As the lawyers say on TV:

"Objection! Those facts are not in evidence!"


As Paul Harvey used to say:

"Now you know the rest of the story."


http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=8689

On Monday, July 22, 2013 10:49:08 PM UTC-5, wrote:
As the lawyers say on TV:



"Objection! Those facts are not in evidence!"





As Paul Harvey used to say:



"Now you know the rest of the story."





http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=8689

You believe and seek out what fortifies your prejudice...

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/martin.asp

On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 03:47:40 -0700 (PDT), Bob_Villa
wrote:

On Monday, July 22, 2013 10:49:08 PM UTC-5, wrote:
As the lawyers say on TV:



"Objection! Those facts are not in evidence!"





As Paul Harvey used to say:



"Now you know the rest of the story."





http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=8689

You believe and seek out what fortifies your prejudice...

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/martin.asp

Thanks, I didn't know that.

On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 6:47:40 AM UTC-4, Bob_Villa wrote:
On Monday, July 22, 2013 10:49:08 PM UTC-5, wrote:

As the lawyers say on TV:







"Objection! Those facts are not in evidence!"











As Paul Harvey used to say:







"Now you know the rest of the story."











http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=8689



You believe and seek out what fortifies your prejudice...



http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/martin.asp


Prejudice? Good grief. Virtually everything in the video
the OP presented is the truth. For example, the mainstream
media did constantly show pictures of a much younger, smiling T,
next to a scowling Z. The fact that you can find some lame
websites that no one looks at that also got stuff wrong doesn't
compare to having it done to you by NBC. NBC edited the call
Z made to police, leaving Z saying "He looks black", without
the police question of "What does he look like?", preceeding
it. And even your website link misses the forest for the trees.
They point out that some website claimed he was 6'-2 and weighed
175. Yeah, that was wrong. He was actually 5'-11 and weighed
158 lbs. But the whole point was still correct, which is that
he was *not* some small child, like being shown by the mainstream
media, the night of the shooting.

You may not like what is in the OP video, but almost all of
it has been out for a long time and is established as fact.

In article ,
"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. Things are edited for so much more than time.

--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On 7/23/2013 7:56 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"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. Things are edited for so much more than time.


The P.L.L.C.F. press just won't let the young thug die. If they could
dig up his body and parade it around I believe they would. O_o

TDD

On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 7:59:46 AM UTC-5, wrote:


You believe and seek out what fortifies your prejudice...



http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/martin.asp

The fact that you can find some lame

websites that no one looks at that also got stuff wrong doesn't

compare to having it done to you by NBC.

Snopes is well respected and states Trayvon was taller than some stated...but not the menacing looking rapper purported to be him. Or the kid that "looks" like him giving the "finger".
You can't support lies...they always bite you in the ass! And they bit you!

On 7/24/2013 5:33 AM, Bob_Villa wrote:
On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 7:59:46 AM UTC-5,
wrote:


You believe and seek out what fortifies your prejudice...



http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/martin.asp

The fact that you can find some lame

websites that no one looks at that also got stuff wrong doesn't

compare to having it done to you by NBC.

Snopes is well respected and states Trayvon was taller than some
stated...but not the menacing looking rapper purported to be him. Or
the kid that "looks" like him giving the "finger". You can't support
lies...they always bite you in the ass! And they bit you!


That's why I always sit back and filter out all the male bovine
droppings before coming to a conclusion. The first reports by those
trying to sensationalize the tragic event had me believing Zimmerman
was a horrible lunatic who hurt children. I don't like people who harm
children and have known to body slam someone for hitting a small child
in the head. When all the true information was revealed, I had a quite
different opinion based on some of my own personal expediences. O_o

TDD

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

On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 7:37:07 AM UTC-4, 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??



See, this is an example of where, unable to take any more
of this nonsense, I apply a term like imbecile. You're trying
to tell us that you see no difference in these two exchanges:

What NBC edited:

Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about. He looks black”

What really took place:


Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: “OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?”

Zimmerman: “He looks black.”





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.

And on with the drivel. Even NBC acknowledges that what was
done was clearly wrong. They fired the producer and apologized.







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.

Home in on black? What the hell are you even talking about?
He answered a direct question from the dispatcher.
You really are an imbecile. Happy now?





NBC didn't say "he's a racist" and to

*normal* people, they didn't imply it.

LOL. You're unbelievable.




These charges only seem to resonate

with people who have an axe to grind for whatever reason.



BS. They resonate with anyone with a sense of fairness
and decency that don't want to see a lib media destroy someone
with lies.





I certainly don't believe that NBC substantially changed anything factual,

Of course you wouldn't, because you're a leftist loon.






as Bill O'Reilly has on a number of well-documented occasions,

Yawn... We're talking about NBC, not Fox. But since you want
to go there, I'd be happy to see these alleged cases where
O'Reilly changed facts.





nor do I

think a jury will find NBC did (if the case even survives a motion to

dismiss) because it's what Zimmerman said. The question "What did he look

like?" is almost implied in the answer he gave so it's really redundant to

anyone except real nit pickers who don't understand the pressures involved.



A true imbecile. Editing out that one short sentence, put the
whole quote into an entirely different context.




Given how much other ground they had to cover in the telecast, it's

completely in line with standard editing practices.

