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.NBC now serves up a weak apology. I hope Zimmerman sues.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
Flashback: Remember when Shirley Sherrod sued Andrew Breitbart for presenting the center section of a speech she gave, where she admitted discriminating against a white man, and left out the ending, where she talked about her realization that what matters isn't race, but class. I wonder if those who were outraged at Breitbart are outraged by the much more outrageous editing done by NBC.
ADDED: Some commenters question the way I referred to the Sherrod-Breitbart conflict. I will answer by referring to what I wrote at the time, back in July 2010.
Posts
155 comments:
Breitbart didn't leave out the ending. The Press just said he did.
He published everything he was given, no editing.
This used to be called yellow journalism.
Back when you had trial by newspaper where slanted, sensational stories sent people to Death Row.
Finally, people are putting a stop to it and exposing it, many of them Glenn Reynolds' Army of Davids, of which ANN and New Meadia Meade are a part.
Surprise! They're Conservatives and Libertarians.
Lefties conspicuous by their absence.
When I was growing up in the 70s and 80s, the media would do things like this all the time. There was no checks for them. Outside of Paul Harvey's noon radio show, we there was no center-right source of news. No counter-balance. No fact checking. You had National Review's print magazine, but that was a niche mag for the already converted. Not for mass consumption.
My how times have changed. Think about Dan Rather and CBS using fake docs to try to bring down President Bush. They would have gotten away with it years earlier. Or the above example.
I wouldn't believe NBC if they told me the sky was blue and Obama was a white African.
It could be wrong, but as I heard it, Breitbart's posted the unedited Sherrod video almost immediately after the short version, if not simultaneously, but others including Glenn Beck, showed only the edited version.
What legal precedents are there here for slander or libel? This is clearly an attempt to railroad Mr. Zimmerman. They should pay dearly for this.
Yeah, that's really gross. Don't expect them to take the blame if any more death is the result of their malicious attempt to stir up a race war so that Obama can win again.
Did Al Sharpton edit that 911 tape?
We will know if NBC is in any way serious about rectifying the causes of this monstrous PR blunder if heads roll.
Remember, CBS forced out Dan Rather (Dan Rather, for God's sake!) over the Bush National Guard forgeries.
I expect that there will be tut-tutting and internally the producers will know not to trust so and so, but nothing will be done.
If NBC corporate gave a shit MSNBC wouldn't be the fact-free, ratings-killing left-wing hell hole that it is.
A sense of fairness is required to avoid such atrocious editing. They have no sense of fairness. This is not a recently discovered deficiency in our major news media.
I want to know exactly who edited it, who approved it for release, and who his boss is.
"That is the most outrageous, truly evil editing I've ever seen."
It is awful, but not surprising.
Worse yet, most people won't care. The mere fact he answered the dispatcher with "He looks black" is all they need to know that Zimmerman is "guilty," regardless of whatever the facts might prove out to be.
This was the original NBC transcript of the 911 call:
"This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks like a N*****."
bagoh20 said...
"I want to know exactly who edited it, who approved it for release, and who his boss is."
Good luck with that, for now:
"When asked if anyone at Today had lost their job or had been reassigned as a result of the investigation, an NBC spokeswoman said: “We will not be commenting on our course of action."
Is this a case where the cover-up is worse than the crime?
It's a close call.
The correct response from Zimmerman should have been: "He looks Black, but clean and articulate."
By the way, via Instapundit, even some on the Left think this was a bridge too far.
Kirby Olson said...
What legal precedents are there here for slander or libel? This is clearly an attempt to railroad Mr. Zimmerman. They should pay dearly for this.
Richard Jewell. From what I've read, NBC News had to pay him $500,000 for falsely linking him to the Atlanta Olympics bombing. IIRC, Dateline NBC may've also had to pay GM for fabricating a story about fuel tank explosions on Chevy pickups. GM tracked down the actual truck shown exploding in the story and found where it had been wired to explode on queue.
Of course it's pure evil, that's what liberals ARE.
Major libel suit in 5 seconds.
"When asked if anyone at Today had lost their job or had been reassigned as a result of the investigation, an NBC spokeswoman said: “We will not be commenting on our course of action."
Bush couldn't and wouldn't sue, but I hope Zimmerman does, then they will tell us who did it or settle, I hope they don't settle.
For context remember that another network (ESPN) fired a headline writer and suspended an anchor for using a dumb cliche with racist implications.
That's nothing compared to this.
This was easy to catch. Obviously an intentional editing job by a lower ranking segment producer that so well fit into the political culture of the organization that it sailed onto the air. Sorry? For getting caught.
But, but, but Ann, it was an ACCIDENT...
Honest, they just forgot the 911 operator asking a question and snip.. snip.. shuzam(!) Zimmerman is a racist!
Yea they lied, and go look at the credentials of that sound expert. There is one hokie guy there with NO forensic experience. Sort of like that President that seems to have never really been a constitutional scholar (and the guy Zimmerman shot looked so much like the son he never had, boo hoo hoo.)
They want a lynch mob Ann, a liberal one. Not much different from those nut jobs you have to wade around in Wisconsin at the capitol that keep threating you.
George Zimmerman: Future 1%-er.
He will always be hated.
Did you see this?
quote of the day - narrative destroying edition
In a word, no. I would like that editor to come forward, like the guy at ESPN, and explain the reasoning behind his choices. My guess is that the editor thought that he was highlighting the real truth of Zimmerman's words so that we could see his racism plain. If Zimmerman should be put on the spot and made to explain his actions--and he should--then so should this editor......There have been several other misstatements about Zimmerman. He does not weigh 220 lbs., and, judging from the police tape, I don't think Trayvon would have considered him physically imposing.....It was widely reported amd it is widely believed that Zimmerman used the word "coon" in his call to 911. I have heard that recording. It is garbled, and I can't make out that word. It seems to me crazy that Zimmerman, who did not know the race of the 911 operator, would throw around words like that.....I don't know if Zimmerman did everything right that night, but the malice, rage, and distortions that are being directed at him is freakish and wrong
No, Ann, I don't remember that:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/03/01/liberal-reporters-still-wrong-about-andrew-breitbart-and-shirley-
I've seen worse. An Arizona Republic newspaper headline from the 80s stated that "Rings Around Uranus Believed to Be Gaseous", for example, completely leaving out the evidence that the material in such rings would tend to be solids at the extremely low temperatures of said environment.
If you check out my link above, who someone else here linked earlier today, you will see that it's highly unlikely that Zimmerman called anyone a "coon".
Especially to a stranger of unknown race. That's another ridiculous charge of the careless.
Bob Ellison said...
"Rings Around Uranus Believed to Be Gaseous"
I thought they changed the name to stop the juvenile jokes, and that it's now called Urectum.
"That is the most outrageous, truly evil editing I've ever seen."
I've seen one to match it. I've written about it here before. It would take awhile to recount fully, but in a nutshell, the New York Times quoted Karl Rove on the front page that he didn't care about 3,000 Iraqi citizens losing their life in an invasion. I saw the Q&A they were reporting on on C-Span, and he said no such thing (the NYT printed a retraction). This wasn't a misinterpretation; they manufactured those words and stuck them in Rove's mouth.
That was the day I came to understand what the mainstream press is willing to do.
I want to know exactly who edited it, who approved it for release, and who his boss is.
I don't. I'd prefer to hear that they are no longer employed, but I don't care who they are. What does knowing their name get me?
I agree they should all be fired. I hope Zimmerman sues and exposes more of this -- or accepts a nice settlement.
Holy crap! The Washington Post just can't help it! The picture they use at the link of Zimmerman is the old, unflattering, fat, mugshot Zimmerman. Never mind that Zimmerman has lost an awful lot of weight and hair since that picture was taken.
Why there are five left wing TV news outlets, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN and only one right wing one, FOX boggles my mind. I'm not in the habit of watching any of them but that inherent skew seems ripe for redundancy, if not reshuffling.
NBC's "investigation" has already produced a whitewash, and an apology to viewers, but none to Zimmerman.
God almighty. That's simply inexcusable.
I'm glad that I listened to all of the tapes of all the 911 calls that were released at the time they were released. Call it inoculation, if you will. It's horrible to think of NBC pulling this sort of complete and utter bullshit, and it makes it even worse to think of the vast number of people who were exposed to it without inoculation.
"That is the most outrageous, truly evil editing I've ever seen"
I still think the MSNBC editing the video about the Tea Party guy in Az with the assault rifle looked white to blame racism for the reason he was carrying openly.
Are the other networks jumping all over NBC over this? They should be. That's supposed to be part of their job. A big part actually.
As I recall Ann left out the ending of Sharrod's speech in effect. She argued it was proof of wrongful discrimination or something to that effect. Has she since changed her mind.
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 like a white african.
Dispatcher: WTF?
I've been wondering: what is the race of the person who did the editing?
I don't expect NBC would apologize to Zimmerman, on the advice of Counsel.
And go ahead and shoot at me if you want; I don't care: I, for one, was not at all impressed by the way Breitbart handled that one. So there.
But then, I have a habit of seeking out inoculation by and for myself.
(Personally, I don't see how bringing up "other instances" of what "others have done" is particularly useful, and I sure as hell wouldn't have done that myself.
However, whatever: Once it's brought up, there we are.
And so I stated my quick opinion on what I consider to be an off-topic tangent in the sense of usefulness to the real-time subject at hand.)
"What does knowing their name get me?"
Well, if I see Dan Rather talking about politics, it help to know he's a lying S.O.B. These creeps could pop up somewhere else, and I don't want them to get away with that. If kept anonymous, they will lie to us again, and we'll pay them for it.
Tyrone, I never even hittum.
But seriously, the problem is that we presume (probably correctly) that many people take this reporting seriously. Professor, you blog about this a lot. The solution is to teach everyone that all news is biased. That's it. It's all biased. Learn it; love it; teach it. We must break down the assumption of journalistic integrity; it's a myth.
"Why there are five left wing TV news outlets, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN and only one right wing one, FOX boggles my mind. I'm not in the habit of watching any of them but that inherent skew seems ripe for redundancy, if not reshuffling."
How neat is that neat sharp categorizing. Plain, simple, sharp.
Neat-O.
Onward ho!
I can't say I know for sure what Zimmerman said, but it's pretty clear it wasn't "coons". Probably "punks" -- it pretty clearly starts with a "p" sound: Ace posted it several days ago.
That CNN clip is almost as infuriating as the NBC edit. They keep playing the word, and keep repeating how it "sure sounds like it could be" a slur, but your own ears can hear the "p" at the start of the word.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
"He looks like he could be Obama's son. Would that be white-black or black-white?"
My subjective reaction to atrocities: That Muslim army doctor who killed those soldiers: he's guilty, and hang him. That army soldier who lost it and murdered those Afghan civilians, including children: PTSD. It was a horrendous crime, but he doesn't deserve hanging. Give him life and when we're out of A-stan, pardon him...There you have it. My response is unfair and subjective. If I'm a reporter I will tell you everything unfavorable I can find out about the army doctor. For the army sgt., I will report any worthy thing that he ever did......I can see how the Zimmerman case could pull people in different directions. We all have our biases. But for just that reason the reporters should make an extra effort to adjust their aim. A case like this needs a lot of Kentucky windage.g
Maybe NBC hired the guy ESPN fired for writing the "Chink in the Armor" headline about Jeremy Lin.
How neat is that neat sharp categorizing. Plain, simple, sharp.
Thank you, rcommal!
I remember as very young kids camping out, that a bunch of us got spooked in the woods at night and ran for our lives back to camp. When we got back, in breathless agreement we affirmed that we had all seen a 50 foot rooster chasing us. No dissenters, absolute conviction. That comes to mind with the "coon" allegation.
Please replace my careless use of "spooked" above with "scared". I hope my life isn't ruined now.
It shows once more that carefully edited PR hit pieces are never enough to base one's conclusions on. Save that for opposition research doing negative ads for or against a side.
But they are the power of suggestion that works well if it is the first thing people hear and learn about a case. That frames the case until a true examination of all facts from original sources such as a transripts, tapes and eye and ear witnesses are presented and questioned by jurors.
Lawyers call it the power of an opening statement. A formed opinion is seldom changed, unfortunately.
So once more the Zimmermans need an actual court trial on their claims for libel; and the Martins need an actual court trial on their claims of a police/DA cover up of a stupid shooting.
People can deal with the truth better if the Courts will not abdicate their office and say what happened is secret.
"I still think the MSNBC editing the video about the Tea Party guy in Az with the assault rifle looked white to blame racism for the reason he was carrying openly."
You're right. That was a doozy. A black guy at a rally is carrying an assault rifle (slung over his shoulder by a strap) but every time the camera (filming from behind him) pans to where his skin might show, they cut away. And then in commentary they insinuate very clearly he's white and motivated by racism. When different footage came out, clearly showing his race and actually showing him being interviewed about what really motivated him, they looked stu, stu, stupid. Or venal. Or all of the above.
last night after I read the two versions I wrote OMG and asked if this was true. No one bothered to answer but now that there is confirmation I can only repeat OMG! Where are our trolls to explain the nuance of this. Freder, Freder oh where art thou!
"As I recall Ann left out the ending of Sharrod's speech in effect. She argued it was proof of wrongful discrimination or something to that effect. Has she since changed her mind."
Sherrod completely admitted to racism at one point in the timeline. Later she changed her mind. If you do something, you've done it, even if later you think you made the wrong decision.
That's *entirely* different from *creating* racism where there was *none.*
"...Tea Party guy in Az with the assault rifle..."
Yea, that was the most egregious. It didn't slander a particular person, but rather the whole movement. I don't know if that's better or worse.
At least this NBC Zimmerman lie is more personal and can be litigated.
The reason why Zimmerman said he "looks" black might have something to do with the fact that there are Latinos that are dark skin who do not consider themselves black Americans nor African Americans..
So it turns out that Zimmerman may have been dutifully conscious of that higher state of being, enshrined by liberals.. politically correct.
What a difference a little editing makes!
I wonder if those who were outraged at Breitbart are outraged by the much more outrageous editing done by NBC.
I think the NBC editing is outrageous, and I thought the Breitbart editing was outrageous, too.
OT: If you get a chance, watch Greta Van Susteren's interview of Debbie Wasserman-Schulz this evening. Greta humiliated her (over the Senate's not passing a budget for 3 years and counting.)
Ann, you are completely missing the point of the Breitbart video. It was not to show whether or not Sharrod was a racist, later redeemed.
It was to show the reaction of the NAACP AUDIENCE before they had any idea she was going to redeem herself.
That was the point. And for that, even a partial video would do.
"It was to show the reaction of the NAACP AUDIENCE before they had any idea she was going to redeem herself."
I realize that. But there was still a question, raised by Sherrod, about how she was presented. She is a person too, and treating her fairly does matter.
So NOW what are you saying? That Breitbart treated Sherrod unfairly?
Evidence please.
CWJ said...
last night after I read the two versions I wrote OMG and asked if this was true. No one bothered to answer but now that there is confirmation I can only repeat OMG! Where are our trolls to explain the nuance of this. Freder, Freder oh where art thou!
The last few weeks the trolls have been conspicuous for their absence, by and large (NTTAWWT). It's hard to snark when your side screws up so much.
But, maybe like the Establishment Media reporters, they're being given explicit instructions on how to explain GodZero's policies.
Un fucking believable.
(my apologies to the ladies...)
So Sherrod's racism was admitted, and not falsely accused, and
Breitbart's unfairness to Sherrod was inadvertent, while clearly NBC intending to harm Zimmerman, and with no proof of his racism.
So there is a very significant difference here.
We definitely lost the better of the two last month.
The people outraged by the Sherrod tape missed the point. Or at least pretended to miss the point.
The damning bit of the tape wasn't her admitting she'd discriminated against a white guy. It was the audience cheering her for it. Even if you're inclined to give her a pass for supposedly realizing that discrimination against whites is wrong, too, there's still the uncomfortable fact that the audience didn't know that's what she was driving towards.
They cheered her for being an anti-white racist. That's the real story of the tape -- and viewing the whole thing doesn't improve it.
Sherrod was, and is, a nobody. It isn't about her.
Breitbart treated Sherrod unfairly. NBC treated Zimmerman unfairly. The difference is that Breitbart was a South Park conservative who held himself out as a gadfly and NBC holds itself out as a nonpartisan, above-the-fray news organization.
The difference is obvious. And it's easy to see what's happening: the media playing field has drastically leveled between gadflies and entities posing as objective. This is all very good for conservatives.
Brietbart's own words in his original Sherrod post:
In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.
Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.
I don't see any unfairness in showing someone speaking in her own words, and noting that she later redeems herself.
Breitbart didn't fire her, Barack Obama did. She may have been treated unfairly, but not by Breitbart.
Complaining about NBC's "little problem" is a bit like complaining about "Sillyfus" rolling that huge stone up the hill time after time with it falling back down! Won't do any good except to remind them to be more careful next time; maybe one day they'll figure out how to skin that cat! Regardless, they'll keep on trying because they have to otherwise what good are they to anyone, especially to their masters?
Sorry about this but it's the best I could do on such short notice!
Ok, how do we get email followup to happen on this great new version of "G's" current blog commenting thingy? So far, that escapes me and stop right now with the nasty comments from certain of your nasties out there!
Thank you very much!
Forget Sherrod.. shes a red herring.
A good question Rush asked today was.. (i'm paraphrasing)
'How many other similar 911 edits have NBC ABC and CBS done, that while not creating the same impact, nonetheless it contributed in toto to a negative narrative that America still remains mired in 50's 60's era racism.'
John M Auston said...
Breitbart didn't leave out the ending. The Press just said he did.
He published everything he was given, no editing.
4/3/12 8:58 PM
And the end part of the original video did contain part of her reversal, and more importantly, Andrew's point was the NAACP members' positive reaction to her story before the reversal. The NAACP had been calling Tea Party members racists.
Remember when Shirley Sherrod sued Andrew Breitbart and lost (or dropped the case since it was ridiculous to begin with)?
I remember the original Sherrod post on Breitbart. There were two videos. The unedited, entire speech by Sherrod, and the excerpt we all know and love showing Sherrod to be a racist.
Apparently in AlthouseLand, it's similar for Breitbart to highlight relevant video and NBC blatantly fabricating news.
I wonder if she understands the difference between editing and fabrication.
Evil?
I'm betting this is gonna look like Mother Teresa compared to what will be unleashed from now until November.
Shorter NBC: "Face it, viewers. You fucked up. You trusted us!"
Evil: That is a correct description. It is stunning where we are as a nation, and the MSM has played a major role in getting us here. Perhaps the new media will overcome that corrupting influence.
I might be the dumbest (wingnut) on this blog, but I usually try to apologize for my mistakes. In the words of a missing commenter, "just sayin'".
I wonder if those who were outraged at Breitbart are outraged by the much more outrageous editing done by NBC.
Not by your leftist commenters they aren't. Breitbart is the fallback, the deflection, the chaff thrown out by the doomed pamphlet plane.
(reposted for clarity)
Tar and Feathers
Maybe Spike Lee will do penance by tweeting NBC execs home addresses.
Jesus fucking Christ, Althouse. Sherrod wasn't SHOT dead. This isn't the time to be making irrelevant comparisons. I'm outraged! I'm outraged that you would make sure an irrelevant comparison!
Zimmerman may or may not be a racist, but he's a bumbling piece of ignorant shit who NEVER should have had a gun to begin with.
Comparing Breitbart, who was typing away in his pajamas ;) with a multinational gazillion dollar corporation is not the issue here.. imho
The issue is as Obama put it today..
I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties (Breitbart and NBC) are disagreeing then they're equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. And an equivalence is presented which I think reinforces peoples' cynicism about Washington in general. This is not one of those situations where there's an equivalency."
Obama is right..
There is no equivalency between what Breitbart did and what NBC did.
I wonder if those who were outraged at Breitbart are outraged by the much more outrageous editing done by NBC.
When will normal people stop assuming that leftists are troubled by hypocrisy.
Non-leftists point out leftist hypocrisy under some expectation that a leftist will admit the error and correct it.
On what basis non-leftists have this expectation, I do not know. I have never seen leftists correct their hypocritical ways.
Why did NBC think they wouldn't get caught?
The only way it was accidental would be if they edited it to make him look bad just for kicks but then aired the wrong version, which is possible but incredibly sloppy.
"During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret. We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers."
They are a "news organization". Necessary steps? If they want the public to even entertain the notion this is not a pervasive mentality, identify and fire the person(s) who did it..so they don't get a lateral transfer. As it is, NBC feels no need to identify the "steps" taken and just expects us to believe it won't happen again. Ohhh...just trust them, right?
"Zimmerman may or may not be a racist, but he's a bumbling piece of ignorant shit who NEVER should have had a gun to begin with."
Then of course the good citizen who called the cops on a suspicious man walking between houses would be dead or close to it for being a good neighbor. He just happened to be armed. Despite people like you, he's damned lucky he was that day.
If his story is true, (which seems the most likely to be proven) he not only did nothing wrong or illegal, but was trying to do good when bad didn't want it.
"an error made in the production process" sounds like maybe they added a little too much treble or bass to the mix. most folks wouldn't have a clue what the hell they are talking about. some apology !
Zachary Paul Sire: Zimmerman may or may not be a racist, but he's a bumbling piece of ignorant shit who NEVER should have had a gun to begin with.
Zachary beclowns himself. Next libtard?
And my my, they sure are angry today.
I don't think Zimmerman was some innocent victim in all this. What happened was two people at the wrong place at the wrong time who got in a fight and now one of them is dead. It happens pretty regularly.
The ridiculous race issues are wholly superfluous and stupid.
Zimmerman may or may not be a racist, but he's a bumbling piece of ignorant shit who NEVER should have had a gun to begin with.
You're a bumbling piece of ignorant shit who should never have had a keyboard or internet access to begin with, but it's your right. Who am I to take it away from you? Who are you to take rights away from others?
How's the gay pornography blogging business these days? One would think that someone in your line of work would have a rather broad and liberal understanding of the interpretation of Constitutional rights...
Every newscast I heard about Andrew Breitbart's death that mentioned the Sherrod incident referred to it as one of Breitbart's missteps.
Not what the actual evidence suggests.
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:24:02 -0500
The Sherrod video certainly has many teachable moments. But what does it teach us? Is it that Breitabrt is to blame for posting a brief excerpt that clouds context? Or is it that the NAACP got "snookered" and Obama and USDA jumped the gun?
Each party appears to seek Sherrod's exoneration for different reasons.
But...
I wonder how many folks have watched the "full" clip. Seems to me the most disturbing portions aren't being discussed. Take a look see. Remember, this is a government official speaking on the record. If pressed for time, jump to 23:59 for the reinstatement of the broad brush.
The (almost) complete speech as posted by NAACP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9NcCa_KjXk&feat
17:15 (on the white farmer she helped, that claims to be friends with her)
He talked a loonng time..trying to show he was superior to me. I knew what he was doing, but he came to me for help."
(Is this how the farmer fondly remembers the meeting)
18:35 "It IS about white and black"
21:03 point of edit..not sure how much time elapsed before the laughing trailed off.
22min or so (discussion of history of indentured servitude, how white and black slaves got along, intermarrying and the history of rich people using laws of division to prevent poor people from banding together as one to fight for change.)
22:40 "The people with money..the elite decided..hey..we need to do something here to divide them. So that's when they made black servants, servants for life. That's when they put laws in place, forbidding them to marry each other. That's when they created the racism that we know of today. They did it to keep us divided. And they..it started working so well, they said gosh..looks like we come upon something here that could last for generations. And here we are ..over 400 years later..and it's still working.
