Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts

Monday, April 2, 2012

Why conservatives think the media lies

Short answer, because they do.

Two examples from the Zimmerman-Martin shooting.

CBS
911 tape as played by CBS:

(Skip forward to 0:24 for the good stuff)



Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good…

Zimmerman: He looks black.

Please note the audio is presented as one clip by CBS. Yes, I saw that they tossed the ellipsis in there, but the way the audio is edited, it really sounds like one continuous clip.

The ACTUAL 911 tape:


(disclaimer, I have no idea who Craig Boyce is. He just had the best audio on YouTube)

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.

The dispatcher goes on to ask about clothing, eliciting the now-famous hoodie response.

Even though there's technically no lie there (he did actually say everything attributed to him), the editing is extremely deceptive and completely changes the tone of the exchange (race focused, versus relaying information after the dispatcher specifically asks for it).

ABC News 3/28/12


ABC News 4/2/12


I actually think Heinlein's razor may apply here, never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice.

I'm willing to give ABC reporter Matt Gutman the benefit of the doubt here for simply rushing a story to press without bothering to do his due diligence, as opposed to maliciously reporting something that would inflame the racial fires (and give him and his networks those ever-precious ratings).

My gripe here is that ABC rushed this story to press based on a tape that has such poor definition that you can't really see anything. From the original tape anything less than a gaping hole in the back of Zimmerman's head would be hard to see. From the cleaned up tape, it's pretty obvious that Zimmerman took a hard blow or three to the back of his head.

What's less defensible was Matt Gutman's twitter feed, where he aggressively defended his story from people who questioned it. Until, of course, they were proven right. As an editor in a perfect world I would want to hold this story until the enhanced version of the tape was available. Of course, that would mean holding the story for 3 days, and would risk losing ratings to another network. And besides, we all know what really happened anyway, right?

The things that really bother me about both of these stories, is that I don't actually think any conscious decisions were made to lie, deceive or incite a race riot (that is the end result to the racial flame-fanning that has been going on). This is just a natural progression of two newsrooms that "knew" what happened, and so the stories were presented in the context of that "truth." But because everyone "knew" what happened, the checks and balances that should have prevented any of these incidents from ever happening didn't happen. No editor looked at the editing of that tape and said "hold on," because everyone in the production cycle actually thought that was the truth. In their minds, Zimmerman obviously was racially motivated, how could he not be? Therefore of course his racial bias would come out in the tape. He was racist. Racists are racist. That was the truth (as they perceived it).

The same thing happened with the ABC tape. Because they all thought they knew what happened, all of the evidence neatly fit into a case against Zimmerman. Any alternate theories were simply discarded (or didn't even occur to them), because they conflicted with the truth, as the writers and editors perceived it.

In case your wondering, yes, this same thing has happened with Zimmerman's defenders. Anyone remember this photo?

In case you never saw it, this image spread like wildfire through conservative blogs and social media sites as an example of media bias in ignoring Martin's dark side. There's only one problem. As Dr. Jones once said to Indiana, "it's a fake."

Well, the Martin side is fake, the Zimmerman side is a real photo. The Martin side was pulled off of a Facebook page that was clearly not the correct Treyvon Martin's page, and then posted on a white power message board. I'm not going to link to the Facebook page or message board for obvious reasons. From there it spread through the internet, and even though it has been debunked, it's still cropping up on some conservative websites, because it fits the narrative of honest, hard working citizen beset upon by thuggish gangster, who had the good luck to have the means for defending himself upon him. Again, it fits the narrative, therefore it must be true, therefore evidence to the contrary is discarded or ignored.

There is one other point that needs to be made, though. Social media and blogs like mine don't claim to be the arbiters of what is true and correct. Well, most don't. Some do, they're delusional. The mainstream media, of which ABC and CBS are founding members, do make that claim. They have volunteered to be held to a higher standard, by openly and explicitly saying they are journalists, while denigrating bloggers and social media as, well, amateurs. When you hold yourself to a higher standard, when you hide behind the banner of objectivity, you don't get to complain when people call you out for being dishonest and pushing an agenda.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

The curious case of Trayvon Martin

For those of you who don't know, I was recently in Las Vegas for my birthday (thanks Tori!). As I was sitting in New York, New York eating my steak and drinking my beer, my wife looked at her phone and said "Oh good, there's going to be a full investigation." Since we had been talking about the gigantic map behind her a few moments before, I had no idea what she was talking about. I asked, and she told me the story of Trayvon Martin. I had no idea what she was talking about (self-imposed news blackout, remember?), and after a little bit of googling, I had gotten most of the story.

Short version, Trayvon Martin (forgive me if I'm spelling his first name wrong, I've seen it a couple different ways) was staying at a friends house in an unfamiliar gated neighborhood of Sanford, FL. At some point he went to a corner store for candy. At around 7pm he began walking back to his friends house carrying a soda and a bag of candy in his pocket. George Zimmerman, a local resident and the neighborhood watch captain saw him and called 911, reporting that Martin was acting suspiciously. He reported that Martin was walking slowly, looking at all the houses and appeared to be under the influence of a controlled substance. After being asked by the he dispatcher he described Martin (correctly) as a black teenager and described his clothing. Zimmerman is not black. The dispatcher told Zimmerman that patrol units were on the way and requested that he not follow Martin. Zimmerman responded by saying that there had been multiple break ins in the last couple of months and that "those f*****s" always got away.

When Zimmerman first noticed Martin, he was in his vehicle, and had a legally possessed 9mm pistol in his glove compartment. He exited his vehicle to follow Martin more discretely, and brought the pistol with him. I don't know how he carried the weapon, but I assume either at this side in his strong hand, or tucked into his waistband.

On the dispatch tapes you can hear Zimmerman talk to the dispatcher for a couple minutes before Martin begins to run away from Zimmerman, and pursues him. It ends when Zimmerman looses sight of Martin.

You can listen to the entire dispatch tape here. This is a compilation of all of the 911 calls about this incident and is about 35 minutes long. It contains screams, the sound of a gunshot and multiple expletives. Don't listen to it with your 2 year old standing behind you.

As this was happening, Martin was on the phone to his girlfriend in a different city. He supposedly told her a strange man was following him, and he was afraid. She told him to run, but he told her he would walk fast, but was not going to run. Eventually he did run, and told his girlfriend he thought he had lost Zimmerman, before telling her he saw Zimmerman again. Eventually he told her he was going to confront Zimmerman. While still on the line his girlfriend reported that Martin said "why are you following me?" Zimmerman responded by asking "what are you doing here?" Those questions were followed by the sound of scuffling, and the line went dead.

Other witnesses reported seeing two people struggling, followed by a gunshot. One witness reported hearing someone screaming, and screams for help can be heard in the background of one of the 911 calls, but it's difficult to hear who is yelling what. Martin's family and their lawyer claim it's Martin yelling, Zimmerman claims it's his voice. The voice sounds young and black to me, and it's very possible there was a second, quieter voice in the background, but again, it's very difficult to tell.

When police arrived Martin was dead of a single gunshot wound and Zimmerman stated he shot Martin in self defense. Police conducted an investigation at the scene and did not arrest Zimmerman citing insufficient evidence to support an arrest. Because Martin was dead of a gunshot wound (a homicide in CSI parlance) I'm assuming detectives also conducted an investigation and determined the evidence did not support an arrest.

On Monday, the FBI and federal DOJ announced they would be conducting an investigation into the shooting. On Tuesday, Martin's girlfriend came forward, as far as I can tell, for the first time to talk about her phone conversation with Martin during the incident. To me, this is suspicious. The incident occurred on February 26, and to the best of my knowledge, she came forward on March 20, a full month after the incident. Her statement was released by the lawyer for Martin's family in a recorded deposition. Her statement, coupled with the length of time it took her to come forward and the involvement of the Martin family's lawyer in guiding her testimony during a secret deposition doesn't pass the smell test for me.

Those are the public facts.

Those are ALL of the public facts. Despite the histrionics from the usual suspects (I'm looking at you Gawker, Jezebel, Mother Jones and Huffpo) those facts, read by an impartial observer (the infamous "reasonable man test") don't necessarily equal murder. They don't necessarily equal self-defense, either. They equal ambiguity.

For example, assume this set of facts. After Zimmerman found Martin a second time, Martin decided to confront him. (Remember, he told his girlfriend that he was going to). Martin, being 16 and male, approached Zimmerman aggressively, and demanded to know why Zimmerman was following him. Zimmerman asked Martin who he was, and instead of answering, Martin lunged for the weapon Zimmerman had in his right hand. They struggled for the weapon, and during the struggle Zimmerman realized Martin was younger and stronger than him and was going to be able to wrest possession of the weapon away from him. Fearing for his life (basic rule of self defense, if someone other than a police officer tries to take your weapon, you are allowed to assume they are going to attempt to kill you with it) Zimmerman was able to bring the weapon up and squeeze off a single round. After the round was fired, Martin fell backwards. Realizing the threat was over, Zimmerman did not fire a second round, but instead leaned over him and attempted to provide first aid until police arrived.

Given that set of circumstances, the shooting is completely justified. Zimmerman's judgement for continuing to follow and pursue Martin was poor, but poor judgement is not a criminal offense.