Good grief. NBC FIRED THE PRODUCER.





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.

And now you're adding your own lies to the mix. Either that or
you're beyond imbecile. The dispatcher asked Z if the suspect
looked white, Hispanic or black. It was what was important to
the DISPATCHER, not Z. How the hell would you libs answer that
question? What's the politically correct answer, "Sir, I refuse
to answer that question because I will be accused of being a racist?"

Rest of irrelevant nonsense deleted.

On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 6:33:23 AM UTC-4, Bob_Villa wrote:
On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 7:59:46 AM UTC-5, wrote:





You believe and seek out what fortifies your prejudice...







http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/martin.asp



The fact that you can find some lame



websites that no one looks at that also got stuff wrong doesn't



compare to having it done to you by NBC.



Snopes is well respected and states Trayvon was taller than some stated...but not the menacing looking rapper purported to be him.

What menacing looking rapper that purported to be him. See, here's
the problem. Instead of addressing what's in that video that the OP
provided a link to, you just set up strawmen. You take anything that
any idiot may have put up on the internet about T that proved to be
false and shoot it down. Which of course, proves *nothing* about what
is in that video.


Or the kid that "looks" like him giving the "finger".

You can't support lies...they always bite you in the ass! And they bit you!

Excuse me? Are you denying that there is in fact a real picture of T giving the finger? AFAIK, that pic is real. It's been used by the
networks and by Z's defense counsel.

Exactly, AFAIK...it is a different kid (and you're a ****ing moron...you don't qualify as an imbecile)

dgk wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 03:47:40 -0700 (PDT), Bob_Villa
wrote:

On Monday, July 22, 2013 10:49:08 PM UTC-5, wrote:
As the lawyers say on TV:



"Objection! Those facts are not in evidence!"





As Paul Harvey used to say:



"Now you know the rest of the story."





http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=8689
You believe and seek out what fortifies your prejudice...

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/martin.asp

Thanks, I didn't know that.

What if Zimmerman was black and Travon White?
What if Zimmerman and Travon were both black?
What if Zimmerman and Travon were both white?


--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:00:06 -0400, willshak
wrote:

What if Zimmerman was black and Travon White?
What if Zimmerman and Travon were both black?
What if Zimmerman and Travon were both white?

Zimmerman still claims self-defense.

Do I win the prize?

On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 12:59:32 PM UTC-4, Bob_Villa wrote:
Exactly, AFAIK...it is a different kid (and you're a ****ing moron...you don't qualify as an imbecile)

Well, as is so typical, you really don't know much, do you?

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/05/23...-photos-texts/

ORLANDO (CBSMiami/AP) — Defense attorneys for the Florida man accused of shooting and killing unarmed Miami teen Trayvon Martin have released photos and text messages from the teen’s cell phone ahead of a hearing that will determine whether they can be used at George Zimmerman’s trial.

The photos released Thursday show Trayvon Martin blowing smoke and extending his middle finger to the camera. The photos also show a gun and what appears to be a potted marijuana plant.

http://cbsmiami.files.wordpress.com/...von_photos.pdf

There it is, look for yourself.

The family, their lawyers, the prosecutors, etc did not dispute
that the photos presented to the court, including the one with T giving the finger is in fact T. Anything else I can help you with?

On 7/24/2013 12:00 PM, willshak wrote:
dgk wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 03:47:40 -0700 (PDT), Bob_Villa
wrote:

On Monday, July 22, 2013 10:49:08 PM UTC-5, wrote:
As the lawyers say on TV:



"Objection! Those facts are not in evidence!"





As Paul Harvey used to say:



"Now you know the rest of the story."





http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=8689
You believe and seek out what fortifies your prejudice...

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/martin.asp

Thanks, I didn't know that.

What if Zimmerman was black and Travon White?
What if Zimmerman and Travon were both black?
What if Zimmerman and Travon were both white?



Here you go, no outrage, no circus. O_o

https://tinyurl.com/l34ey32

TDD

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:22:14 -0400, wrote:

What if Zimmerman was black and Travon White?
The DA investigates and "no bills"

.... I think what you mean is the DA presents the evidence to the
empanelled Grand Jury. The GJ returns a No Bill - not the DA.

The DA can decline prosecution or GJ, based on his discretion, not by
a No Bill. Same as a cop not giving you a ticket.

Angela Corey avoided the GJ of local citizens to further her political
ambitions to be a Republican Lt. Gov.

She screwed the pooch.

On 07-24-2013 07:37, Robert Green wrote:
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

"They fired me for standard editing practices! I'll sue!"

racist when he wasn't, it accurately portrayed what Zimmerman thought was
the most important factor about his quarry. That he was black.

It was so important to him that he waited to be asked so that it would
be the last thing they heard.

--
Wes Groleau

Can we afford to be relevant?
http://www.cetesol.org/stevick.html

GZ was a neighborhood watch volunteer and knew who lived in his neighborhood.

TM was suspended from school for an unusually long time for "Being in an area without authorization", which is all the school will reveal about his suspension. (The unusually long suspension suggest he might have been in the school nurses office looking for prescription drugs, perhaps.) TM went to visit his father during that suspension, which is what took him from Miami to Sanford, Florida. It's the fact that GZ had never seen TM before that made him suspicious that he was wanting to break into houses.

This whole tragic story could have all been avoided through communication, GZ communicating to TM why he was following him, or TM communicating to GZ why he was new to the neighborhood. But, that's just not what happened. Instead, there was a fight and GZ shot TM is what fully appears to be self defense.

Video of TM smoking pot, or the fact that he was suspended from school, or recently got into trouble for punching a city bus driver weren't allowed into evidence because none of those things have any bearing on the decision the jury had to make, which was whether this was a murder or self defense.

I think it's best to accept the jury verdict of self defense, and just be glad there was no more rioting than there was. This won't be the first or last time that something happens and there isn't enough evidence to prove the defendant's story wrong.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
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.

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.

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.

Now in that case, even watching the whole, unedited video makes it seems as
if poor innocent drunken, endanger-the-life-of-many speeder Rodney was
getting a beat down for nothing.

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.

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?

No, I don't. There's where we differ significantly. I've sat in front of
an Ampex 3/4" video editing console counting frames, trying to get a
complicated story that might run 2500 words in a newspaper down to three
minutes or less. I *know* what it's like to have a deadline looming over
you, having to get tapes from maybe 20 different sources editing down to one
broadcast quality master and to have all the salient points covered. We'll
get the final read on this when Zimmerman's civil suit goes to trial. You
must know *something* about the burden of proof he faces in a
defamation/libel suit and that his likelihood of prevailing is very, very
slim. NBC might settle just to avoid the cost of litigation, but I doubt it
because it sets a bad precedent.

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.

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.

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.

Riding this issue is just about as lame as the hubbub that happened months
ago with the murdering abortion doctor. "Oh, people screamed, the
mainstream press is ignoring this story because they're liberals in the bag
for abortion." They somehow believe that every morning all the TV and print
editors have an on-line meeting about what stories they will suppress that
day.

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.

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.

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.

So in your view,
Sharpton, Jackson, et al, who are making the racist assertion aren't
normal (something we actually agree on..grin).

Absolutely. You know they played this for all it was worth and to inflame
the black community they had to find something that they could contort to
serve their purposes. I just find it odd that you are arguing their
meritless position. I believe the Breibart edit was very deliberate and the
NBC piece was very accidental. In terms of degree of malice, there's no
comparison.

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.

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.

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.

I think he called Martin an asshole that always got away first. The
dispatcher probably correctly surmised that looking for an asshole might not
be as useful a description to the police so she asked for clarification.
That's just standard police procedure.

--
Bobby G.

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

"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. To argue that it makes GZ look racist is the
attitude that many dim witted people took because they were *looking* for
malice. 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. 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.

This reminds me of how people used to rail on me for the headlines on my
stories about them. 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.

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. Taking
clips, for example, from the NRA heads and the Brady leadership take the
heat off the network for inserting any bias - they cover both sides fairly -
allegedly and they don't have to write copy that could be (and probably
would be) riddled with errors. The problem there is that they sometimes
present unworthy candidates to rebut what people in leadership positions are
saying, just to appear balanced.

I wish I could do a Vulcan mind-meld to transmit the absolute insanity of a
national TV newsroom on deadline. People run through the room shouting 10
minutes to air, 9 minutes to air, screaming they can find this tape or that
tape or there's something wrong with the timecoding or someone's segment is
20 seconds too long or too short.

I want to take an instant to remember Helen Thomas of UPI. She died last
week after being the dean of the Whitehouse Press corp for decades. She took
the time out to explain how the press conferences functioned and even ran
interference with the security folks who just loved to give interns and
newbies a hard time. She never flinched from asking the tough questions.

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.

Condescension, like racism, is in the eye of the beholder. Do you really
think I needed to know how editing works? (-: 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? 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.






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.

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. You must have encountered one of those types
in the print world. Everyone's had an editor that ruthlessly cuts out words,
phrases and punction to "punch up the story" and doing so changed the
meaning of the story with over-editing. I certainly have and I wanted to
"punch *them* up."

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.

It is what it is and I don't see it changing any time soon, nor should it.
Do you really want a central authority dictating what news is to be covered?
The current system works pretty well and the proof is that even the abortion
doctor story came to light once *one* outlet covered it. Generating story
ideas takes a lot of creativity 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? 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.

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 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, professionally,
morally, legally or ethically. Perhaps if they had strapped rocket motors
to Zimmerman's head I would agree with you, but we'll have to agree to
disagree on this one.

--
Bobby G.

On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 6:47:40 AM UTC-4, Bob_Villa wrote:

You believe and seek out what fortifies your prejudice...


Plenty of real pics of Trayvon.

Here 'ya go

http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/up...comparison.gif

http://patdollard.com/wp-content/upl...ble-finger.jpg


"The guy looks like he's up to no good or on drugs or something"

http://watchdogwire.com/florida/file...e-pictures.jpg

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


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.

Condescension, like racism, is in the eye of the beholder. Do you really
think I needed to know how editing works? (-: 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? 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.
No, but you aren't my only audience. I also talk the people in the
peanut gallery. Which by the way sorta reinforces my one point. You
shouldn't do news for those who know how police dispatchers work. Rather
you should do it for those who DON"T.
It won't get to the jury. It can't given the rather expansive
definition of public person that has gained traction over the years.

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. You must have encountered one of those types
in the print world. Everyone's had an editor that ruthlessly cuts out words,
phrases and punction to "punch up the story" and doing so changed the
meaning of the story with over-editing. I certainly have and I wanted to
"punch *them* up."

You don't need the full tape to counter. You run the idiocy, you run the
full tape, or heck even mention it. This would be a second story on the
inevitable news conference. You put up the quote from the conference and
then run the couple of seconds of tape that is relevant. That is called
"balance" in J-school.

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.

It is what it is and I don't see it changing any time soon, nor should it.
Do you really want a central authority dictating what news is to be covered?
But I would submit that there already is by the very existence of the
pack. I want someone (or actually many someones) to break out of the
pack and do their freaking jobs.

The current system works pretty well and the proof is that even the abortion
doctor story came to light once *one* outlet covered it. Generating story
ideas takes a lot of creativity 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.
One started it (my point above) but then the pack joined in. Heck I
don't really care if they cover the same thing it is when they WRITE
essentially the same thing that the system breaks down.



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 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, professionally,
morally, legally or ethically. Perhaps if they had strapped rocket motors
to Zimmerman's head I would agree with you, but we'll have to agree to
disagree on this one.
And everytime Sharpton spouted off, when nobody did anything to bring
out the Paul Harvey REST of the story /Paul Harvey, that was another
time the press did not do their job. I am not as concerned about missing
it initially for all of the concerns you mention, but the fact that they
repeatedly ignored the differences that ticks me off.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

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.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
stuff snipped

But I would submit that there already is by the very existence of the
pack. I want someone (or actually many someones) to break out of the
pack and do their freaking jobs.

But they do. Only one source broke the John Edwards story. Everyone else
missed it. The system breaks down on occasion, but what human-engineered
system doesn't? What concerns me more is the lack of statehouse coverage
that's evolved as local papers pull back on funding because that's where I
got my start - interviewing then Gov. Marvin Mandel long before he went down
in flames. It saddens and worries me that now starving small local papers
just can't afford to maintain a remote bureau covering state news and so it
goes largely uncovered nowadays and that's not a good thing.

I worry that news divisions have to pay their own way now, and they've never
been a profit center so they have become more and more "infotainment" than
news organizations. I cringe when watching Fox news they announce the
standings in American Idol as if they had equal rank with important national
and world news. These are things you should be worried about, not an
obvious edit for time that "seems" racist to a bunch of boneheads.

Newscasts shouldn't have to work to the lowest common denominator. Plenty
of people truly believe that the world was created 5,000 years ago despite
the existence of museums where they can actually touch million-year-old
fossils. They believe those fossils are part of a plot by atheists to
undermine God's "true word." Should we cater to people *that* deliberately
ignorant of reality and science? I think not.

I am watching the effing History Channel now and it's all about Civil War
ghosts. I'd say that's proof we can't afford to dumb down the news for
people with IQ's on a par with my dog's. If they can't undestand that "he's
black" is just a description and not a racist comment, they need to smarten
up. The news doesn't need to dumb down. That way lies madness.

It worries me that because the trend is now to get two talking heads
explaining a news event from each side, that we end up with a segment where
the Florida AG is paired with Rev. Al Sharpton as if somehow the two had
equal credentials. Watch for it and you'll see it happening time and time
again. Senator Bob Dole v. the head of some weenie home schooling
coalition.

Home schoolers typically want to withdraw from the normal educational system
so they can perpetuate religious ignorance and teach Creationism (more aptly
named Cretinism) to their usually very poorly socialized offspring. At
least the smarter religions have moved on to the less-easily disproved
"intelligent design" theory which more than a few scientists acknowledge may
have some merit. I even believe it's possible there's some animating force
to the Universe that we have yet to identify or understand and I am pretty
skeptical.

It worries me that a once-respected newsman like Dan Rather could get so
easily hoaxed by Bush's alleged National Guard OER's without even thinking -
"did they have justified-type typewriters at National Guard centers that far
back?" That's a true functional problem in the media - the ease with which
it is hoaxed but that happens because of the time pressure. Remember the
balloon that everyone thought had a little boy on board? The lapses are
endless because the process of gathering news is so messy and granular.

But I *don't* worry that some news consumers are so ignorant about news
gathering that they read racism into things that aren't racist. To me, GZ's
"these assholes always get away" is far more damning than "he's black." But
neither means very much in terms of racism. It more clearly points to a
guy, concerned with a rash of burglaries in his community that he felt the
cops were not paying enough attention to, and I think that's a correct
reading. Cops don't care much about B&E's and never did.

Let's turn this around. What else *could* he have said to describe TM well
enough so that a responding cop might be able to ID him? "He has horns?"
"He was flying through the air?" "He smells funny?" "He's wet?" "He's
carrying ice tea?"

To me, we're getting perilously close to the time I was a reporter and the
morons who I would quote *verbatim* in an article would call my editor and
complain: "That's what I *said*, but it's not what I *meant!*"

GZ described TM in a way that would make it possible for a cop arriving on
scene to recognize him. Saying he's black cuts the chance of
mis-identification in half. No other descriptor could do that. Not size,
not weight, not clothing. Now if TM had a gold front tooth and GZ saw it,
that could override color as the most helpful descriptor, but he didn't so
GZ went with black.

If "he's black" made some people throw a hissy-fit that's too bad, so sad.
They're idiots. The world's chock-full of them and it's *their* job to get
educated. You're almost sounding as if you expect the news media to be
nannies and lead these dopes by the hand to more intelligent conclusions
than they ones the seem able to reach with their own brainpower. That
doesn't sound like a true conservative to me. (-:

--
Bobby G.

On 07-25-2013 15:39, Robert Green wrote:
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.

They sort of torpedoed that defense by firing the guy that did it and
apologizing for it.

--
Wes Groleau

Change is inevitable. We need to learn that €œinevitable" is
neither a synonym for €œgood" nor for €œbad.€�

On 07-25-2013 22:40, Robert Green wrote:
Home schoolers typically want to withdraw from the normal educational system
so they can perpetuate religious ignorance and teach Creationism (more aptly
named Cretinism) to their usually very poorly socialized offspring. At

You obviously know very little about home-schooling. Many are
non-religious, and many of the religious ones are more concerned
with what they perceive as an over-all anti-religious bias.

Many, both religious and not, are more concerned with an alleged
weakening of educational standards. As a wanna-be teacher (I had to
drop out of my education degree for medical reasons) I think that is
greatly exaggerated, but sometimes the concern is justified. When I
could no longer afford a private school, I borrowed the math textbook
from the high school the eldest was to go to. I was seriously
considering home schooling just because that thing was so pathetic.

--
Wes Groleau

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...gs/pants-fire/

On Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:40:02 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

stuff snipped



But I would submit that there already is by the very existence of the

pack. I want someone (or actually many someones) to break out of the

pack and do their freaking jobs.



But they do. Only one source broke the John Edwards story. Everyone else

missed it. The system breaks down on occasion, but what human-engineered

system doesn't? What concerns me more is the lack of statehouse coverage

that's evolved as local papers pull back on funding because that's where I

got my start - interviewing then Gov. Marvin Mandel long before he went down

in flames. It saddens and worries me that now starving small local papers

just can't afford to maintain a remote bureau covering state news and so it

goes largely uncovered nowadays and that's not a good thing.



I worry that news divisions have to pay their own way now, and they've never

been a profit center so they have become more and more "infotainment" than

news organizations. I cringe when watching Fox news they announce the

standings in American Idol as if they had equal rank with important national

and world news. These are things you should be worried about, not an

obvious edit for time that "seems" racist to a bunch of boneheads.



There is but one "bonehead" here and it's you. It's quite shocking and also very illustrative of what's wrong with
the media when someone who was a reporter is as biased, unfair
and just plain dumb as you are.

Again, one more time, for anyone who hasn't seen the actual
exchange versus the editing:

NBC edited version:

Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”


The actual call:

Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”

Dispatcher: “OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?”

Zimmerman: “He looks black.”






Newscasts shouldn't have to work to the lowest common denominator. Plenty

of people truly believe that the world was created 5,000 years ago despite

the existence of museums where they can actually touch million-year-old

fossils. They believe those fossils are part of a plot by atheists to

undermine God's "true word." Should we cater to people *that* deliberately

ignorant of reality and science? I think not.



I am watching the effing History Channel now and it's all about Civil War

ghosts. I'd say that's proof we can't afford to dumb down the news for

people with IQ's on a par with my dog's. If they can't undestand that "he's

black" is just a description and not a racist comment, they need to smarten

up.


Imbecile. The context in which it was presented makes it
look like race was included as part of Z's negative description
of the guy and why he looked suspicious. In truth, it was
just an answer to the dispatcher's question.



The news doesn't need to dumb down. That way lies madness.



It worries me that because the trend is now to get two talking heads

explaining a news event from each side, that we end up with a segment where

the Florida AG is paired with Rev. Al Sharpton as if somehow the two had

equal credentials.

Maybe they do need to be given equal standing the same way. They both mistreated Z the same way.




Watch for it and you'll see it happening time and time

again. Senator Bob Dole v. the head of some weenie home schooling

coalition.



Home schoolers typically want to withdraw from the normal educational system

so they can perpetuate religious ignorance and teach Creationism (more aptly

named Cretinism) to their usually very poorly socialized offspring.

More unfounded, prejudiced nonsense.



At

least the smarter religions have moved on to the less-easily disproved

"intelligent design" theory which more than a few scientists acknowledge may

have some merit. I even believe it's possible there's some animating force

to the Universe that we have yet to identify or understand and I am pretty

skeptical.



It worries me that a once-respected newsman like Dan Rather could get so

easily hoaxed by Bush's alleged National Guard OER's without even thinking -


Not surprising at all. When you're so filled with bias, you
lose all objectivity. You're demonstrating that here. And
instead of sticking with the obvious wrong done to Z by NBC,
you're desperately wandering in the forest, talking about
everything else that has nothing to do with it.

As for Rather, he wasn't hoaxed. He was part of the hoax.
He finds a former secretary for the national guard, and
what does he ask her? Does he ask her what evidence she
has? Why no, he asks probing questions like "Do you think he
was AWOL?" Good grief!




"did they have justified-type typewriters at National Guard centers that far

back?" That's a true functional problem in the media - the ease with which

it is hoaxed but that happens because of the time pressure. Remember the

balloon that everyone thought had a little boy on board? The lapses are

endless because the process of gathering news is so messy and granular.



