As the nation watches reality star Spencer Pratt go toe-to-toe with the Los Angeles Times for branding him a “conspiracy theorist” simply for telling the truth about the Palisades Fire response, it’s worth remembering: this is the same propaganda machine that ran at full tilt during the pandemic, weaponizing headlines to protect political allies and punish political targets.
It’s no stretch to see how that exact playbook was deployed in the September 29, 2020 tragedy that killed Mark and Jacob Iskander.
From the start, there was a clear political imperative to “get Grossman.” Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón, desperate to appear tough on crime amid growing backlash, greenlit an overcharged case with the intent of making the defense beg for a plea deal, an ethically dubious but politically expedient move. But politics wasn’t the only force at work. The cultural climate, primed by outrage and fed by media spin, made Rebecca Grossman the perfect target. This relentless onslaught ensured that true impartiality was nearly impossible, undermining the very foundation of a fair trial and blurring the line between justice and mob mentality.
It was peak COVID lockdown, millions trapped in their homes, simmering with frustration, glued to social media for hours each day. It became a digital petri dish for misinformation, mob outrage, and conspiracy theories. A wildly inaccurate change.org petition, riddled with falsehoods, racked up nearly 38,000 signatures and became gospel for online trolls, who then flooded comment sections with venom. Reporters weren’t just serving their political masters – they were serving clicks. “Give the people what they want” journalism meant letting the mob dictate the narrative.
The result was press coverage that became a masterclass in sensationalism wrapped in selective truth. From day one, major outlets locked into a false cinematic villain arc: the wealthy socialite, drunk and racing through Westlake Village, mowing down two children in a crosswalk. It didn’t matter how far that drifted from the evidence – it was the version the public was sold.
Even the “fleeing” narrative was built on a lie. When an airbag deploys, it explodes at up to 200 mph, slamming into the driver with hundreds of pounds of force. For a 57-year-old woman, regaining control of the vehicle in that moment is nearly impossible. The engine cut out, she was in shock, and the car rolled forward before coming to a stop. Prosecutors twisted that mechanical reality into a criminal accusation.
The ignition cycle data was just as flimsy. The tow yard kept no log of who accessed the car for months, meaning police, tow operators, or investigators could have been responsible for turning the key post-crash. Yet legal analyst RJ Manuelian and Fox News reporter Rachel Hallet framed this as proof Grossman tried to “restart her car”, a spin that ignored every other plausible explanation.
Hallet’s reporting leaned heavily on Manuelian’s biased take, pairing the “restarting” claim with the false assertion that there was “evidence of intoxication at the scene.” In reality, Grossman’s two breath tests taken at 8:52 p.m. registered 0.076% and 0.075% — both under California’s legal limit. She was never charged with DUI. Prosecutors knew they couldn’t win a DUI conviction, so they weaponized the accusation to establish implied malice and secure a murder verdict. The judge allowing it was its own form of corruption.
Every person who interacted with Grossman that night, except for Deputy Michael Kelley’s deeply flawed field sobriety test, said she showed no signs of impairment. Even former MLB player Royce Clayton, who dined with her shortly before the tragedy, testified she was fit to drive.
Meanwhile, Scott Erickson, whose vehicle passed through the crosswalk seconds earlier sped off without consequence, while three more drivers swerved around the victims’ bodies without stopping. None of this made Hallet’s report, because it didn’t fit the “one driver, one culprit” storyline.
Surveillance footage from that night shows a high-speed convoy of vehicles, including a dark SUV seconds ahead of Grossman. Evidence logged by Deputy Raphael Mejia includes parts found at the scene, like a fog light cover, that did not match Grossman’s car, but was consistent with both Mercedes SUVs owned by Erickson.
Initially, news reports said there were “two vehicles” involved, with “one driver in custody and the other still unknown”. That line abruptly vanished, replaced with the single-driver narrative embraced by LASD, the prosecution, and the media. The public’s appetite for an easily packaged villain was satisfied, and any suggestion of shared culpability was erased.This omission distorts the forensic reality and sidesteps a core point: two cars were present, and the state’s own evidence doesn’t conclusively tie all injuries to Grossman’s vehicle.
Layered on top of pandemic paranoia was the volatile atmosphere of the George Floyd protests and BLM/Antifa riots. In that climate, being perceived as privileged made you an easy target. Grossman wasn’t just a defendant, she was a symbol for a public ready to punish what she represented.
No outlet amplified this more than The Daily Mail. It became the poster child for bad reporting: calling her a “socialite,” falsely claiming she was racing, fled the scene, dragged a victim, and inventing a prior accident. They published photos of her home, mocked her clothes, and peddled class resentment.
The Daily Mail’s coverage was deliberately misleading. They published a factually false claim from one of the investigators, who later publicly retracted it. They also falsely claimed the Iskander boys were walking in a crosswalk, when in reality they were on wheels, a critical fact that makes it entirely plausible they could have darted into the path of a vehicle. Equally damning, The Daily Mail conveniently omitted pivotal forensic evidence from the Medical Examiner’s testimony at the criminal trial, including the absence of any tire tread marks, or any indication the boy was run over by a vehicle.
The gulf between courtroom reality and tabloid fantasy was staggering. The Daily Mail weaponized speculation, ignored exculpatory evidence, and fed the public a distorted, politically convenient story.
The Rebecca Grossman trial highlighted just how deeply the press can poison the jury pool before a case ever reaches the courtroom. As one potential juror’s spouse recounted on Reddit, the court struggled to find 12 unbiased people, dragging jury selection out because the case had been so widely and emotionally covered that nearly everyone summoned had already formed an opinion. The venom and anger saturating the public was fueled by a steady stream of misinformation, with sensationalized headlines and distorted narratives shaping perceptions long before jurors ever heard a shred of evidence in court. This relentless media onslaught ensured that true impartiality was nearly impossible, undermining the very foundation of a fair trial and blurring the line between justice and mob mentality.
Now, as civil depositions in Iskander v. Grossman et al. move forward, long-buried facts are forcing their way into the open. The carefully curated criminal trial narrative is colliding with the evidence prosecutors buried. While the mainstream media was busy crafting the perfect villain, the truth was suffocated, waiting for someone outside their echo chamber to finally dig it up.
Follow Us