TalkLeft Discussion Forums

George Zimmerman Trial Coverage => Post-Verdict Events and Thoughts => Topic started by: TalkLeft on July 24, 2013, 08:56:12 PM

Title: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: TalkLeft on July 24, 2013, 08:56:12 PM
This thread is to discuss continued media coverage of the George Zimmerman case. It is not for posting media coverage of the Martin family, Trayvon Martin, or their lawyers, or the topic of race, unless the coverage relates directly to Zimmerman.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: unitron on July 25, 2013, 07:44:18 PM
This thread is to discuss continued media coverage of the George Zimmerman case. It is not for posting media coverage of the Martin family, Trayvon Martin, or their lawyers, or the topic of race, unless the coverage relates directly to Zimmerman.

Shouldn't that read "...unless the coverage relates directly to the Zimmerman case."?

Coverage of the SUV wreck relates directly to Zimmerman, but has nothing to do with the case.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: TalkLeft on July 26, 2013, 11:59:48 PM
I thought by saying Zimmerman at the end it would include things like the SUV rescue.

What I don't want to cover is the Martin family post-verdict  -- unless they make a specific false claim about GZ now. Eg, I'm not interested in their lobbying, their continued TV appearances or efforts to cast their son's death as a product of racial bias or stand your ground laws.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: SuzieTampa on August 03, 2013, 10:46:29 AM
I think this column by Shelby Steele is terrific. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324448104578618681599902640.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324448104578618681599902640.html)
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 03, 2013, 04:57:17 PM
I think this column by Shelby Steele is terrific. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324448104578618681599902640.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324448104578618681599902640.html)

Quote
The verdict that declared George Zimmerman not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin was a traumatic event for America's civil-rights establishment

I think this claim could use some examination. I would expect the verdict to be a bonanza for the 'civil-rights establishment', for fund-raising, recruitment, and media attention. The proverbial briar patch.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 03, 2013, 05:08:37 PM
Shelby Steele:
Quote
The Revs. Jackson and Sharpton have been consigned to a hard fate: They can never be more than redundancies, echoes of the great men they emulate because America has changed. Hard to be a King or Mandela today when your monstrous enemy is no more than the cherubic George Zimmerman.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 03, 2013, 05:19:44 PM
Shelby Steele:
Quote
Trayvon threw the first punch

Steele did not explain how he reached this conclusion. To the best of my knowledge it is unproven.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 03, 2013, 05:27:24 PM
Shelby Steele:
Quote
The six-person Florida jury, looking carefully at the evidence, decided that Mr. Zimmerman pulled the trigger in self-defense and not in a fury of racial hatred.

The jury decided that the state did not prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, was not an act of self defense justified under the laws of the state of Florida. It did not decide less than that. It did not decide more than that.

In my opinion.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 03, 2013, 05:32:20 PM
Shelby Steele:
Quote
If there is anything good to be drawn from the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy, it is only the further revelation of the corruption and irrelevance of today's civil-rights leadership.

Harsh.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 04, 2013, 07:04:59 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303302504577323691134926300.html


Try this one instead, NM. Also by Steele.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: SuzieTampa on August 04, 2013, 07:59:31 AM
NMNM, I think you're right on all of your points. So, I'll amend my original comment to say: "Despite errors in fact, I think Steele makes a good point about what Jackson, Sharpton and others have done to mislead and profit from the civil-rights movement."
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 04, 2013, 11:02:24 AM
NMNM, I think you're right on all of your points. So, I'll amend my original comment

I didn't mean to take issue with you on the column overall. I was just reacting to specific points as I read. It is a good column, interesting and thoughtful. Thanks for posting it.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: jeanmarc8 on August 04, 2013, 04:41:09 PM
IANAL

Perhaps the civil rights groups flourished in a time of more dichotomous adjectives: black-white, rich-poor, Northern-Southern. The civil rights leadership seems to have become a group trying to bask in the limelight of activities 50 years ago, like alumni reliving old football games. The “dream-defenders” seem to have focused on ending “stand your ground” and the “school to prison pipeline”.    Not much clarity there to move the masses.

The first media reports must have seemed intoxicating to those civil rights leaders: Young looking black boy (in a cute red shirt) with Skittles who was shot screaming for help while walking to his father’s home in a gated community by a white male with German/Jewish name. Then the reality was revealed.  The video of TM in the 7-11 was much less cute. His high school situation was problematic. His family was solidly middle class, but far too “complex”. He seemed to have drifted back into the “hood” lifestyle despite that upbringing.  The gated community was mostly a realtor’s advertizing point, and he was never more than a brief visitor to something that was never more that his father’s occasional sleeping place. The alleged perpetrator has a mother born in a third world, Spanish speaking country, leading to the invention of “white Hispanic”. He grew up moving around in a military family and was certainly not “rich”.  The “white” man had more apparent injuries than the “black” man, suggesting he was the one attacked and reasonably could have shot in self-defense.  Then we have inputs from an American African president on African American issues. It just got messier and messier.

