In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



Context is everything. People are using the out of context statement
to indicate that it was racial profiling.

People are stupid. And this is news to you? I expect others to argue the
'stupid' point of view but with your J-degree I assume you knew these
charges of altered context have no legal footing and very little merit.

Where exactly did I say anything about legal footing, and merit
has little to do with situation after NYT v. Sullivan and progeny. I
don't see how you can suggest stupidity is involved when pertinent facts
were left out by the editing process. If the question from the cops had
been there.



Now if you want to talk about out of context video, let's talk the Rodney
King beating. If anything ever appeared "out of context" it was the video
that showed King getting beaten, but not the hyper-violent behavior that
made police (rightly) believe that he was on PCP or some other drug. Did
the media edit it that way? No, Holliday turned on his video camera AFTER
the part where King was resisting so there WAS no video showing the entire
context. We all know how that turned out.

How do you take this out of context when there is no context to
begin with? BIG difference between not having information that sets the
context and deciding to exclude information that is available.



The NBC elision of the dispatcher's question doesn't make Zimmerman sound
like a racist to me, nor should it to anyone else. What's left is a guy
describing the suspect in the most basic of terms. I would have said, black
male, approximately 18 years of age, 150 pounds, wearing a blue or black
hoodie. But I was a police reporter for 10 years listening to100's of hours
of police radio traffic so I am conditioned to ID people that way. Never
attributed to malice what can be explained more easily by time pressure.
But it did, most likely secondary to their own preconceived
notions, or in the case of a couple national spokespersons, their desire
for camera time and donations. Actually, my greater concern overall
(especially with as you noted time pressure) with everyone is that when
the dumb statements were being made, no one decided to run them with the
real tape. Seems like balance is only sometimes important (one of the
reasons I left the biz).




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.

Jeez, could you please be a little more condescending? I've actually worked
TV news so I know what I am talking about here. The rush to get a piece to
the air is profound. On a big story there's probably more than one line
producer and perhaps two or three editors working at breakneck speed trying
to touch on all the facts that are flooding in - sometimes totally
uncorroborated, but that's another story - at breakneck speed.

That wasn't condescending. That was a statement of two facts. One,
editing is picking out the important stuff, why else do journalists and
editors exist? Heck the lack of editing is one of the worst parts of
many media outlets and most Internet sites any more.




I am certain, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the question of the dispatcher
was cut for time and time alone because the editors felt, as I do, that no
reasonable person would assume that calling a black man black is racist,
especially in the context of what kind of questions we KNOW a dispatcher
would be asking a caller tailing a suspect. It's just common sense and the
fact that many people lack it doesn't mean I'm going to cater to them.
Actually I am not saying otherwise, but I am questioning the
decision making. We KNOW what a dispatcher is going to ask, but just
because the reporters do doesn't mean that all (or heck even most) are
privy to the ins and outs of police dispatcherdom. Again, my biggest
complaint is not using the tape to counteract some of the idiocy when it
came out.


It's preposterous and it couldn't be further from the truth. Even Fox
failed to pick it up because that's how it works. If one big network covers
something, they all do. If no one big picks it up, the others usually don't
either. They don't call it "pack" journalism for nothing.

And that, somehow, makes it alright.



God, would you get over it? That didn't happen and only people with an
agenda of some kind think a dark liberal malice was at work. Read that
Salon piece about Fox if you want to talk real malice. This "made him look
racist" BS is a non-starter to intelligent people. Stupid people will
believe what they will no matter what the facts are so they don't much
concern me. You, however, should know better.
At what point did I ever say anything about liberal malice? I am
saying from a professional standpoint it was blown and blown repeatedly.




He won't win largely because NYT vs Sullivan gives media a get out
of jail free card.

Yeah, well, at least I beat that admission out of you, Rodney. (-: There's
no THERE there, and this is a triviality blown up out of proportion to
because Sharpton and others needed a racial hook to raise the hue and cry.
It won't stand up in court where a jury will hear how TV news is produced in
detail from defense attorneys.

Again, where until YOU brought it up did I mention anything about a
lawsuit of any kind? It won't standup because Sullivan says there is no
requirement that they get it right.


Now if the Justice Department wants to pursue civil rights charges, they
could possibly make a case if they had tapes of every call GZ made to police
and nine out of ten suspects he reported were black. But the jury didn't buy
the racial profiling angle based on the "he's black" comment and neither do
I.

Be interesting to see if the Feds do decide to do something if they
run it past a grand jury first or want to go to trial without risking a
no like the state did. See how well that worked out (grin).
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe