NBC News distorts Zimmerman 911 call

[RadicalModerate]

What do you mean "Zimmerman can't be given due process?" I don't understand this statement at all. I understand that people have jumped to conclusions without knowing the facts -- people on both sides. But the opinion of the public is not the court of law. Our system isn't perfect, but now is definitely a good time to let the case play out and hope that the court can separate fact from fiction and deliver the correct decision. There's been no indications thus far that a fair investigation and subsequent fair trial can't take place.

I agree, I don't understand that sentiment either. What's the connection between public opinion and the decision of a jury?

 

[OscarB63]

I agree, I don't understand that sentiment either. What's the connection between public opinion and the decision of a jury?

um....maybe the connection is that the jury is made up of people from the public? whose opinions have been influenced by all the media hype? just a thought.....

sometimes it really is that simple

 

[OscarB63]

Teeny-tiny, itsy-bitsy, probably completely insignificant difference between Zimmerman and Jewell . . . .




. . . . . Jewell didn't target, follow, and kill anyone.

Zimmerman didn't "target" anyone either. and the last time I checked it wasn't illegal to follow someone in public.

 

[OscarB63]

NBC has apologized, well sorta. :roll:


NBC has completed its investigation into the mishandling of the police dispatcher’s conversation with George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case. And the process ends with a finding of error, plus an apology. Here is the statement just issued by the network:

During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret. We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers.

Notice there was no apology to Zimmerman, he should sue.

dear boo and company,

I guess their statement that they screwed up kinda shoots holes in your argument now doesn't it?

 

[Grant]

Heh. Your post belies your own claimed experience. You have to make a lot of assumptions to reach the conclusion that the tape was edited for the specific effect of painting Zimmerman as a racist to enflame racial strife. Your stance is likely more about your own point of view than anything else. Most likely, the editor doesn't care as much about this issue as you do.

Obviously they do care because they held an investigation and later apologized. Did you miss that?

At my paper, we get accused of all kinds of bias and favoritism.

That doesn't surprise me if you dont understand the importance of the editing of a transcript which clearly distorted the reality of what actually took place.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

Obviously they do care because they held an investigation and later apologized. Did you miss that?

They held an investigation because they were exposed as being liars. I promise had nobody said anything, they wouldn't have "investigated" ****.

Anyone with half a functioning brain cell knows they did it on purpose and that it surely wasn't on accident. I mean an accident would result in a tape with some part edited out at random that would make no sense either way, but to edit out a very important part that obviously changes anyone's opinion who listens to the 911 tape, yea, that was an accident I'm SURE......... :roll:

 

[Karl]

[...] the last time I checked it wasn't illegal to follow someone in public.

Who said that it was?

Isn't this yet another conversation you should be having with your strawman?

 

[dontworrybehappy]

Who said that it was?

Isn't this yet another conversation you should be having with your strawman?

Possibly this was a reply to you saying that Zimmerman had been doing something illegal? If not you, I know for SURE I've read where people on this forum said that he was following the black kid, so he instigated the confrontation. That would not be true. Since following someone is not illegal, it is NOT justification for the part of the law that says "if you kill someone in the process of doing something illegal, that is murder".

Doesn't apply here, sorry.

 

[hazlnut]

This is disgusting... Just go to the 2:30 mark and see for yourself...

Bozell on Hannity 'Media Mash': NBC Deliberately Skewed Travyvon Martin Story with Selective Editing | MRCTV

WTF is a 'Bozell' and who the hell cares what a guest on Hannity says?

It's a far-rightie brainwashing show. NOT NEWS.

Do you get it, Grim? -- Fox News is a joke and by posting links to Fox you're only hurting your own credibility.

 

[Ockham]

Just the latest in a long line of NBC distortions... their news people ... err... activists are showing... :lamo

 

[OscarB63]

Who said that it was?

Isn't this yet another conversation you should be having with your strawman?

maybe instead of squealing "strawman" you should focus on making your post clearer and less vague. that way we could avoid having these misunderstandings

 

[OscarB63]

WTF is a 'Bozell' and who the hell cares what a guest on Hannity says?

It's a far-rightie brainwashing show. NOT NEWS.

Do you get it, Grim? -- Fox News is a joke and by posting links to Fox you're only hurting your own credibility.

what part of NBC admitted they screwed up is too hard for you guys to understand?

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Obviously they do care because they held an investigation and later apologized. Did you miss that?

You misunderstood my post: I was referring to the editor's feelings about the 911 tape. Most stories that I edit don't affect me personally, and I don't have any passion toward the subjects involved. The people involved or interested, however, are often quite passionate about the subject and ready to make all kinds of assumptions about my or the paper's intentions.

As for NBC's apology, it doesn't change my understanding of this issue at all. NBC is signaling that its serious about impartiality and concerned about the perception others have of the network's coverage. Nowhere does NBC admit the kind of bias that some are charging -- a secret desire to enflame racial strife or forward liberal causes.

That doesn't surprise me if you dont understand the importance of the editing of a transcript which clearly distorted the reality of what actually took place.