23:25 What we have to do is get that out of our heads. There is no difference...between us. The only difference is that folks with money, want to stay in power. And whether it's health care, or whatever it is, they'll do what they need to do to keep that power." (applause)
23:52 It's always about money, y'all.
23:59 "I haven't seen...such mean spirited people (Hmm), as I've seen lately (Hmm!) over this issue of health care. (All right)
Some of the racism we thought was buried...didn't it surface.
Now we endured 8 years of the Bushes. And we didn't do the stuff Republicans are doing because you have a black president." (applause)
"...an error made in the production process..."
The record skipped, someone spilled coffee on the board, my dog ate my ethics.
I have no idea how this could have happened. It's just a mystery, I tell ya.
29:14 (on signing checks for grants and loans)
80 million and not one dime to black business.
29:56 One of the programs we have with some of the most money in it, you know, is for business and industry. And I sit up there and I'm signing off on 6 million, 3 million, 2 million.. But who is it going to? (long pause..crowd mumbles) Not one so far. And when I got a report on where we are with it, we are approaching 80 million dollars since October 1st. But not one dime to a black business. Not one.
30:49 "There's a program, the 1890s scholars program. And they're connected with every 1890 land grant institution. And let me tell you what that is. That's the black land grant institutions, and there's about 17 in Tuskeegee. They..you can actually get a scholarship, and fort battle state is the main grant, in Georgia..the 1890. The 1862 is the white land grant. That's the University of Georgia. You can get a scholarship. And every summer, you work in one of those agencies while you are in school. And when you get out, it's an automatic job."
31:38 Agencies like natural resources and conservation services. That's in RCS. Farm service agency. That's the old farmer's home administration. Rural development. Uh..those are the major 3.
31:54 "But there so many other, there are other, so many other jobs..so many..just in rural development nationwide there are over 6,000 employees. But you go up there to Washington, to the department of agriculture, it's on both sides of the street!"
32:08 "In rural development, there are 129 employees. Guess how many of them are people of color. Anybody want take a guess? That's in Georgia. I've got 129 in my agency. How many (audience:2) It's more than 2. (12.) A little more than 12. There are less than 20 of us. We have 6 area offices in the state and sub area offices..
32:38 And when I look at who's coming up in the agencies, in the agency. There's not many of us."
36:19 (on value of helping others)
"You could be helping the second black president"
39:43 (on direct loan program)
"That program is so successful, we're about to run out of money"
The ridiculous race issues are wholly superfluous and stupid.
Yes, but superfluous and stupid sells! Think of how much money so many people have made off of this already!
Didn't I predict two days ago that NBC's internal investigation would be a whitewash?
Not that it means much. My cat could have predicted that.
I got one part wrong though - I thought they would at least fire one guy as the scapegoat, even though a production like this involves at least a dozen staffers and a few execs.
I can predict that right-wing blogs will come out with a list of advertisers that appear on NBC. This is one boycott that I will support 24/7.
While it's very gratifying that the record is being clarified by alert bloggers and alternative media the chilling thing is that Zimmerman will never get his life back. Who knows how many more people will back off when they are right, carefully guard their words and actions or be forced to go through media hell.
Bagoh's point about spooked is funny, but a little uncomfortable as well. Someone the media chooses to target could be dragged through hell for a similar remark. Once this stuff is out there where do we go to get back to a more reasonable dialog?
Why did NBC think they wouldn't get caught?
Thats what I was trying to focus on..
How many other times has the MSM done this?
They did it because it is their modus operandi!
"Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer."
My wife is Boricua. I am Scotch/Irish/English/German/Amerind. My twins' pediatrician is Ashkenazi. My son's endocrinologist is Korean. My endocrinologist is Ukranian. My GP and my Dentist are both Indian Hindus. The cardiologist I see every two years is African-American.
I firmly believe we are all "one kind" and I will tell that to that grifter's face should I ever meet her.
NBC should blame Rose Mary Woods.
Bloggers can end up prejudging too...when they rely on MSM:
TERRORISM: Deadly Blasts in Norway Are Followed by Gun Attack. “A terror group, Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami (the Helpers of the Global Jihad), issued a statement claiming responsibility for the attack, according to Will McCants, a terrorism analyst at C.N.A., a research institute that studies terrorism. The message said the attack was a response to Norwegian forces’ presence in Afghanistan and to unspecified insults to the Prophet Muhammad.” Turds.
Yes..NYT quietly updated that story.
Titus, why are you responding to Palladian's insult of Zachary?
Is Zachary one of your sockpuppets?
Because in the 6 years I've been here, I've never seen you address someone directly.
Usually you just spoil the thread with your gross postings
NBC now serves up a weak apology. I hope Zimmerman sues.
He's got a good case for it... He's been lied about and it has led to severe harm... slander might actually win in this case.
I see that it is Gay Leftist Douchebag Pile on Palladian Day. I hope you realize you idiots are hopelessly outflanked and outclassed.
Sad that Titus is drunk again. Maybe it's time for some help, little fellow. Good to see Sire back, though. Now we know how many days in a row a person can masturbate to pictures of Ezra Klein.
I talked about this the other day. Ann may be able to answer better whether Zimmerman is a public figure as initially defined by NYT v. Sullivan. If so, the standard would presumably be actual malice. But, I think that this would seem to likely qualify, as the act was most likely done intentionally, and with disregard for the truth.
But, is it really fare for NBC to hide behind the NYT standard there? The same media that made Zimmerman the public figure, with no intent by him to be such, is the same media that defamed him. Making things worse for NBC is the fact that Al Sharpton not only has a program on their sister MSNBC, but also was race baiting and rabble rousing in this case, as is his want. In other words, he not only helped create the news, but then reported on it. And, the NBC unit edited the 911 call to further his story line.
