On Thursday, July 25, 2013 3:39:56 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

m...

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.



If it had been there, nothing would change except in the minds of people who

want to see racism. Perhaps it's because this issue has been dealt with

time and time again that I see no great harm in editing out the dispatcher's

comments as superfluous.

What a slick lib. First you tell us that Z saying "He looks
black." shows what was important to Z in terms of describing
the suspect. Then you tell us that there is no harm in editing
out the dispatcher's question "Does he look white, hispanic, or
black?" Of course there is importance. For one thing, it shows
that you're an imbecile, because Z saying he looks black had
*nothing* to do with what Z thought was or was not important.
It had everything to do with what the dispatcher wanted to know
and that the specific question was asked by the dispatcher.

From now on I guess the politically correct answer when
asked by the police if someone looks white, black or Hispanic
should be "Sir, I refuse to answer that question on the grounds
that it may be used to make me look like a racist."




To argue that it makes GZ look racist is the

attitude that many dim witted people took because they were *looking* for

malice.

You mean like you? YOU claimed that answer showed what Z
thought was important. That of course is a lie. And of
course leaving out the question leaves an entirely different
impression. NBC apparently agrees, because they apologized and
FIRED THE PRODUCER. Even NBC management decided that what
was done was very wrong. Good grief!









To me, on a rainy, dark night just about the only qualifier he

*could* have used was black because he was too far away to detect anything

else, or so I believe.

Most of what you believe is wrong. Z said he was black. He
was black.



He might have been able to see something like a

college/high school logo on the hoodie if there was one, but what other

things could he have said to describe him.



How the hell would you know? You weren't there to determine
how dark it was, how far away he was, what the viewing angle
was, what lights T passed by, etc.




This reminds me of how people used to rail on me for the headlines on my

stories about them.


Given that you don't understand how the editing done by NBC
was grossly unfair and damaging to Z, that doesn't surprise me.



Time and again, people who didn't know I had *nothing*

to do with writing the headline laced into me and I had to explain that a

copy editor read the story, dreamed up a headline that would fit in the

space the managing editor decided to allot to the story and lots of times

they didn't even get my byline right. I was Robert Brown, Bob Greene,

Robbie Green and many more.



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).



I think the difference in our viewpoints is that even though it was only one

summer, I witnessed the absolute pandemonium that occurs in a national TV

news studio when a hot story breaks. There's a master chart of how the news

will go that night, and from there, it's simply chaos subdivided. There's

no other industry I know of quite so panic-stricken every night and so

loosely organized that it's shocking *anything* that goes out on the air is

correct.



Apparently even NBC disagrees. They FIRED THE PRODUCER.





A very unfortunate side effect of that nightly madhouse is that TV news

gathering now depends on getting opposing viewpoints from pundits and not

doing any analysis because thinking is what gets them in trouble.

Opposing viewpoints from pundits? Where were the opposing
viewpoints on say NBC, CBS, ABC that said Z was probably
telling the truth and the shooting justified?





Condescension, like racism, is in the eye of the beholder. Do you really

think I needed to know how editing works?

Apparently you do, because you think what NBC did was just
peachy keen.



(-: Journalists gather, editors

edit, TV news produces do a little bit of both. And it seems like you left

out the second fact. RACIST!!!!!! (-: It's so easy to screw up just

because people aren't perfect. So the Sharptons of the world saw racism in

GZ saying "he's black? So what?

Yeah, so what. NBC screwed Z, and the usual race bating skunks
drove it home. There was even a reward put out for Z dead. So what?
BTW, did Holder investigate the putting out of that death warrant
by the black panthers? Did FL? The special prosecutor? Anyone?



If it wasn't that statement, they would

have found some other minor point they could escalate into a reason to cry

racism. Yawn. NBC has the truth on its side and that's usually enough to

quash a nonsense racial bias/defamation suit. Of course, with a jury,

anything's possible.



Just watch and learn. It won't get that far. NBC knows what it
did was wrong and doesn't want more of the truth to come out.
They'll settle it and pay Z off and it won't go to trial.






And I don't disagree that using the full tape would have been better. But

producers and video editors are conditioned to shave time whenever they

think something's superfluous.

To any thinking person with an IQ above room temp, leaving that
out was *not* superfluous. It changed the whole context entirely.
Good grief. If one says "He looks like he up to no good. He looks
like he's on drugs or something. He looks black.", the context
is clearly that Z believes T being black is part of what makes him
suspicious. Now insert the dispatcher's question into it, and
the whole context is changed, it's clear that it was the dispatcher
who wanted to know what he looked like for indentification purposes.

It's actually quite a good example here of what's wrong with
the lib media today. The fact that you claim to have been
involved with the media and that you can't see the obvious unfairness
and damage done in the above is quite shocking.





The current system works pretty well and the proof is that even the abortion

doctor story came to light once *one* outlet covered it.

Typical. Take the classic example of media bias and then
try to use it to prove the media isn't biased. That is assuming
the story is the Philly abortion doctor story. The media all
ignored it for months. It was only at the very end that it got
some very limited coverage. Count the airtime minutes that
stories that portray abortion in a favorable light got.




Generating story

ideas takes a lot of creativity

In this case all it took was editing out one short question
to make a story.




and when some paper or TV station locks onto

a great story, the last thing they want to do is share it with the

competition. That's what "scooping" is all about. Competition is healthy

both in business and the business of gathering the news.



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?



What is it then?

In most cases, I'd call it lib bias. But in this specific
case it is lib malice.



As a professional you should know that this happens all

the time. Regrettably news stories aren't research papers with copious

citations and peer reviews. They are the best that a team of overworked

people can do in the very short time allotted and sometimes things "look"

bad to some people and sometimes things are broadcast that are 100% wrong.



Even NBC disagrees. They FIRED the producer.




I am saying from a professional standpoint it was blown and blown

repeatedly.



Sorry, I disagree. I think it's been blown up, and blown up repeatedly by

people like Sharpton who have an agenda and *want* to turn the sad tale of a

wannabe cop into a racial profiling incident.


It's not just the race bating skunks like Sharpton that are
doing it. The mainstream media played a huge role in all the
coverage, much of it grossly distorted, that they gave this
story. Count the airtime given this one lame story. It's
unbelievable.



It should be clear to even a

bowl of Jello that GZ's isolated comment, even without the prompting of the

dispatcher, isn't enough to sustain a charge of racism,

Isn't enough to sustain a charge? Don't see why not. You yourself have taken any shred of
evidence of ANYTHING that could be used against Z and used
it with relish. And since there were few shreds, you made
up lies to use too.