'Bout time!

Monday, December 10, 2012

'Bout time!

Another example of NBC's fraudulent "journalism" has once again come back to bite the Peacock beneath its steato­pyg­ian plumage, as George Zimmerman is suing corporate par­ent NBC Universal for editing an audio tape of his 911 call to make him sound racist.

OtBB discussed the matter, and the networks sad history of doctored audio and video presented as authentic news, this past April.

(See also "'Outright deception' gate... all better now" and "Well, it's a start....")

Calling NBC's actions "the oldest form of yellow journalism" in broadcasting various edited versions of Zimmerman's call to 911 following his February 26th shooting of Trayvon Martin, the lawsuit cited four (4!) separate dates, March 19, 20, 22 and 27, on which the altered police tapes were aired.

It's surprising that Zimmerman's legal team has waited this long to file suit, so egregious were NBC's actions.

Yes, the network has apologized through NBC News presi­dent Steve Capus who attempted to spin the story as "an editing error in the production process" while asserting that it was "a mistake and not a deliberate act to misrepresent the phone call."

Readers can decide for themselves whether the following was or was not "a deliberate act."

Actual 911 Recording:

  • 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.

As broadcast by NBC:

  • Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black.

(At least NBC had enough sense to terminate a num­ber of staff, including reporters Lilia Luciano, Jeff Burnside and Ron Allen, involved in the deception.)

NBC's continued insistance that all this was due to "an editing error," it was "not a deliberate act," and "there was no intent to portray Mr. Zimmerman unfairly,"strains credulity, and their belated "corporate-speak" apology suggests that the Peacock still hasn't learned its lesson.

In a related development...

NBC isn't the only one in the Martin-Zimmerman case playing fast and loose with the facts!

One week ago, the defense team released a heretofore unseen photo of Zimmerman taken by a police officer on the night of the fatal shooting of Martin last February.

Police photo of George Zimmerman from the night of February 26, 2012

The reason no one has seen this color photograph before is because the high-resolution digital file wasn't provided to the defense until October 29th, in the State of Florida's ninth(!) Supplemental Discovery.

An earlier version of this image was seen in the form of a black and white photocopy provided by the State in the first Discovery, which the prosecution seems to feel was in compliance with, if not the rules of discovery, then at least the spirit.

I doubt that there has been such a blatant attempt to "railroad" a defendant in the United States since the in­famous "Scottsboro Boys" trials of the '30s.


1. Champ19 said...

Regrettably, George Zimmerman sets back those of us who responsibly own firearms and force us to continually defend our right to lawfully posses them.

It has become increasingly clear that Zimmerman has become a prime example of someone who never should have been allowed to possess a handgun, let alone carry one in public.

That the media continues to portray Zimmerman as a villan and the victim as an innocent civilian reflects the reality of our incrediblly naïve weapons laws and the frustration rational people see in this reality. Allow fools to carry handguns and they will find an excuse to use them. Yes, I am saying fools should not possess handguns. Mandatory training, and real background checks will be a long overdue start to identifying them. Let them own long guns if they feel that threatened and keep them in their houses if they are that afraid and not playing wannabe cop with a handgun and a plastic badge.

I agree with much of what you say, with the stark exception that Zimmerman never should have been allowed to possess or carry a handgun. In my extensively researched view, that part is simply not supportable.

Would he have benefitted from one of the Massad Ayoob Group's or John Farnam's DTI courses, both of which focus as much on how to avoid a potentially lethal confrontation as they do on handgun skills? Absolutely!

Email address is not published
Remember Me

Write the characters in the image above