Equal opportunity must include equal effort and equal accountability to produce equal outcomes. The race of a young lad with a desire for an aviation career could not overcome the fact that he was flunking out of high school and had a taste for marijuana that would likely cause him to pop positive on required DOT drug testing.  Not even the DOJ CRS can push that far.

Again, IANAL.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 04, 2013, 10:24:15 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303302504577323691134926300.html

Try this one instead, NM. Also by Steele.

Good stuff.

Quote
The Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, ubiquitous icons of black protest, virtually battled each other to stand at the bereaved family's side . . . In fact Trayvon's sad fate clearly sent a quiver of perverse happiness all across America's civil rights establishment, and throughout the mainstream media as well. His death was vindication of the "poetic truth" that these establishments live by.

. . .

Before the 1960s the black American identity (though no one ever used the word) was based on our common humanity, on the idea that race was always an artificial and exploitive division between people. After the '60s—in a society guilty for its long abuse of us—we took our historical victimization as the central theme of our group identity. We could not have made a worse mistake.

It has given us a generation of ambulance-chasing leaders, and the illusion that our greatest power lies in the manipulation of white guilt. The tragedy surrounding Trayvon's death is not in the possibility that it might have something to do with white racism; the tragedy is in the lustfulness with which so many black leaders, in conjunction with the media, have leapt to exploit his demise for their own power.

Ironically, Steele began by affirming some of those very 'poetic truths' he went on to deplore.

Quote
A teenager—unarmed and committing no crime—was shot dead.

If we ignore the evidence that the teenager might have been in the middle of committing aggravated assault and battery at the moment he was shot.

Quote
Dressed in a "hoodie," a costume of menace, he crossed paths with a man on the hunt for precisely such cliches of menace.

The menacing hoodie is another of the fables introduced by the lawyers (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-13/news/os-trayvon-martin-sanford-shooting-20120313_1_young-black-men-gated-community-sanford-church) and Matt Gutman. (http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-shooting-trayvon-martin-probe-reveals-questionable/story?id=15907136#.T3cXMdVrFc4)

Gutman's 3/13/12 report does not name the alleged police source, nor give any date for the meeting at which the information was allegedly announced. No one but Gutman seems to have heard it, as far as my research goes.

Later the meme got a boost from Geraldo Rivera (video, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ljy_SHODEU#t=01m46s) 1:46). Geraldo cited no evidence except his own willingness to bet an undisclosed sum of money.

See also Bob Somerby (http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2013/08/dubliners-too-skolniks-mythical-garment.html) (The Daily Howler, 8/2/13).
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on August 05, 2013, 07:22:38 AM
Ironically, Steele began by affirming some of those very 'poetic truths' he went on to deplore.

I take issue with the first part of Steele's piece (the narrative) as well, but keep in mind that it was written and posted back on April 6, 2012.

GZ hadn't even been arrested yet, and details were still a little sketchy as to what happened. I'm not sure how much of what we have now was available to Steele at that point.

But for him to start with the version of the narrative that he did and still call out Jackson, Sharpton and the others-- and Obama-- on the issue the way he did, at that early point, is pretty major, IMO.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on August 05, 2013, 08:21:54 AM
The “dream-defenders” seem to have focused on ending “stand your ground” and the “school to prison pipeline”.   

That latter term has always bothered me because it neatly omits the real source of the problem in most cases.

Truthfully, it should be the "dysfunctional home to school that isn't allowed to properly discipline to prison pipeline".

But, hey-- so much easier to blame others (schools, law enforcement, lawmakers) and create an "enemy" that must be perpetually fought (but never defeated).

The alleged perpetrator has a mother born in a third world, Spanish speaking country, leading to the invention of “white Hispanic”.

I'm pretty certain this case didn't invent that term. I recall seeing the term used in some print source years ago, referring to people like actors Ricardo Montalban (Mr. Roarke on "Fantasy Island") and Ana Alicia (bad girl Melissa Agretti on "Falcon Crest"), who were both originally from Mexico but  didn't "look Mexican".

Also, the US Census allows for checking "Hispanic" in addition to another category, and for years has broken down "white" into a subset of "non-Hispanic white" in its population percentages. This would imply that there's an official "Hispanic white" designation, even if it's not often used.


Good post, BTW.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 05, 2013, 10:29:33 AM
I take issue with the first part of Steele's piece (the narrative) as well, but keep in mind that it was written and posted back on April 6, 2012.

Thanks for pointing that out. I neglected to check the date. I was assuming the column was recent.

John Good gave his behind-the-door interview to local TV news on 2/27/12, the day after the shooting, putting Martin on top of Zimmerman. By 4/2/12, even ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/george-zimmerman-enhanced-video-shows-injury-trayvon-martin-16053206) admitted that GZ was injured.

The hoodie meme was always dubiously sourced, and that was easy to check.

ETA: Come to think of it, that means Steele published 'A teenager . . . committing no crime', just days after the airing of the 'enhanced' video showing GZ's head injuries.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 05, 2013, 12:15:13 PM
There was a female Repesentative who made the news when she spoke out against hoodies, saying it was athug look and made wearers of hoodies subject to stereotyping. This was a few years ago. Julison and Gutman must have remembered the news story
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: SuzieTampa on August 05, 2013, 12:38:42 PM
To expand on what Evil Chinchilla said ... The U.S. Census and some other forms consider black and white to be races and Hispanic to be an ethnicity. So, someone like B29 could consider herself a "black Hispanic," if she wants. Of course, black and white are social constructs, too, which are based on ancestry and/or looks.

The government, universities and other institutions don't require people to prove their ancestry, with the exception of Native Americans in certain circumstances. The NYT and other media have discussed how young people with mixed ancestry sometimes choose which race or ethnicity they want to claim, depending on admission and scholarship policies at schools.

In Tampa, where I live, there were social & aid clubs for people from Spain and their descendants; Cubans who didn't look like they had African ancestry; and black Cubans. "White Hispanics" have definitely discriminated against "black Hispanics" and indigenous people here and elsewhere. I moved to FL in the '80s, and I can't recall any media using the term "white Hispanic," unless they were discussing historic categorizations. Black Hispanics    do describe themselves that way, at least in some instances, but more likely would use their nationality, such as saying they were Afro-Cuban, or such.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 06, 2013, 03:59:38 PM
OPINION only...

The Zimmerman name threw them off.  He was referred to as white even though the picture of the mug shot, which came out later, showed his ethnicity.  Since he was presumed white, the only logical way to keep the narrative true was to add the Hispanic afterwards.  Thus the White Hispanic meme was used.

I am from San Antonio where are Hispanic population is over 60%.  White only is at 26%. That (W-H) is not a common way of describing oneself here.

From our demographics:
(a) Includes persons reporting only one race.
(b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: SuzieTampa on August 06, 2013, 06:43:11 PM
I didn't see a thread for Shellie Zimmerman. But ... Michelle Kennedy, the pio for the courts, put out this tweet:  ‏
Quote
State v Shellie Zimmerman: Attorney has waived her appearance at her next docket sounding scheduled for Aug 21, 2013
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: TalkLeft on August 06, 2013, 10:40:46 PM
If you see an objectionable article somewhere, please don't quote it here. I don't want to be associated with the text. You can discuss it, link to it etc but there's no need to quote it.

On another topic, here's President Obama tonight on Leno. He still can't grasp the facts. He says we should ask ourselves

Quote
    ‘are there some things we can do to foster better understanding’ and to make sure we don’t have laws in place that encourage the kind of violent encounter that we saw there that resulted in tragedy.”

What law is in place that encourages assault, like the assault Martin launched against Zimmerman that began the violent encounter?  It sounds like he's saying SYG laws encourage violent encounters. But since it was Martin who initiated the violence, his comment makes no sense. He moves a little bit by acknowledging Martin wasn't perfect, but it seems he's referring to the character evidence, and still not the assault. It's really bewildering that so many people just pretend that's not what led to the shooting.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: SuzieTampa on August 07, 2013, 08:26:11 AM
Sorry about those quotes, Jeralyn. Here's the link again: http://www.thenation.com/blog/175299/fear-and-consequences-george-zimmerman-and-protection-white-womanhood#axzz2bC7KmkxP (http://www.thenation.com/blog/175299/fear-and-consequences-george-zimmerman-and-protection-white-womanhood#axzz2bC7KmkxP)

I left a lengthy comment on this piece at the Nation. The author, Jessica Valenti, is a rising star in mainstream feminism. In feminist circles, a white feminist must support anti-racism in her writing, even if it means agreeing with incorrect and outlandish accusations. Otherwise, she will be attacked as a racist. This is what happened to me. Even in the most radical (a k a radfem) feminist blogs, authors are being attacked if they don't write about the GZ case. The same McCarthyism is happening on LGBT blogs.

