In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:mbGdnR4zJ-
"Robert Green" wrote:

Edited for time. Done every day by NBC, Fox and dozens of others. He
didn't say "he's wearing a hoodie, he's 6' tall." He said what he said.
Let's see how far Zimmerman's lawsuit against NBC goes for accurately
reporting what he said. I'd guess nowhere but stranger things have
happened. Take OJ's acquittal, for instance.

Yeah, it would take so much more time to include the part about the cops
asking the question.

WTF would adding that question change??
Context is everything. People are using the out of context statement
to indicate that it was racial profiling. The first and only time race
was mentioned was in direct response to a question about it. You don't
think that is an important part of the picture?


Things are edited for so much more than time.

As I recall, you were involved with print media, a different animal than
what we are discussing now. I spent a summer interning at WABC news HQ in
DC so I have some real experience in national TV news production. Line
producers are willing to throw down over an extra 10 secs on a 60 second
story on the evening news because they're competing with other stories and
other producers for a very small slice of the evening broadcast. More than
a three minute story is very, very rare and I doubt unless you've tried to
edit down hours of footage into two minutes you realize what has to be
eliminated as "not moving the story forward." Nightly news editors don't
just count every second, they count every single frame looking to fit as
much information is as possible.
So, you pick something else out if you don't have the extra 5
seconds. It is called editing and it is supposed to make sure that the
important stuff gets in and that enough information is given to (at
least in theory) the reader/viewer so that they know what is going. And
THAT, my friend is drilled into us in J-School no matter which media you
are studying. To leave something out that changes the context of what is
the most crucial part (or at least the part getting the most attention)
is not fulfilling the requirements of the job.


What NBC did was trivial compared to how Breibart edited the *crucial* part
of Sherrod's speech to make her look absolutely racist. We'll see who
prevails in Zimmerman's lawsuit. I seriously doubt GZ will because he said
what he said, not that TM was 5'11", or wearing a hoodie or any other
descriptor. Had he uttered and they edited out other descriptive words he
used to home in on "black" you might have a point, but they didn't. GZ
chose he words, no one else did. NBC didn't say "he's a racist" and to
*normal* people, they didn't imply it. These charges only seem to resonate
with people who have an axe to grind for whatever reason.
Actually it was pretty much the same. They edited a crucial part of
the phone call to make it look like he was racist. So in your view,
Sharpton, Jackson, et al, who are making the racist assertion aren't
normal (something we actually agree on..grin).
He won't win largely because NYT vs Sullivan gives media a get out
of jail free card.


Given how much other ground they had to cover in the telecast, it's
completely in line with standard editing practices. It didn't make him look
racist when he wasn't, it accurately portrayed what Zimmerman thought was
the most important factor about his quarry. That he was black.
If he thought it was most important why did he not make the
assertion from the get and only mentioned race when specifically asked.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe