Jonathan Majors, the actor who played Kang in Marvel's Thor: Love and Thunder, has been found guilty of assault and harassment. Two women have accused him of emotional abuse during their relationships with him.
Jonathan Majors Guilty of Assault and Harassment: Two Women Accuse Him of Emotional Abuse During Relationships
New York, United States United States of AmericaActor played Kang in Thor: Love and Thunder
Jonathan Majors found guilty of assault and harassment
Two women accused him of emotional abuse during relationships
Confidence
90%
No Doubts Found At Time Of Publication
Sources
68%
Jonathan Majors Had History of Abuse in Relationships, Women Say
The Name Of The NZ Prefix. I PWA NZI.P.Was Dropped. Melena Ryzik Thursday, 08 February 2024 23:32Unique Points
- Jonathan Majors was found guilty of assault and harassment.
- Emma Duncan accused Jonathan Majors of emotionally and physically abusing her, including choking her, throwing her around, and bruising her. Maura Hooper also accused him of emotionally abusing her.
- Melena Ryzik spent more than four months interviewing people across the country who knew or worked with Jonathan Majors.
- Jonathan Majors denied physical abuse in a televised interview last month but maintained his innocence and hope of reviving his career that disintegrated after his conviction. He has been found guilty of harassment and misdemeanor assault of Grace Jabbari, a former girlfriend.
Accuracy
- A lawyer for Jonathan Majors said he had not physically abused Emma Duncan. She described the relationships with both women as toxic and said that Mr. Majors was taking responsibility for his role in them.
- Jonathan Majors has a history of volatility on the set of Lovecraft Country, including confrontations with female co-workers that led them to complain to the network.
Deception (50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Jonathan Majors denied physical abuse but fails to mention that he was found guilty of assault and harassment by a jury. Secondly, the author quotes two former girlfriends who accuse him of emotionally and physically abusing them without disclosing any sources or providing evidence for their accusations. Thirdly, the article implies that Jonathan Majors had a history of volatility on set but fails to provide any specific examples or details about these incidents.- The author claims that Jonathan Majors denied physical abuse but fails to mention his guilty verdict in December.
Fallacies (80%)
The article contains several examples of logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the guilty verdict against Jonathan Majors for assault and harassment without providing any evidence or context about the case. Additionally, there are multiple instances where the author presents conflicting information from different sources, which can be seen as a form of inflammatory rhetoric. The article also contains examples of dichotomous depictions by presenting Mr. Majors as both an abusive figure and someone who is taking responsibility for his actions.- The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the guilty verdict against Jonathan Majors without providing any evidence or context about the case.
Bias (85%)
The author of the article has a clear bias towards Jonathan Majors. The author spends more than four months interviewing people across the country who knew or worked with him and then proceeds to describe his relationships as toxic without providing any context for why they were toxic. Additionally, the author uses language that dehumanizes Mr. Majors by describing him as a controlling figure who isolated women from friends and career pursuits.- The actor denied physical abuse.
Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of assault and harassment as she is reporting on Jonathan Majors who was accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women. The article also mentions that there were volatility issues on set while filming Lovecraft Country which could be related to Majors' behavior.- The article discusses how Grace Jabbari, who was involved with Majors while he was working on Lovecraft Country, accused him of sexual misconduct and harassment. The author does not disclose any personal relationship she may have had with either Jabbari or Majors.
- The author reports that Jonathan Majors has a history of abuse in relationships, citing multiple accusers including his girlfriends and co-stars. She also mentions the volatility on set during the filming of Lovecraft Country which could be related to Majors' behavior.
Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of assault and harassment as she is reporting on Jonathan Majors who was accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women. The article also mentions that there were volatility issues on set while filming Lovecraft Country which could be seen as another potential conflict.- The author reports that Jonathan Majors has a history of abuse in relationships, citing multiple accusers including his girlfriends and co-stars. This is clearly a direct reference to the topic of assault and harassment.
74%
Jonathan Majors Accused of Abuse by 2 More Women After Guilty Verdict
US Magazine Miranda Siwak Friday, 09 February 2024 16:45Unique Points
- Jonathan Majors was convicted of harassment and assault in December 2023.
- Two additional women have accused Jonathan Majors of emotional abuse, with one also claiming physical abuse. The allegations come less than a year after he was arrested for allegedly assaulting his ex-girlfriend Grace Jabbari.
- Jonathan Majors is currently dating actress Meagan Good.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
Deception (50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that Jonathan Majors was found guilty of harassment and assault but fails to mention the specific details or evidence presented during his trial. This creates a misleading impression that he has been convicted without providing any context for why this is so.- The article claims that two additional women have accused Jonathan Majors of emotional abuse, but it does not provide any direct quotes from these accusers to support this claim.
Fallacies (80%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing a report from the New York Times without providing any context or evidence for their claims. Additionally, the author quotes anonymous sources who corroborate that Majors had a history of volatility and repeatedly confronted his female costars on Lovecraft Country, which is not supported by any concrete evidence in the article. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing Majors' behavior as emotionally abusive and physically abusive without providing any specific examples or context for these claims.- The New York Times report that two additional women claimed to have been emotionally and physically abused by Jonathan Majors is not supported by any concrete evidence in the article.
- Anonymous sources who corroborate that Majors had a history of volatility and repeatedly confronted his female costars on Lovecraft Country are also not supported by any specific examples or context in the article.
- The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing Majors' behavior as emotionally abusive and physically abusive without providing any specific examples or context for these claims.
Bias (80%)
The article contains multiple examples of bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes the accusers and portrays them as victims rather than individuals with agency. For example, when describing one of the women who accused Majors of abuse, Siwak writes: 'One woman also claimed she had suffered physical abuse from Majors.' This implies that the woman was helpless in her own assault and does not take responsibility for it. Additionally, Siwak uses language like 'history' to describe Majors' behavior as if he is a criminal with an inherent tendency towards violence. The author also quotes anonymous sources without providing any context or information about their credibility, which could be seen as sensationalism rather than fact-checking.- The article uses language that dehumanizes the accusers and portrays them as victims rather than individuals with agency.
Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of Publication
Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
Miranda Siwak has a conflict of interest on the topics of Jonathan Majors and Lovecraft Country as she is reporting on an article that accuses him of assaulting his ex-girlfriend Grace Jabbari. She also reports on the sentencing for this crime.
74%
Jonathan Majors: More former partners, plus Lovecraft Country crew, speak out
The A.V. Club William Hughes Friday, 09 February 2024 02:58Unique Points
- Jonathan Majors was convicted of harassment and assault.
- Emma Duncan accused Jonathan Majors of emotionally and physically abusing her, including choking her, throwing her around, and bruising her. Maura Hooper also accused him of emotionally abusing her.
Accuracy
- Jonathan Majors was convicted of assault and harassment.
Deception (80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalism by stating that Jonathan Majors' conviction on assault and harassment continues to wind its way toward sentencing when it has already been scheduled for April 8th. Secondly, the author quotes multiple sources who claim that Majors was possessive and abusive towards his former partners which is not supported by any evidence presented in the article. Thirdly, the author uses selective reporting by only mentioning two of Majors' former partners despite there being more allegations against him from other women. Fourthly, the author quotes multiple sources who claim that Majors displayed unprofessional behavior on set which is not supported by any evidence presented in the article. Lastly, the author uses emotion manipulation by stating that Jonathan Majors told one of his former partners to kill herself and threatened her with not being able to have children.- The sentence 'Jonathan Majors' conviction on assault and harassment continues to wind its way toward sentencing,' is sensationalistic as it implies that the sentencing process is ongoing when it has already been scheduled for April 8th.