As some of you may recall, feminist Amanda Marcotte did the same in the Duke lacrosse case, but a few years later, was attacked as being a racist herself and discredited in the eyes of many.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: SuzieTampa on August 07, 2013, 09:21:42 AM
Here's a link to the video on Obama on Leno:
Quote
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/president-obama-discusses-george-zimmerman-verdict/-/1637132/21365602/-/difdu2/-/index.html
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: SuzieTampa on August 07, 2013, 09:24:02 AM
Ebony magazine has dedicated its September issue to TM, with five different covers. http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/gabiville/2013/08/07/ebony-magazine-dedicates-their-september-issue-to-trayvon-martin/ (http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/gabiville/2013/08/07/ebony-magazine-dedicates-their-september-issue-to-trayvon-martin/)
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: unitron on August 07, 2013, 12:22:06 PM
If you see an objectionable article somewhere, please don't quote it here. I don't want to be associated with the text. You can discuss it, link to it etc but there's no need to quote it.

On another topic, here's President Obama tonight on Leno. He still can't grasp the facts. He says we should ask ourselves

What law is in place that encourages assault, like the assault Martin launched against Zimmerman that began the violent encounter?  It sounds like he's saying SYG laws encourage violent encounters. But since it was Martin who initiated the violence, his comment makes no sense. He moves a little bit by acknowledging Martin wasn't perfect, but it seems he's referring to the character evidence, and still not the assault. It's really bewildering that so many people just pretend that's not what led to the shooting.


An acquittal is not evidence that the defendent's version is fact, and in this case it's only evidence that the state was unable to overcome reasonable doubt about it being self-defense.

If left-handed Zimmerman used his dominant hand to grab right-handed Trayvon's right arm to hold him for the police and Trayvon responded by punching him on the right hand side of Zimmerman's nose (where the swelling was) with his (Trayvon's) left hand, which one might suspect he ordinarily wouldn't have led with if it was an instinctual counter-attack, and then things proceeded according to the rest of Zimmerman's account, Zimmerman would still have had a valid self-defense claim under Florida's Justifiable Use of Force law.

Therefore Zimmerman claiming Martin was the first to get physical may be "evidence", but without any other living witness to the beginning of the struggle, it remains only an allegation, which is what is was all along and what it would have remained regardless of whatever verdict was returned.

I wasn't there and don't know for sure exactly how it started, but I do know that no verdict in the world can prove it one way or the other or retroactively change those events, whatever they were.

Of course the "Stand Your Ground" parts of Florida's Justifiable Use of Force law had nothing to do with this case (regardless of whether or not the Immunity part was incorporated into it at the same time), so the former law professor in the White House should either point that out or remain silent, but that's got nothing to do with whether or not who got physical first is an established, proven fact.

It is not, and probably never will be.

Actually, said former law professor should have been prepared by his staff for the inevitability that someone was going to ask him about the case sooner rather than later, and had him primed to say "I don't wish to appear insensitive to the loss of a life, but this is a matter for the State of Florida to handle and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it further".
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: leftwig on August 07, 2013, 12:49:40 PM
GZ's statements are evidence.  I don't see the need to place the word in quotes.  There was no eye witness to the events.  Several mention what appears to be the first and only exchange of words.  It appears TM spoke first which is an indicator that he was the initial person to confront.  Ms. Surdyka (sp?) said she couldn't distinguish words, but could distinguish voice tone and inflection and said that a loud angry voice was responded to by a softer, higher pitched voice.  I'd consider this more circumstantial evidence as to who may have initiated the aggressive behavior. 

I agree with you that we don't know for sure what happened.  Only an impartial eye witness or a video could answer that for us.  We do have one eye witness account, not only of the beginning, but of the full struggle, and that account is very consistent with eye witness accounts that saw other parts of the struggle and aftermath.  ITs possible GZ tried to detain TM, but two things always come to mind when thats suggested.   IF GZ wanted to detain TM, why wouldn't he have done that earlier?  Would have made much more sense when TM was near his vehicle and he was on the phone with NEN.  The other point would be that it seems clear that TM was at the 'T' in a confrontation with GZ because it was his choice to do so.  Neither of these proves that GZ didn't initiate the aggression, but they do seem to lessen the odds considerably.

Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: unitron on August 07, 2013, 01:20:58 PM
GZ's statements are evidence.  I don't see the need to place the word in quotes...

That's because you're unfamiliar with my previous discussions with Jeralyn on the topic, where I initially had a different, non-court and law specific, view on what qualifies as evidence.  It seems an uncorroborated claim by one party can be considered such.

Where we are disagreeing now, it would appear, is the definition of "fact".

Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 07, 2013, 02:37:39 PM
IF GZ wanted to detain TM, why wouldn't he have done that earlier?

Earlier, it seemed more likely that TM would still be there when the police arrived.

Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: Cylinder on August 07, 2013, 02:50:50 PM
How the confrontation escalated is probably subject to rational dispute as long as that dispute acknowledges that it began much as Zimmerman described. What is beyond rational dispute is that it began with the three-part exchange, that it was very probably initiated by Martin and that there is no reliable evidence that Zimmerman initiated use of force by contact or by threat.

I am very confident in comparing Zimmerman's statements with those of Lauer - neither had any way of knowing the content of the other unless there was some overarching conspiracy on the part of SPD. I think that can be discounted. OTOH, Jeantel could have had an opportunity to alter her statements in order to tailor them to the evidence already developed. The differences in the key elements of her statements first - along with the collateral problems such as age, relationship and the hospital visit - along with exposure to at least a source for the contemporaneous witness statements makes it hard for me to weight her statements.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 07, 2013, 03:06:00 PM
What is beyond rational dispute is that it began with the three-part exchange

How is that beyond rational dispute?
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 07, 2013, 03:23:23 PM
I am very confident in comparing Zimmerman's statements with those of Lauer - neither had any way of knowing the content of the other unless there was some overarching conspiracy on the part of SPD.

I addressed this in an earlier post. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2498.msg112620.html#msg112620)

Quote
W-11 didn't give an SPD interview until 3/2/12. She and W-20 made written statements on 2/26/12, but they are brief and sketchy. They describe the sounds, but they have nothing about location or movement of the source of the sounds. (87/184, (http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/357450/trayvon-martin-documents-ocr.pdf), 103/184)

In her interviews, I don't think she was asked if she had spoken to Zimmerman, or heard any second-hand stories about his recollections.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: Cylinder on August 07, 2013, 03:34:33 PM
How is that beyond rational dispute?

We have Zimmerman's conversation with NEN describing the events as they happened, which seems to suggest no prior difficulties. The call ended and around 2:30 later the confrontation has begun per Lauer's 911 call. Both unknown to the other, Zimmerman and Lauer describe the same sequence of events occurring in the same area. At that spot we have physical evidence of the encounter. Both describe the three-part exchange, though Lauer has no identity information about the exchange. They could both be coincidentally wrong (actually one wrong and the other lying, I suppose) or they could both be playing a role in a larger conspiracy either promoted or overlooked by SPD. Maybe Wagner contacted Zimmerman not to take an identification photograph but rather to coordinate narratives. Of course, you've never promoted that theory, just to be very clear. I don't assign rational weight to either of those postulates.

Maybe Zimmerman left the incriminating part out. That's rational. But what do we fill in for the intervening action? Why wasn;t it detected or mentioned by Lauer or Jeantel? It's possible, IMO, but not rational to  try to fill in those kind of details.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: leftwig on August 08, 2013, 06:58:41 AM
Earlier, it seemed more likely that TM would still be there when the police arrived.

Based on what?  According to GZ, TM was constantly on the move, going from Taffe's to the area of the T, moving in and out of sight.  IT appears GZ lost sight of him at least twice after spotting him by Taffe's.  I would think if GZ had any consideration in detaining TM or having a confrontation, it would have occurred at "now he's coming to check me out".

Again, its certainly not proof that GZ didn't attempt to detain TM later, but I think its evidence that detaining TM wasn't something he set out to do.  All of GZ's actions while on the call with NEN were about keeping an eye on TM, not confronting him. 
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: SuzieTampa on August 09, 2013, 08:43:33 PM
Seminole County reports it spent abot $91,000 on the GZ trial. This doesn't include costs incurred before the trial, nor does it include the cost's associated with Corey's office.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-trial-costs-seminole-20130809,0,3999521.story (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-trial-costs-seminole-20130809,0,3999521.story)

Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: SuzieTampa on August 10, 2013, 06:20:41 PM
In the FL Capitol rotunda, a Miami artist known as Huong unveiled a mural showing GZ shooting TM in the head. Instead of TM's face, there's a mirror so that people can all imagine themselves as TM. Next to TM is MLK, with blood dripping from his head. I don't understand why this was allowed. Can anyone put up anything, no matter how incorrect and offensive?

http://www.wtsp.com/rss/article/329417/19/Murals-unveiled-at-FLCapitol-honoring-Trayvon-Martin?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wtsp%2Fpolitics+%28WTSP.com+10+News+Politics+and+Government%29 (http://www.wtsp.com/rss/article/329417/19/Murals-unveiled-at-FLCapitol-honoring-Trayvon-Martin?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wtsp%2Fpolitics+%28WTSP.com+10+News+Politics+and+Government%29)
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2013, 07:02:09 PM
In the FL Capitol rotunda, a Miami artist known as Huong unveiled a mural showing GZ shooting TM in the head.

That's a painting, separate from the mural.

Quote
"The American Color Mural" contains illustrations of those who have fought for freedom and equality around the world, including Abraham Lincoln, Nelson Mandela and Rosa Parks.

The mural contains a lot of blank spaces and people are encouraged to write down their thoughts about the Trayvon Martin shooting and social issues.

The painting was displayed in the rotunda as part of the protest. The article doesn't say if the mural was displayed there also. The title implies multiple 'murals' were 'unveiled' at the 'capitol'.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: SuzieTampa on August 11, 2013, 07:05:40 PM
Despite what the media reported, it looks like two separate paintings that are mural-sized.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: cashmere on August 12, 2013, 02:28:38 PM
Well, art is a form of expression....  I am attracted to the murals (asthetically), yet recognize the inaccuracies of both. 

It is sad if such art is used to further alter what was proven via evidence in this case.    Especially as art can make such a big statement and be displayed for many, many more years than I will ever exist.  Now I am questioning other historical murals I have seen through the years depicting other historical "truths" in countries I have visited.

I am surprised that it is allowed to be displayed in the Rotunda, but, as a public space, perhaps anyone has the right to display anything, in protest.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 12, 2013, 02:53:58 PM
I was looking over her web site and she does some beautiful work.  AritistHuong. org.  I keep wondering who commissioned her to do that mural. 

Quote
Motivated by her own life history, Huong has committed herself to communicate peace through art.

That mural seems at odds with what she is doing with her regular pieces.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: cashmere on August 12, 2013, 03:48:20 PM
I also wanted to say that aesthetically I appreciate her art....  It sends a very powerful message.  Just sad that her message is not accurate.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 12, 2013, 04:33:34 PM
http://www.peacemural.org/page/war-pieces

IT's a lot like her stuff.

Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: cashmere on August 12, 2013, 04:51:27 PM
It is... I think (from what I see), she is a champion for human suffering, and what a great cause!  I just thnk her interpretation is inaccurate....  in this case...
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: jeanmarc8 on August 13, 2013, 06:59:02 PM
IANAL

The mural is an interesting example along the lines of Historical Revisionism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_(negationism)

This case seem to have had ongoing revisions with people “cherry picking” the information for their own benefit. This case had deception (photo of a much younger person), denial (reasonableness/legality of GZ getting out of the truck), and distraction (bag of Skittles).  There also was relativization with GZ’s prior legal issues as compared to TM’s, and trivialization on the severity of GZ’s head injury. The gullibility of some groups has been well demonstrated in this case, or maybe just their refusal to accept facts not in accordance with their world view. 

This case developed a life of its own very early, and now seems to have created an entire population of issues and events that seem to have little to do with facts from the case or even reasonable associations.

The jury did not find GZ guilty of any charges, based on the facts presentable in a court of law. Hopefully, that will remain fairly clear in all the fog that this case has generated. 

Again, IANAL.

Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: SuzieTampa on August 14, 2013, 09:32:11 AM
I enjoy history, and it's amazing how many stories have important "facts" wrong.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: RickyJim on August 14, 2013, 09:38:38 AM
Here is the first (http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=398112&sn=Detail&pid=71616), I have seen, of what I expect to be a slew of historical-critical accounts of the entire case and its media coverage.  Notice that the author and website are South African.  I did not find, off hand, any glaring errors.  We will know that a corner has been turned when the MSM in the US begins to publish similar articles. 
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 14, 2013, 03:08:49 PM
IANAL:
For MSM to admit they made errors in reporting, that would open them up to potential suits from Zimmerman, wouldn't it?  Until that is all settled, I don't expect any of them will do an accurate reporting or admitting that they had not properly vetted the evidence they got from Team Crump.

It is a good article.  The analysis section raised some questions with me, however.

Quote
The Trayvon Martin story is a case study in how, even in the modern day, an advanced industrialised democracy can completely lose its senses; and how difficult it is for it to then recover them. In this particular matter a whole society seemingly fixed its mind on the one object of having George Zimmerman arrested, convicted and sent to jail for life, in reckless disregard of the evidence and the law. The mainstream media, so-called civil rights organisations, the Democrat President of the US, the US Attorney General, the Republican Governor of Florida and his Attorney General, and State Attorney Angela Corey all combined forces in an effort to destroy a single, isolated individual.

Are they making a judgment to a "Whole Society" as being those of all races or are they referring to the AA community?  In either case, it doesn't seem right to me and that negates the factual reporting they were doing in the upper part of the editorial.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: unitron on August 14, 2013, 03:36:46 PM
When they use the noun "Democrat" when they should be using the adjective "Democratic", that's a sure sign they're Frank Luntz-trained partisans with an agenda.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: RickyJim on August 14, 2013, 04:03:59 PM
Weren't the MSM part of the cheering section leading up to the Iraq War?  If the New York Times (Judy Miller's employer) and similar organizations could change their point of view on that issue, I don't see why not about Zimmerman.  I think legal liability might only apply to very few news organizations. 
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: DiwataMan on August 14, 2013, 05:49:40 PM

It is a good article.  The analysis section raised some questions with me, however.

Are they making a judgment to a "Whole Society" as being those of all races or are they referring to the AA community?  In either case, it doesn't seem right to me and that negates the factual reporting they were doing in the upper part of the editorial.

I haven't read the article but just from what you quoted here is the qualifier as it pertains to the case itself: The mainstream media, so-called civil rights organisations, the Democrat President of the US, the US Attorney General, the Republican Governor of Florida and his Attorney General, and State Attorney Angela Corey all combined forces in an effort to destroy a single, isolated individual.

It's not literally the "whole" society as it's qualified with "seemingly" and it's not just the AA community.

I agree with the authors sentiment in that regard. I've often commented to the same. It's amazing to step back and look at the forces that aligned themselves against an unknown citizen involved in a local matter, the author only named a few.

Of course there were those who spoke to the contrary but we are a minority and the majority of other people who are in agreement, the silent majority, didn't/don't want to speak out because of the racial aspect.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: unitron on August 14, 2013, 09:36:32 PM
I haven't read the article but just from what you quoted here is the qualifier as it pertains to the case itself: The mainstream media, so-called civil rights organisations, the Democrat President of the US, the US Attorney General, the Republican Governor of Florida and his Attorney General, and State Attorney Angela Corey all combined forces in an effort to destroy a single, isolated individual.

It's not literally the "whole" society as it's qualified with "seemingly" and it's not just the AA community.

I agree with the authors sentiment in that regard. I've often commented to the same. It's amazing to step back and look at the forces that aligned themselves against an unknown citizen involved in a local matter, the author only named a few.

Of course there were those who spoke to the contrary but we are a minority and the majority of other people who are in agreement, the silent majority, didn't/don't want to speak out because of the racial aspect.


I see Luntz has taught you well.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: DiwataMan on August 15, 2013, 08:11:30 AM

I see Luntz has taught you well.

The extent of my knowledge of Luntz was flipping through the news channels one day and seeing him doing some election thing for a few minutes I think on FOX so I guess he's republican. I have no idea what that has to do with what I said regarding George Zimmerman. ::) Try addressing the substance of what I say next time so I don't have to waste my time on nonsense.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 15, 2013, 09:25:38 AM
I haven't read the article but just from what you quoted here is the qualifier as it pertains to the case itself: The mainstream media, so-called civil rights organisations, the Democrat President of the US, the US Attorney General, the Republican Governor of Florida and his Attorney General, and State Attorney Angela Corey all combined forces in an effort to destroy a single, isolated individual.

It's not literally the "whole" society as it's qualified with "seemingly" and it's not just the AA community.

I agree with the authors sentiment in that regard. I've often commented to the same. It's amazing to step back and look at the forces that aligned themselves against an unknown citizen involved in a local matter, the author only named a few.

Of course there were those who spoke to the contrary but we are a minority and the majority of other people who are in agreement, the silent majority, didn't/don't want to speak out because of the racial aspect.

I agree with the last sentence.  It is the one that I bolded that set me back.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: SuzieTampa on August 15, 2013, 01:11:48 PM
Weren't the MSM part of the cheering section leading up to the Iraq War?  If the New York Times (Judy Miller's employer) and similar organizations could change their point of view on that issue, I don't see why not about Zimmerman.  I think legal liability might only apply to very few news organizations.

I'm not a lawyer, but the media would probably argue that GZ was a public figure because he had killed someone and was being investigated. I think GZ's lawyers would have to prove that journalists had malice toward GZ and that they ran with information they knew to be wrong. That's a very high bar.

White liberals don't want to be accused of racism. The NYT and other media would risk that if editors changed their minds.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 15, 2013, 03:03:46 PM
Zimmerman was not a public figure until the media decided he should be.  That pretty much opened the gates for whatever "misinformation" they cared to spread.    They wanted to capitalize on ratings or selling more papers and advertising dollars.   

Feeding the frenzy and disgusting.

Just IMO.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: DiwataMan on August 15, 2013, 05:40:59 PM
I agree with the last sentence.  It is the one that I bolded that set me back.

Yes that was what I was addressing, perhaps not clearly. I was saying that part was qualified. It was qualified simply with the word "seemingly" so he is not literally saying the "whole" society. But it's also elaborated which is a qualifier as well.

You asked and stated:
"Are they making a judgment to a "Whole Society" as being those of all races or are they referring to the AA community?  In either case, it doesn't seem right to me and that negates the factual reporting they were doing in the upper part of the editorial."

I'm wondering why for you even if it were not just a judgement but a condemnation why it would not seem right to you and how it would negate anything. IMO opinion the author of that article is too PC and concentrates too heavily on the media and barely touches on "the crowd" at all.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 15, 2013, 05:49:29 PM
I have no idea what [Frank Luntz] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz) has to do with what I said regarding George Zimmerman.

Unitron was talking about the Democrat/Democratic thing. It's a sore point for some people.

It actually predates Luntz by decades. I think I was in junior high school the first time I heard it.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: DiwataMan on August 15, 2013, 05:51:45 PM
Unitron was talking about the Democrat/Democratic thing. It's a sore point for some people.

It actually predates Luntz by decades. I think I was in junior high school the first time I heard it.

I still have no idea what that has to do with what I said.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 15, 2013, 06:42:57 PM
I still have no idea what that has to do with what I said.

I haven't read the article but just from what you quoted here is the qualifier as it pertains to the case itself: The mainstream media, so-called civil rights organisations, the Democrat President of the US, the US Attorney General, the Republican Governor of Florida and his Attorney General, and State Attorney Angela Corey all combined forces in an effort to destroy a single, isolated individual.

Emphasis added.

I guess that's a verbatim quote, but it's not marked as such. I think that's what unitron was reacting to.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: DiwataMan on August 15, 2013, 06:53:41 PM
Emphasis added.

I guess that's a verbatim quote, but it's not marked as such. I think that's what unitron was reacting to.

Ah, I see now, yes I should have put quotes around that, I thought after it was too late to edit that I should have but didn't think too much of it as it's also quite obvious I was not the author of it since it's exactly the same. Seems like such a silly thing to get hung up about especially in the larger context of it all anyway as I don't see how it relates to the substance of what is being said by either me or the author.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: cashmere on August 21, 2013, 09:17:06 AM
Mark O'Mara on Erin Burnett last night re: the recent PSA re: stand your ground.

http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/20/omara-stand-your-ground-psa-is-a-dramatic-fantasy-about-what-happened-that-night/

IMO, the PSA is wildly inaccurate and unfair.  It has Zimmerman reaching behind him, as if going for his gun, at the moment he says OK when Sean, the NEN operator stated that they did not need Zimmerman to follow, and suggests that it was at this point that Zimmerman caught sight of Trayvon.  It completely ignores that Zimmerman  and Sean continued to have a discussion for another minute or so... discussing other details.  Then, there are all of the bodies displayed next to Martin after the shot.  It is so misleading and absurd, and under the guise of a public service announcement.  I have heard this is only on the internet, but may soon be played on television.  IANAL, but can't there be some legal action taken against those who are, once again, using the media to distort evidence?
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: SuzieTampa on August 23, 2013, 09:18:41 AM
Burnett gives a wrong impression about the Tampa Bay Times study. She quotes figures saying that 73% of people who killed a black person got off compared with 59% who killed a white person. What she doesn't mention is: 1) The great majority of killings are intraracial. That means that black people were being let go more often. 2) Of the people who were killed, African Americans were more likely to have been convicted felons. 
Title: Et tu Colin?
Post by: RickyJim on August 25, 2013, 06:34:17 AM
Quote
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the jury verdict that freed the killer of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin was "questionable." But he isn't sure it will have staying power in the public consciousness.

Speaking on CBS's Face the Nation, Powell said cases like Martin's "blaze across the midnight sky" and are forgotten.
As reported here. (http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/colin-powell-calls-zimmerman-verdict-questionable-former-secretary-of-state-offers-his-opinion)

The racial divide is really bothersome and apparently nothing can be done about it.  Has Juan Williams weighed in?  I remember that he agreed OJ was guilty as sin back when the latter was acquitted. 
Title: Re: Et tu Colin?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 25, 2013, 07:56:13 AM
Has Juan Williams weighed in?

Google (https://www.google.com/#fp=5a438696b5b654db&q=juan+williams+trayvon+martin) is your friend.
Title: Re: Post-Verdict Media Coverage
Post by: RickyJim on August 25, 2013, 08:29:20 AM
Yeah, this was really revealing (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/hannity-guest-flips-out-explodes-at-juan-williams-shame-on-you-youre-embarrassing-yourself/).  But the President and most of the black populace agree with Juan.  Juan apparently buys most of the Crump-Julison narrative and like the President, think Martin's parents, but not Zimmerman, deserve compassion.  Apparently Leo Terrell has little influence in the black community.