Now, at the time that Rush supposedly defamed Sandra Flake, there was the suggestion that she sue. But, Flake thrust herself in front of the public spot light, intentionally "testifying" before that fake Congressional committee (all for the cameras and news organizations like NBC).
It was suggested that Flake could claim defamtion per se, because one of traditional per se defamation causes of action involves allegations of unchastity. But, of course, Flake's problem there was that her testimony revovled around her admission of unchasatity.
As with allegations of unchastity, most of the per se classes of defamation have been discared over the years. Mostly, I think because dueling was outlawed, and we require people to be more thin skinned.
But, if there were per se defamation in the modern world, I might think this to qualify. The doctored 911 tape portrays Zimmerman as a racist, and if there is anything that will hurt somone to the level required by per se defamation these days, it would be a knowingly false assertion of racism.
So, I think that even under the deferential NYT v. Sullivan standard, Zimmerman would have a decent case, because I think this shows actual malice. But, there is a decent chance that he would not be considered a public figure, and if not, a significantly lower standard would apply.
Should be interesting. I would not be surprised if Zimmerman has already had some contingency fee offers to litigate for defaation by NBC, etc. I would surely prefer litigating on that side of the issue, than the opposite, of trying to show that either the doctoring was accidental, or that Zimmerman had no injuries. Otherwise, I think that NBC is toast here.
Earlier Althouse noted an Instapundit link which asked if the Trayvon Martin walkback was becoming a stampede.
Well, this afternoon this headline appeared on Yahoo's "The Lookout" national affairs blog:
"Trayvon Martin police report reveals Zimmerman was ‘bleeding from the nose and back of head’"
The first paragraph:
"A partially redacted police report detailing the initial investigation in the Feb. 26 shooting death of Trayvon Martin has surfaced."
Actually, the full report "surfaced" a week ago when it was posted on the Sanford city website. It's been quoted here and on other conservative/libertarian sites I've visited.
I've noticed that some of the reporting on the story has seemed to be ignoring the facts cited in the report and didn't fully understand why.
Yahoo says that "The Lookout is the Yahoo! News national affairs blog focusing on America’s most important and interesting stories"
How could The Lookout's host not have known about the police report until today if not by willful ignorance? Ordinary ignorance? Loose-knit conspiracy?
Some of the comments were pretty rough on him, but I strongly encourage all to stay away from Yahoo comments. It'll destroy any faith you have in humanity.
Leave that to professionals who comment after midnight.
Black America's divide over Obama
St. Petersburg Times | October 21, 2011 | Bill Maxwell
"Many blacks are disappointed and angry, and those who speak out and question Obama's performance are having their loyalties to 'the race' and to the first black president challenged." see article
The mainstream media has enflamed and united the Black community around the issue of racism through deliberate misrepresentation and constant coverage of this case to help re elect Obama.
This kind of editing by NBC is what happens when the media piles on and every outlet has to have something juicier than the competition. All the pious nonsense about objectivity is forgotten. Truth goes right out the window.
I don't take anything personally, but thanks to my friends for the support.
I realize, after all, that AZT/anti-retroviral drug cocktail therapy, coupled with a completely non-creative, unfulfilling job in some personnel department, can have deleterious consequences on the mood and personality, especially when there's not much personality to begin with.
Namaste!
Did anyone see the NBC piece? I'd be curious if, after having made this bad edit, whether the news reader went on to flag it as proof that Zimmerman had race on the brain?
And, of course, I do always have shitty prints for sale!
Churn...
Until you got yourself some butter.
And for you whipped cream fans out there?
Gotta know when to jump off that merry-go-round.
Fair warning!
Ezra Klein is hot
Ezra Klein is hot. Even bad politics are excusable if they're attached to a nice ass.
I want to know how NBC got away with this.
After all it was the New York Times that did the McCain staffer hit piece in 2008, the libelous articles of Duff Wilson and Selena Roberts, and the less said about Alessandra Stanley, the better.
The Paper of Record [number of scandals, falsehoods, and retractions] has fallen indeed if NBC beat them too it.
@Bruce
"Flake's problem there was that her testimony revovled around her admission of unchasatity."
Did it? She spent a lot of time on birth control but never seemed to mention sex partner(s). I kept waitin for her guy to get in front of a cam and tell his tale of woe..or woe of tail...sumpthing. Actually referring to the male component of hetero sex would have been so broadening. I know..might have distracted from the "war on women" narrative. Couldn't it have been a war on women AND men? More war = more better, right?
"Ezra Klein is hot"
But is he as tall as Mitt?
Ironically, this is probably the best news Zimmerman has had in a while.
The lynch mob seriously overstepped on this one. Weeks of spin were one thing, but overt fabrication of evidence is quite another.
Thank you, wise commenters for straightening out the Breitbart / Sharrod thing, it was driving me nuts seeing all the mentirosos grande gordo cuyos con los pantalones en fuego go unchecked and then suddenly check check check check check.
The point of the editing isn't to deceive whites but to control blacks.
That's why the story is out there in the first place, instead of the thousands of other black teens murdered by, usually, black teens.
It's concern over black voters, not black teens.
Ann may be able to answer better whether Zimmerman is a public figure as initially defined by NYT v. Sullivan
Good question for the Professor. I seem to recollect a precedent which stated (and I'm simplifying here) words to the effect that a newspaper cannot make a person into a public figure by publishing unfounded allegations, and then claim Sullivan. But the NYT wasn't alone in making Zimmerman a public figure -- he'd have to show some sort of Journolist or Journolist-like conspiracy.
Hmm.
I wonder if those who were outraged at Breitbart are outraged by the much mor outrageous editing done by NBC.
You must be sh*tting me.
Rhhardin. Actually he will get the black vote regardless. This is for the independent living in an area where there is no black underclass who was leaning Republican and dissatisfied with their last vote. This is another opportunity for that person to cast a vote for their own correctness and sanctimony.
That's the third personal attack from Titus in less than a week: Fr. Fox, Palladian, and Althouse. None were warranted, all were mean, even evil.
I don't know what's collapsing in your life, but I pray things get better.
"Jesus fucking Christ, Althouse. Sherrod wasn't SHOT dead. This isn't the time to be making irrelevant comparisons. I'm outraged! I'm outraged that you would make sure an irrelevant comparison!
Zimmerman may or may not be a racist, but he's a bumbling piece of ignorant shit who NEVER should have had a gun to begin with."
-- If Zimmerman didn't have a gun, and instead, we were talking about how a white Hispanic was beaten within an inch of his life by a teenager (name withheld to protect the minor's identity, you know), would you think that teenager was a bumbling piece of ignorant ---- who never should have had, hands, I guess?, to begin with?
Look, Zimmerman screwed up by following Martin. If Martin had been a hardened criminal and not just a hothead, Zimmerman would possibly be dead.
That does not justify Martin attacking Zimmerman though; and once Martin mounted Zimmerman and began to beat his head into the ground, Zimmerman lucked out that he had a gun. It was unfortunate, and they both messed up to reach that position -- but ultimately, the witness statements back up a justified use of the gun. That may change, but at the moment, the evidence looks clear:
Guy under other guy, screaming for help while he is being beaten and receiving no help is justified in using force, especially if his head is hitting something hard repeatedly. That can kill you.
I want to expand, because I always feel I'll be misunderstood.
Zimmerman messed up; he had an opportunity to leave much earlier than he started to withdraw. He let his worry that a potential criminal was getting away get in the way of the good sense to not provoke that supposed criminal. At the time, remember, Zimmerman thought Martin was actually a potentially dangerous criminal.
The smart thing to do is withdraw. Things can be replaced; you can't.
He finally does withdraw, but not nearly as early as he could have. Bad judgment, yes. Worth getting ripped into for being a hot head.
Not worth getting punched in the face and beaten.
Martin could have also walked away. He didn't.
If more people put their pride aside, these incidents would flare up less often. However, again, the fault is going to belong to whoever started the fight and escalated it to a deadly confrontation. Beating a guy's head into the sidewalk is potentially lethal; without some other evidence that Zimmerman started it, he's guilty of bad judgment, but that's it.
"Martin could have also walked away. He didn't."
This bears repeating.
I wonder if those who were outraged at Breitbart are outraged by the much more outrageous editing done by NBC.
I think the NBC editing is outrageous, and I thought the Breitbart editing was outrageous, too.
Agreed.
That is the most outrageous, truly evil editing I've ever seen.
This from a woman who repeated, less than a month ago, that Bin Laden was not Buried at Sea.
And she didn't have the decency to retract it (when even Drudge didn't have the temerity to leave such a poorly sourced allegation on his site) but instead pondered that maybe it was some kind of conspiracy and Drudge was pressured into taking it down.
So, Freder, are you saying this -wasn't- a bad editing job?
I'm trying to understand how those things correlate other than foot stomping pointing to distract from NBC showing, what's that term of art?, ah yes: "Actual malice"?
So, Freder, are you saying this -wasn't- a bad editing job?
No, I'm saying Althouse shouldn't be throwing rocks from her glass house.
"No, I'm saying Althouse shouldn't be throwing rocks from her glass house."
-- So, how is linking to a story and making an entertaining comment when it is pulled the same as deliberately attempting to make a man -- who, by the way, is receiving death threats -- out to be a racist?
I fail to see the connection between snark on a news article and contributing to the mad fervor surrounding one man's death and the ruination of another man's life.
Enlighten me.
See Mr. Coates on this issue:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/04/altering-the-zimmerman-tape/255433/
I think he rises to your challenge.
Freder Frederson: [Look! Squirrel!]
NBC got away with it because reporters get away with this sort of thing all the time. Quote doctoring is basically standard practice in the mainstream media, in part because editors aren't doing their jobs. Combined with the crusading attitude of contemporary reporters ... it's a perfect environment for this sort of thing. It's harder, these days, with the internet making it easier to disprove false quotes. But for activists, the truth rarely matters: if it sounds right, people will believe it, despite evidence to the contrary. Too many reporters see themselves as activists rather than craftsmen. The solution is to recognize that objective journalism has always been a myth, and that journalistic ethics have never been enforced with any sense of urgency. We're seeing the result of this reality right now.
Freder Frederson said...
This from a woman who repeated, less than a month ago, that Bin Laden was not Buried at Sea.
Um, she linked to a story at Drudge and mentioned wikileaks.
She also mentioned that the story was taken down from Drudge.
There was no editing.
You're an idiot.
Freder Frederson said...
No, I'm saying Althouse shouldn't be throwing rocks from her glass house.
Stupid:
There is no glass house.
Your example contained no editing.
No attempt to be inflammatory or disseminate incorrect information.
You're a silly & dishonest hack.
Titus is a sad, angry little man who devotes his life to affectations and appearance.
While Palladian is smart and full of life.
When Palladian appears here, most commenters think "great to see you".
When Titus appears here, most commenters groan and think "please go away and stay away".
Folks. Give Freder a bit more credit. His initial comment is FAR more nuanced than it appears to be. His initial post indicated that AA repeated a story that is not true. Ergo things AA reports (including this story about NBC) are not true. But not always not true. Freder made a point of noting that the Bin Laden story was posted less than a month (29 days) ago. Subtract 10, the base of our numbering system, and you get 19! So with deference to Louis Farrakhan, we may conclude that the subject of every 19th post on Althouse is false. Freder you magnificent bastard, I read your book!
"Let's look at the video. The key section starts around 16 minutes in. I'll quote the speech and describe the reactions from the audience, to the extent I can discern them. You can check my version by listening to the audio as you follow along. Here's Sherrod:
"When I made that commitment, I was making that commitment to black people, and to black people only. [Pause. Silence.] But, you know, God will show you things, and He'll put things in your path so that—that you realize that the struggle [Audience: Alright] is really about poor people. [Audience: Alright, alright.]
"Racial appeal met with silence; non-racial appeal met with approval. Sherrod's next words:
"You know, the first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, he—he took a long time talking, but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. [Audience: Alright. Murmurs.] I know what he was doing. [Audience: Alright.] But he had come to me for help. [Audience: Amen.] What he didn't know, while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me, was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him. [Laughter.]
