominate the digital conversation, fuel a few fundraising emails, and then—regardless of the truth—it will be replaced by the next shiny object.
The media doesn't want you to understand the case; they want you to stay angry enough to keep clicking. They are profiting off the erosion of the judicial process. Stop giving them the satisfaction of your immediate, unthinking reaction.
Demand evidence, respect the process, and stop treating the legal system like a spectator sport.
The truth doesn't need your "belief" to exist, and it certainly doesn't need a hashtag.