Fallacies (85%)
The article contains several examples of logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by quoting the lawyer for Jonathan Majors who denies any legally actionable bits about threats or actual injuries but admits that Majors was incredibly jealous during their relationship and choked his ex-girlfriend. This statement is not supported by evidence, making it a false claim.- The Times also spoke to several women who worked on Majors' breakout project, HBO series Lovecraft Country, who described incidents of unprofessional behavior from the star.
Bias (85%)
The article contains multiple examples of bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes Jonathan Majors by describing him as a 'former partner' and an 'abusive ex-boyfriend'. This is not accurate as the charges against him have yet to be proven in court. Additionally, the author quotes Emma Duncan and Maura Hooper who claim that Majors was abusive towards them physically which has not been substantiated by any evidence presented in this article.- Emma Duncan claims that Jonathan Majors slammed her body into their mailbox amidst an argument
- Maura Hooper claims that Jonathan Majors love-bombed her and isolated her from support structures
- The author describes Jonathan Majors as a 'former partner' and an 'abusive ex-boyfriend'
Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
William Hughes has a conflict of interest on the topics of Jonathan Majors and Lovecraft Country as he is an author for Avclub.com which published the article.Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
William Hughes has a conflict of interest on the topics of Jonathan Majors and Lovecraft Country as he is an author for Avclub.com which published the article.
75%
More Bad News For Jonathan Majors as He Awaits Assault Sentencing
The Root Stephanie Holland Friday, 09 February 2024 16:20Unique Points
- Jonathan Majors was found guilty of assault and harassment.
- Emma Duncan accused Jonathan Majors of emotionally and physically abusing her, including choking her, throwing her around, and bruising her. Maura Hooper also accused him of emotionally abusing her.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
Deception (80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the author's opinion as fact by stating that Jonathan Majors has a history of volatility without providing any evidence to support this claim. Secondly, the article quotes two women who accuse Majors of being abusive during their relationships and cites allegations that he repeatedly confronted female co-workers on set, but it does not disclose or quote sources for these claims. Thirdly, the article presents a statement from one of the accusers as evidence in court without stating whether it was admitted into evidence or not. Lastly, the author uses emotional language such as 'devastating' and 'heartbreaking' to describe Majors being found guilty of assault and harassment, which is an attempt at manipulation.- The article presents Jonathan Majors having a history of volatility without providing any evidence to support this claim. This is deceptive because it implies that he has been abusive or violent in the past, but there are no facts presented to back up this assertion.
Fallacies (85%)
The article contains several examples of logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the New York Times as a source for information about Jonathan Majors' exes accusing him of abuse and his behavior on set. This is not enough evidence to establish that he is guilty, but it does suggest that there may be some truth to these allegations. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing Majors as a- The Times identified Emma Duncan and Maura Hooper, two women who say they dated Majors between 2013 and 2019.
- <em>Dichotomous Depiction</em>: The article presents the allegations against Jonathan Majors as a clear-cut case of abuse. It does not provide any context or nuance about his behavior, making it difficult to understand the full picture.
Bias (85%)
The article contains multiple examples of bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes Jonathan Majors by describing him as a 'controlling, threatening figure who isolated them from friends and career pursuits'. This is an example of emotional bias. Additionally, the author quotes two women who accuse Majors of being abusive during their relationships which could be seen as religious or ideological bias if it were to imply that certain beliefs are inherently wrong or right. The article also mentions allegations made by female co-workers on set and a statement submitted in court but not used as evidence, all of which could be considered examples of monetary bias if the women who accused Majors had financial incentives for doing so.- Allegations made by female co-workers on set and a statement submitted in court but not used as evidence
- The author uses language that dehumanizes Jonathan Majors
- Two women accuse Jonathan Majors of being abusive during their relationships
Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
Stephanie Holland has a financial tie to Jonathan Majors as she is an employee of Vulture Media which owns The Root. This could compromise her ability to report on the topic objectively.Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of assault trial as she is reporting on Jonathan Majors who was charged with assault. The article also mentions abusive relationships which could be related to the case.