"The audience seems sympathetic to Sherrod's resentment of the farmer's arrogance, as she perceived it. How should we interpret the laughter? Is it laughter at her power to withhold help from a white man? Or is it laughter at her power to withhold help from a guy with an attitude? The evidence so far suggests the latter: The audience has embraced an appeal for "poor people," shunned an appeal for "black people only," and given Sherrod her only Amen when she noted that despite the farmer's attitude, "he had come to me for help." But let's keep listening.
"I was struggling with the fact that so many black people have lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. [Audience: Mm-hm.] So, I didn't give him the full force of what I could do. [Sherrod smiles and pauses. There's a single staccato noise somewhere in the room. No words, no laughter.] I did enough so that when he—I assumed the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me, either that or the Georgia Department of Agriculture. And he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him. [Pause. Silence.]
"This time, Sherrod has mentioned only the farmer's race, not his attitude. She delivers the crucial line—"So, I didn't give him the full force of what I could do"—with a smile and a wry tone that invites any racist to laugh or blurt out approval. But she gets nothing. I had to listen to this clip more than a dozen times before I realized that the "applause" Breitbart describes could only be the staccato noise. To interpret this as applause, you would have to believe that a single person, representing an otherwise silent audience, suddenly decided to change the congregation's language of affirmation from call-and-response to clapping—and just as suddenly, after a single stroke, decided to stop.
"As Sherrod renounces her old attitude, the audience comes alive:
Well, working with him made me see [Audience: Mm-hm] that it's really about those who have versus those who don't [Audience: That's right, that's right], you know. And they could be black, and they could be white; they could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then that I needed to work to help poor people—those who don't have access [Audience: Mm-hm] the way others have [Audience: Mm-hm]."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2010/07/amen_canard.single.html
"So, let's review the Breitbart gang's allegations:
"When … she expresses a discriminatory attitude towards white people, the audience responds with applause. False.
"The NAACP … is cheering on a person describing a white person as the other. False.
"The NAACP audience seemed to have approved of her actions when she talked about not helping the white farmer. False.
"They weren't cheering redemption; they were cheering discrimination. False.
"As Ms. Sherrod recounted the first part of her parable, how she declined to do everything she could for the farmer because of his race, the audience responded in approval. False.
"First Breitbart and his acolytes falsely accused Sherrod of discriminating against whites as a federal employee, despite having no evidence for this charge in the original video excerpt. Strike one.
"Then they misrepresented Sherrod's story as an embrace of racism, when in fact she was repudiating racism. They later pleaded ignorance of this fact because they didn't have the full video. Strike two.
"Now, with the full video in hand and posted on their Web site, they're lying about the reaction of the NAACP audience."
nobody said...
"Let's look at the video. The key section starts around 16 minutes in. I'll quote the speech and describe the reactions from the audience, to the extent I can discern them
That is some funny stuff there, clown.
To the extent you can "discern them" has no basis in reality.
But you carry on.
nobody,
You simply picked phrases where she was clearly making an appeal to soberness. Sure, they responded correctly as they did in the other parts where they showed their racism. People are like that. They don't just spew constant racism at every opportunity. Racism is not embodied in caricatures, but real people.
Has anyone seen the autopsy report on the muzzle blast pattern and angle of the 9mm slug that took Trayvon's life. That will go a long way to prove which man was on top and which man was on the bottom doing a wrestling hold down of the other man.
Why is it being kept a secret?
Does the Florida Stand Your Ground Statute also require that the DA and Coronor withhold the evidence upon which they based a probable cause decision before charging a shooter who has made the claim that he killed because he was in fear of losing his life?
One hopes that means the investigation has been reopened and we will see a resolution and not a cover up.
"That will go a long way to prove which man was on top and which man was on the bottom "
I doubt it. The position of the gun could be identical with either man on top. Unless it indicates that Martin's hands were up in a defensive posture (powder on his palms).
@bagoh20,
That wasn't me, I was quoting, but I listened to the tape numerous times and it is clear that the story about the audience's "racism" is as bogus as the claim that the 911 recording shows Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin.
Why don't you try going back to the Shirley Sherrod tape, watch the crucial part several times very carefully, and see if you still think you hear what you (and Breitbart et al) thought they heard.
I personally do not think that Breitbart was lying. I suspect his ears deceived him and he heard what he wanted to hear rather than what was actually there.
But the recording is what it is. The "Zimmerman's a racist crowd" and the "NAACP audience listening to Shirley Sherrod is racist" are peas from the same pod.
I hope he does sue. Those depositions will be interesting!
traditionalguy said...
Has anyone seen the autopsy report on the muzzle blast pattern and angle of the 9mm slug that took Trayvon's life. That will go a long way to prove which man was on top and which man was on the bottom doing a wrestling hold down of the other man.
Why is it being kept a secret?
Captain Ignorant:
It isn't being "kept secret"
It is standard practice not to release autopsy reports for active investigations.
Note:
The Volusia County Medical Examiner's office, the body that "independently, objectively and scientifically determines the cause and manner of death under certain circumstances," handled the autopsy.
For now, that report remains under seal, spokesman Dave Byron told The Times. It has been forwarded to the Seminole County branch of the Florida state attorney's office and won't be made public while the investigation is pending
Carry on now.
Jay...I am relieved to hear that the Autopsy Report is NOT being kept secret. It is merely under seal and will not be made public.
I take it that means since it is not secret from the guys being investigated for starting the cover-up (and who can release it if the chose to do so,) then from your point of view it is not being kept secret at all.
Higher reasoning like that is The Onion grade.
Not the first time a story was written to fit the narrative being peddled. And it won't be the last.
The MSM is now the marketing arm of the democrat/progressive apparatchik. Simple.
"…Althouse shouldn't be throwing rocks…"
"Shut up", he explained.
Overheard:
"Hey, that bago is a funny guy."
Post a Comment