But I *don't* worry that some news consumers are so ignorant about news

gathering that they read racism into things that aren't racist. To me, GZ's

"these assholes always get away" is far more damning than "he's black." But

neither means very much in terms of racism. It more clearly points to a

guy, concerned with a rash of burglaries in his community that he felt the

cops were not paying enough attention to, and I think that's a correct

reading. Cops don't care much about B&E's and never did.



Let's turn this around. What else *could* he have said to describe TM well

enough so that a responding cop might be able to ID him? "He has horns?"

"He was flying through the air?" "He smells funny?" "He's wet?" "He's

carrying ice tea?"



"He looks black", was in response to a direct question
from the dispatcher. The dispatcher didn't ask those other
questions.





To me, we're getting perilously close to the time I was a reporter and the

morons who I would quote *verbatim* in an article would call my editor and

complain: "That's what I *said*, but it's not what I *meant!*"



Probably had a legitimate complaint, because anyone taking the
position here that is so obviously biased, unfair, against any
decent journalism ethics, shouldn't be reporting anything.





GZ described TM in a way that would make it possible for a cop arriving on

scene to recognize him. Saying he's black cuts the chance of

mis-identification in half. No other descriptor could do that. Not size,

not weight, not clothing. Now if TM had a gold front tooth and GZ saw it,

that could override color as the most helpful descriptor, but he didn't so

GZ went with black.



Imbecile. He was asked a direct, specific question by the
dispatcher. "Is he black, white or Hispanic?"





If "he's black" made some people throw a hissy-fit that's too bad, so sad..

They're idiots. The world's chock-full of them and it's *their* job to get

educated. You're almost sounding as if you expect the news media to be

nannies and lead these dopes by the hand to more intelligent conclusions

than they ones the seem able to reach with their own brainpower. That

doesn't sound like a true conservative to me. (-:



--

Bobby G.

You're the only obvious idiot here. At least you didn't
bring up again all that deadline pressure BS that you've been
spouting. NBC used the edited version numerous times over
many days. There was no deadline pressure. Even NBC admits
what they did was very wrong, apologized for it and FIRED THE PRODUCER.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


in flames. It saddens and worries me that now starving small local papers
just can't afford to maintain a remote bureau covering state news and so it
goes largely uncovered nowadays and that's not a good thing.


Heck I live in Indy where the state news IS home town news and I share
your concerns....

I am watching the effing History Channel now and it's all about Civil War
ghosts. I'd say that's proof we can't afford to dumb down the news for
people with IQ's on a par with my dog's. If they can't undestand that "he's
black" is just a description and not a racist comment, they need to smarten
up. The news doesn't need to dumb down. That way lies madness.
Actually in this case, it was the people who are supposed to smart
(Jackson, Sharpton, etc.) that were trying to make it into a racist
comment. I am less concerned about not slapping down the Great Unwashed
than those who are considered leaders.


It worries me that because the trend is now to get two talking heads
explaining a news event from each side, that we end up with a segment where
the Florida AG is paired with Rev. Al Sharpton as if somehow the two had
equal credentials. Watch for it and you'll see it happening time and time
again. Senator Bob Dole v. the head of some weenie home schooling
coalition.
That is more continued laziness on the part of the networks and
others.

But I *don't* worry that some news consumers are so ignorant about news
gathering that they read racism into things that aren't racist. To me, GZ's
"these assholes always get away" is far more damning than "he's black." But
neither means very much in terms of racism. It more clearly points to a
guy, concerned with a rash of burglaries in his community that he felt the
cops were not paying enough attention to, and I think that's a correct
reading. Cops don't care much about B&E's and never did.

Again it isn't the news organization initial response that is of (as
great) concern. It is letting the idiocy hang out there unassailed. THAT
is where the real breakdown occurs (and this is hardly the only time and
hardly attibutable to time pressures or the chaos of breaking news.

Let's turn this around. What else *could* he have said to describe TM well
enough so that a responding cop might be able to ID him? "He has horns?"
"He was flying through the air?" "He smells funny?" "He's wet?" "He's
carrying ice tea?"
Which is a question that should have been asked (in some form..maybe
not QUITE that blatantly) of Sharpton, et al. (Actually the fact that
Sharpton isn't roommates with David Duke at the Home for the Terminally
Inane, I view as one the press' greatest failures.)


If "he's black" made some people throw a hissy-fit that's too bad, so sad.
They're idiots. The world's chock-full of them and it's *their* job to get
educated. You're almost sounding as if you expect the news media to be
nannies and lead these dopes by the hand to more intelligent conclusions
than they ones the seem able to reach with their own brainpower. That
doesn't sound like a true conservative to me. (-:
But the idiots that the press at best condones and at worst actually
enables is where my panties get in a wad. I have some minor concerns
about the original reporting, but the REAL problem with coverage was the
studiously ignoring of the fanning of the flames, not by idiots, but by
well-known people.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On 7/26/2013 8:31 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


in flames. It saddens and worries me that now starving small local papers
just can't afford to maintain a remote bureau covering state news and so it
goes largely uncovered nowadays and that's not a good thing.


Heck I live in Indy where the state news IS home town news and I share
your concerns....