Here's a second set facts to assume. Zimmerman, angry that a series of break ins had occurred, and frustrated that the police appeared unable to prevent them followed Martin, telling police that "those f****s always get away." He followed Martin until feeling cornered, Martin decided to confront Zimmerman. As Martin approached Zimmerman, the undisciplined, poorly trained Zimmerman panicked and brought his weapon up (if you want to assume the utter worst, maybe he thought "I'm gonna bag myself a n****r"). Martin, seeing the strange man who had aggressively followed him now pointing a pistol at him, believed that his life was in imminent danger. In self defense, he grabbed for the weapon and tried to force the muzzle away from his body while screaming for help. Zimmerman panicked (or giggled with glee, depending on how evil you want to paint him) and squeezed off a single round, striking Martin in the chest.

Based on that set of circumstances, you could make a decent case for first degree murder, and a pretty solid manslaughter case.

The truth is, depending on how I flesh out that set of facts, I can clear Zimmerman completely, indict him completely, or create one of a half dozen scenarios somewhere in between.

If you want to know what I actually think happened, it's somewhere in the middle. Martin and Zimmerman were standing toe to toe puffing their chests when either Zimmerman brought up his weapon to detain Martin, or Martin saw his weapon and panicked. (At no point in the 911 call did Zimmerman sound panicked or even particularly excited.) They struggled for possession of the weapon, Martin screamed for help and during the struggle a round was fired, probably accidentally. The round struck Martin in the chest. Martin let go of the weapon and fell backwards, mortally wounded. Zimmerman, shocked and surprised, stepped back and stood by until PD arrived.

Now here's the important part. There are exactly two people in the world who know exactly what happened that night. One of them is dead and one of them will never say another word about it publicly without a lawyer present. Martin's family doesn't know. Zimmerman's friends don't know. Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Gawker and Jezebel, despite their self-righteous smugness, certainly don't know.

I've been working on this post for 2 days. The talkerazzi have been discussing Zimmerman's guilt for several weeks now (at no point have I seen an article, column or post that even suggest Zimmerman might be anything but guilty). What happened that night from start to finish took a grand total of 10 minutes. The final confrontation that ended with Martin's death took less than a minute from the time Martin told his girlfriend he was going to turn and confront Zimmerman to the time that the shot was reported fired. The confrontation happened on a poorly lit street between two people who knew nothing about the other one. Those circumstances are important. Neither Zimmerman or Martin had the benefit of reading what you have just read, the ability to sit back in your comfortable chair with the tasty beverage of your choice and ponder every aspect of the situation. They did not know each other. They did not know what the other one was doing, what they were thinking, and what the other's intentions were. They were both placed in a situation where they were forced to make quick decisions with imperfect information with deadly consequences.

I cannot stress the importance of understanding what both Zimmerman and Martin did not know about the situation they found themselves in. Neither of them knew, or could be reasonably expected to know, very pertinent facts that would have vastly changed the nature and tone of their encounter. We have much, much more information than either of them did, and it's important to judge both of their actions based upon the facts and circumstances as they knew them at the time.

At any point either one of them could have prevented the incident from happening. Zimmerman could have stood 20 yards away and introduced himself to Martin, asking if he could help him. He could have maintained a solid safety cushion by dealing with Martin at a distance, keeping the weapon in reserve in case Martin turned out to have a weapon of his own. Instead of attempting to evade, Martin could have turned to Zimmerman asking if he lived near there, explaining that he was staying with a friend and was lost. But neither chose to do that. Martin turned and ran, making himself look very, very guilty in the process. Zimmerman chose to pursue Martin, making himself look very, very aggressive in the process.

The assumption that of course a white man killed a good, never hurt anyone black kid for no reason at all is a racist and vile assumption. It's just as racist and vile as the "of course the black kid was a criminal up to no good" assumption.

Most people reading this post have never been forced to make a violent decision in a few seconds, with imperfect and incomplete information with potentially life-altering (or life-ending) consequences. It's an art form and an acquired skill, one that very few people have, one that requires training, practice and discipline. Police officers and other first responders spend an inordinate amount of time discussing hypothetical situations, running through the various permutations of what could happen, and what the best response would be over and over again. The point is to already know the best solution before you are put in a situation like this, to train your mind to gather what information you can, and make the best tactically and legally sound decision quickly. Neither Martin or Zimmerman had the benefit of that training.

If Zimmerman acted wrongly he deserves to be forced to answer for his actions. But he also deserves the same assumption of innocence and the fair hearing that every one of us would expect if we were in a similar situation. This concerted effort to railroad him, in absence of any real incriminating facts is despicable. I pray with every fiber of my being that everyone engaged in this social media driven lynch mob is someday put in the exact same situation, including the lynch mob.

I'll bring the rope.