I understand the importance of good editing all too well. I wonder about your claims of experience, however. You don't show much nuance in your understanding of the editorial process. What sort of media did you work in?

 

[dontworrybehappy]

maybe instead of squealing "strawman" you should focus on making your post clearer and less vague. that way we could avoid having these misunderstandings

I almost think that is one of the tactics used by some on this forum. They post **** that's so vague that to get anything out of it you have to use deductive reasoning. In doing so, it allows them wiggle room to call your reasoning a "strawman" if its not what they agree with or what they want to be seen as thinking. It's annoying, quite frankly.

Say what you mean, mean what you say. It works every time.

 

[Boo Radley]

Then again, nothing wrong with asking clarifying questions. I sometimes think people try to set up a specific answer, and get upset when that's not the answer they get. But, that's just another take on the whole and not the specific example.

 

[OscarB63]

Then again, nothing wrong with asking clarifying questions. I sometimes think people try to set up a specific answer, and get upset when that's not the answer they get. But, that's just another take on the whole and not the specific example.

when someone says that zimmerman needs to prove he is innocent and you point out that it is the state that must prove he is guilty. how is that a strawman?

a: zimmerman has to prove he is innocent

b: he doesn't have to, the state has to prove he is guilty

a: I never said they didn't have to. wah, wah strawman

that's the kind of crap that gets me.

 

[Boo Radley]

when someone says that zimmerman needs to prove he is innocent and you point out that it is the state that must prove he is guilty. how is that a strawman?

a: zimmerman has to prove he is innocent

b: he doesn't have to, the state has to prove he is guilty

a: I never said they didn't have to. wah, wah strawman

that's the kind of crap that gets me.

Re-read this part of my post:

But, that's just another take on the whole and not the specific example.

I wasn't speaking to your specific post.

I was answering this general observation by DWBH:

I almost think that is one of the tactics used by some on this forum. They post **** that's so vague that to get anything out of it you have to use deductive reasoning. In doing so, it allows them wiggle room to call your reasoning a "strawman" if its not what they agree with or what they want to be seen as thinking. It's annoying, quite frankly.

Say what you mean, mean what you say. It works every time.

He is speaking about posters in general, and so was I.

As to yours, Zimmerman does not have to prove himself innocent. The state has the burden of proof. I agree with you. But you will find people on both sides that have trouble with the logic, and present strawmen.

 

[Grim17]

Then again, nothing wrong with asking clarifying questions. I sometimes think people try to set up a specific answer, and get upset when that's not the answer they get. But, that's just another take on the whole and not the specific example.

Then of course there are people who refuse to answer simple, direct questions because it doesn't support their political beliefs... Know what I'm saying there Boo?

 

[joko104]

when someone says that zimmerman needs to prove he is innocent and you point out that it is the state that must prove he is guilty. how is that a strawman?

a: zimmerman has to prove he is innocent

b: he doesn't have to, the state has to prove he is guilty

a: I never said they didn't have to. wah, wah strawman

that's the kind of crap that gets me.

That REALLY does get tiresome, doesn't it?

 

[Karl]

maybe instead of squealing "strawman" you should focus on making your post clearer and less vague. that way we could avoid having these misunderstandings

Perhaps people should just admit their mistakes instead of blaming others.

Alternatively, perhaps if people don't understand what is going on, then they should just keep their piehole in the closed position.

 

[Ockham]

Perhaps people should just admit their mistakes instead of blaming others.

Alternatively, perhaps if people don't understand what is going on, then they should just keep their piehole in the closed position.

Good idea... you first.

 

[Karl]

when someone says that zimmerman needs to prove he is innocent and you point out that it is the state that must prove he is guilty. how is that a strawman? [...]

When the person you are responding to (accusing) never said that Zimmerman needs to prove he is innocent.

That is how it is a strawman on your part.


The things that have to be explained around here.... :roll:

 

[Grant]

Nowhere does NBC admit the kind of bias that some are charging -- a secret desire to enflame racial strife or forward liberal causes.

As an editor yourself you must know how important it is to name your sources. Ergo, could you please name those who said NBC had "a secret desire to enflame racial strife or forward liberal causes."?

I understand the importance of good editing all too well. I wonder about your claims of experience, however. You don't show much nuance in your understanding of the editorial process. What sort of media did you work in?

It doesn't matter what my job was or your qualifications might be, it doesn't make my opinion any more valid than yours, or that of anyone else. You don't need a degree in journalism to recognize that a dirty little game was being played here.

NBC did an "investigation" that should have taken a few minutes, and then made some wishy washy apology. Did you serious expect otherwise?

 

[Boo Radley]

Then of course there are people who refuse to answer simple, direct questions because it doesn't support their political beliefs... Know what I'm saying there Boo?

That's the kind of thing I speaking to. Some seem to think a complete answer is somehow a dodge, but don't see that few things are simple yes or no. In fact, it is often a distortion to try and frame them that way.

 

[Karl]

That's the kind of thing I speaking to. Some seem to think a complete answer is somehow a dodge, but don't see that few things are simple yes or no. In fact, it is often a distortion to try and frame them that way.

Nuance is the enemy of straight-jacketed ideologies