I am watching the effing History Channel now and it's all about Civil War
ghosts. I'd say that's proof we can't afford to dumb down the news for
people with IQ's on a par with my dog's. If they can't undestand that "he's
black" is just a description and not a racist comment, they need to smarten
up. The news doesn't need to dumb down. That way lies madness.
Actually in this case, it was the people who are supposed to smart
(Jackson, Sharpton, etc.) that were trying to make it into a racist
comment. I am less concerned about not slapping down the Great Unwashed
than those who are considered leaders.


It worries me that because the trend is now to get two talking heads
explaining a news event from each side, that we end up with a segment where
the Florida AG is paired with Rev. Al Sharpton as if somehow the two had
equal credentials. Watch for it and you'll see it happening time and time
again. Senator Bob Dole v. the head of some weenie home schooling
coalition.
That is more continued laziness on the part of the networks and
others.

But I *don't* worry that some news consumers are so ignorant about news
gathering that they read racism into things that aren't racist. To me, GZ's
"these assholes always get away" is far more damning than "he's black." But
neither means very much in terms of racism. It more clearly points to a
guy, concerned with a rash of burglaries in his community that he felt the
cops were not paying enough attention to, and I think that's a correct
reading. Cops don't care much about B&E's and never did.

Again it isn't the news organization initial response that is of (as
great) concern. It is letting the idiocy hang out there unassailed. THAT
is where the real breakdown occurs (and this is hardly the only time and
hardly attibutable to time pressures or the chaos of breaking news.

Let's turn this around. What else *could* he have said to describe TM well
enough so that a responding cop might be able to ID him? "He has horns?"
"He was flying through the air?" "He smells funny?" "He's wet?" "He's
carrying ice tea?"
Which is a question that should have been asked (in some form..maybe
not QUITE that blatantly) of Sharpton, et al. (Actually the fact that
Sharpton isn't roommates with David Duke at the Home for the Terminally
Inane, I view as one the press' greatest failures.)


If "he's black" made some people throw a hissy-fit that's too bad, so sad.
They're idiots. The world's chock-full of them and it's *their* job to get
educated. You're almost sounding as if you expect the news media to be
nannies and lead these dopes by the hand to more intelligent conclusions
than they ones the seem able to reach with their own brainpower. That
doesn't sound like a true conservative to me. (-:
But the idiots that the press at best condones and at worst actually
enables is where my panties get in a wad. I have some minor concerns
about the original reporting, but the REAL problem with coverage was the
studiously ignoring of the fanning of the flames, not by idiots, but by
well-known people.


People seem to forget that Travon didn't live in that neighborhood. He
lived in Miami and was just visiting his Fathers girlfriend. Therefore
Zimmerman didn't recognize him.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:3sqdnW6i8-
stuff snipped

But the idiots that the press at best condones and at worst actually
enables is where my panties get in a wad. I have some minor concerns
about the original reporting, but the REAL problem with coverage was the
studiously ignoring of the fanning of the flames, not by idiots, but by
well-known people.

Take it up with Randolph Hearst who built his fortune looking for
controversies so he could throw some gasoline on them. Sharpton & Co. are
pros when it comes to amping up a bad situation. He and others *know* that
today's news organizations thrive on "he said, she said" reporting so they
make themselves "available" to them to get their message out. As for Hearst,
IIRC, he even went after American icon Annie Oakley, claiming she was found
coked out in some seedy hotel room.

http://www.insurancethoughtleadershi...ave-in-common/

IOW, this bad behavior is nothing new because it sells newspapers.

But here serene life and national image all changed on August 11, 1908
when William Randolph Hearst ran the headline "Famous Woman Crack Shot ...
Steals to Secure Cocaine"

(Never mind the irony of the words "crack" shot and "cocaine" being used 100
years ago!)

which showed a picture of Annie when she was in her late twenties in her
famous pose of the backward shooter. The article went on to say that she was
facing a 45-day sentence in a Chicago prison for stealing money from a man's
breeches to get her fix while in fact she was far from the scene of the
alleged crime and had never used cocaine. Put bluntly, the article was an
out-an-out lie. Once the newspaper article hit the press, 55 different
newspapers picked up the story off the wire and ran similar stories. It
turned out that a woman of a similar name, Any Oakley, was the real culprit.
She was a burlesque performer whose real name was Maude Fontanella.

Unfortunately I don't see this trend disappearing any time soon and IIRC,
the Pharohs used similar tactics in the ancient world, denigrating their
enemies falsely on public carvings (like obelisks, but there's another word
for it that I can't recall) to rouse their subjects to war.

--
Bobby G.

On 7/26/2013 8:31 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


in flames. It saddens and worries me that now starving small local papers
just can't afford to maintain a remote bureau covering state news and so it
goes largely uncovered nowadays and that's not a good thing.


Heck I live in Indy where the state news IS home town news and I share
your concerns....

I am watching the effing History Channel now and it's all about Civil War
ghosts. I'd say that's proof we can't afford to dumb down the news for
people with IQ's on a par with my dog's. If they can't undestand that "he's
black" is just a description and not a racist comment, they need to smarten
up. The news doesn't need to dumb down. That way lies madness.
Actually in this case, it was the people who are supposed to smart
(Jackson, Sharpton, etc.) that were trying to make it into a racist
comment. I am less concerned about not slapping down the Great Unwashed
than those who are considered leaders.

I've seen plenty to disagree with from Jackson and, especially,
Sharpton, but I try to understand where they are coming from. Anyone
who thinks bigotry and prejudice are dead is a moron....Jackson and
Sharpton reacted much in the way they have when there was really
horrible treatment of blacks and, if it happened the same way 999,999
times one way, then the millionth time it was the same old same old.

I have known cops who were privately but open about being racist, and
one, especially, to an extreme degree. Now that it is not PC to hate
blacks openly, the bigots have gays and Muslims to hate.

I'm not retrying GZ/TM, but there are things about the event that really
don't make sense, starting with taking a drug screen from the SHOOTING
VICTIM and not the shooter! WTF! TM (according to coroner's report)
had a GSW straight and level into left side of sternum, at a right
angle...now, if I'm under someone with a gun in my holster, how do I
draw and fire a clear shot at such an angle? And if TM was "pummelling
GZ MMA style"(GZ being the MMA trainee), as one witness stated, how did
TM have only one 1/4" by 1/8" abrasion on his ring finger of his left
hand? If TM was ready to fight, why did he drop his cell phone and not
put it into his pocket?

GZ's whole record of phone calls to police, over about ten years, is
online in PDF format....how many times do you call the cops about
potholes? Geesh! His calls relate to his frame of mind and history, up
to time of shooting, of being on prescription drugs for anxiety. Having
been trained, with good grades, in criminology and neighborhood watch,
why was he alone, armed and following a suspicious party? Just plain
****ing stupid?


GZ had a history of violence...restraining order....wonder if we'll hear
from his girlfriend who was the plaintiff. If R.O. still in force, he
shouldn't be carrying a weapon in Florida. How did he get a permit with
history of violence? The civil case will be interesting.

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:51:04 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

GZ had a history of violence...restraining order....wonder if we'll hear
from his girlfriend who was the plaintiff. If R.O. still in force, he
shouldn't be carrying a weapon in Florida. How did he get a permit with
history of violence? The civil case will be interesting.

GZ has no felony convictions.. There WILL not be ANY civil case from
the feds or the family. End of story.

On Friday, July 26, 2013 9:25:39 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:


(Never mind the irony of the words "crack" shot and "cocaine" being used 100

years ago!)


and a little more than 100 years ago "Coke" (as in Coca Cola) was formulated to have cocaine in it. Later caffeine was substituted for it.

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:16:01 -0400, wrote:

The civil case will be interesting.

I doubt the Martin family is going to risk a civil suit. Loser pays in
Florida in the self defense statute and a court has already spoken on
self defense.

Under Florida self defense law, Zimmerman is immune from a civil case
by the family (Castle Doctrine). The law gives him immunity and he
cannot be sued -- unless he was found guilty, then the family could
file a civil case. Only then

The feds cannot prove a hate crime related to race, so that one is out
the window, too.

We will also hear a lot more about what a thug Martin was.

Angela Corey held back exculpatory evidence from the defense. The
defense is entitled to this evidence under discovery.

The IT guy she fired, for exposing this says there was also photos on
under aged girls (not in a good way). Aside from the guns, plants,
etc.

This case was a political coup d'état. Angela Corey should be
disbarred from law practice.

On 7/26/2013 1:19 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:51:04 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

GZ had a history of violence...restraining order....wonder if we'll hear
from his girlfriend who was the plaintiff. If R.O. still in force, he
shouldn't be carrying a weapon in Florida. How did he get a permit with
history of violence? The civil case will be interesting.

GZ has no felony convictions.. There WILL not be ANY civil case from
the feds or the family. End of story.


How are you certain there will be no civil suit brought by the family?

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:16:01 -0400, wrote:

He did make a serious tactical error entering that courtyard after he
lost sight of martin.

Martin made a tactical error by bringing a fist to a gun fight.

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:51:02 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

On 7/26/2013 1:19 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:51:04 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

GZ had a history of violence...restraining order....wonder if we'll hear
from his girlfriend who was the plaintiff. If R.O. still in force, he
shouldn't be carrying a weapon in Florida. How did he get a permit with
history of violence? The civil case will be interesting.

GZ has no felony convictions.. There WILL not be ANY civil case from
the feds or the family. End of story.


How are you certain there will be no civil suit brought by the family?

Just read the law; regarding self defense in Florida. Right there in
black and white.

Cite "Castle Doctrine".

On 7/26/2013 3:00 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:51:02 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

On 7/26/2013 1:19 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:51:04 -0400, Norminn
wrote:

GZ had a history of violence...restraining order....wonder if we'll hear
from his girlfriend who was the plaintiff. If R.O. still in force, he
shouldn't be carrying a weapon in Florida. How did he get a permit with
history of violence? The civil case will be interesting.

GZ has no felony convictions.. There WILL not be ANY civil case from
the feds or the family. End of story.


How are you certain there will be no civil suit brought by the family?

Just read the law; regarding self defense in Florida. Right there in
black and white.

You mean this?: http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/776.013

Cite "Castle Doctrine".

There is no phrase "castle doctrine" in Florida Statutes than I could
find on searching. What specific statute are you referring to?