This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
One isn't much of a crowd, but I'd be willing to hear PlasmaDogPlasma out about his views on innocence, guilt and the truth before resorting to the sweeping generalizations. (Uh-oh...)Let's start with post 4:Who is in that crowd, and how did "we" come to the conclusion that they aren't interested in the truth?That wasn't necessary. We already know the "it was murder" crowd aren't interested in the truth.There were more but I'm not going through every page.
Those statements can both be true.It is a better story if it is a mean looking white guy killing a sweet looking young 11 year old kid.A better story gets better ratings. More outrage gets better ratings. Editing a 911 call to make it look like it was racist motivation.
I don't bring up any liberal angle.You're changing your story as you go along here. First you and others implied heavily that the news media was not showing new photographs in order to manipulate the public- e.g. a conspiracy to turn people against Zimmerman, more proof that the news has a liberal bias, etc. Now you're arguing that the news does this for competitive purposes. Well I agree with that. But you're still wrong about the sensationalism angle. The news does want to be sensational, but they also want to be familiar, and familiarity is more important. And yes, while all the news stations had hundreds of photographs of Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston, they used the same handful over and over, for reasons of familiarity.As to what I know about journalism: I am not a journalist myself. My wife's aunt is a very high level television censor. She has worked for CNN and CBS, and she currently works for the Fox Network (not the news division.). I have had numerous conversations about these issues with her and about all aspects of television. We haven't discussed Trayvon Martin (I last saw her a few months ago) but we have discussed familiarity and the use of the same photos over and over. She's the one who informed me about this issue.I don't think you know much about journalism and what that should entail.As for the famous people, there are countless photos used in their news article. And when there's big news (like a death/accident/illness) the most recent pictures are used in most all cases.What's funny is that you don't want to believe this. I could literally show you hundreds of examples- even involving famous celebrities who died like Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston- a news channel will get 1 or 2 photographs, 1 or 2 video shots, and will play these over and over for hours and days on end rather than bringing in new material each time. Why do you think they do this?
But never mind, you prefer to believe in a grand conspiracy theory, because it fits your overall view of the media. And so nothing I write will make the slightest bit of difference to you. Carry on.
You really think the media only has/uses 1-2 photos of Whitney and Michael Jackson. Really?
Using very old photos in this particular case heightens the sensationalism. That's why they do it.
It's a competitive world.
Sure, I do. There isn't a person in the country over the age of 10 who's not familiar with the story. There is absolutely no need to keep using the same photos to attract viewers at this point. The choice to do so demonstrates an editorial viewpoint.
Has this been verified?
Out of curiosity, are the portrayals linked here the photos taken around the incident? or are these images taken from years past?
Well then you're wrong. Of course people are familiar with the story. That's why they show the same photos. If people weren't familar with the story, they might show different photos. The "need" is that the average guy will see the photo and say, "oh yeah, they're talking about Trayvon Martin, I wanna see this," rather than, "I don't recognize that teenager. Gonna flip the channel." No conspiratorial intent whatsoever.
I took a poll.
An interesting tidbit of info. The man in this story is claiming accidental shooting. On the same websites that were saying let Zimmerman tell his side of the story and we can't rush to judgment, they are saying the same thing about the accused here. No wait, they aren't. They are saying this girl is dead because of the liberal agenda and she should've been afraid to date a black man in the first place.
Bump.
Keep climbing the ladder, Fennis. Keep climing the ladder.
Well, I have to say that they sure don't run with the suspects glam shot...
What he said.
I don't agree with this either. I suppose it's true in some instances. But I suspect (don't know) that in most cases, the first photos you see are the first ones that the media were able to obtain. In the cases you're mentioning, that's usually going to be a police photo of the criminal and a photo of the victim supplied by the victim's family. Again, no editorial intent here.
So you do agree with me.
At one point I was worried that I was posting too much, but then Hustler and Tim showed up.
Maybe I misunderstood you. If you're saying that this sort of thing inevitably happens but is not done on purpose, then I agree.
Consolation bracket time
I'm not saying everything Zimmerman did was right, but it seems to me he knew:1. to call the nonemergency number as Trayvon wasn't a threat at the start.
You skipped some stuff.
Noted
I don't agree with PlasmaDogPlasma. It matters very much to me who screamed. I will say right now that if it were somehow proven that George Zimmerman was the one screaming, he is very likely innocent of any crime, as he probably considered his life was threatened. The fact that he precipitated the confrontation is irrelevant to me. On the other hand, if Trayvon was screaming I think that, while it's still very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, you have to figure from common sense that Zimmerman committed a crime here, at least manslaughter, possible murder. It just doesn't make sense that Zimmerman believed his life is threatened and Martin is the one screaming.
If this is true. I am curious to hear your opinion on my post before this one. Post 6849.
This is a bizarre line to draw, but I can't say I'm surprised. The logical line would probably be where Zimmerman inserted himself and his gun into this kid's life wouldn't it?
Is it possible to say that it can be where Trayvon inserted himself into Zimmerman's?
Not necessarily. A crime occurs when it occurs. Let me give you an analogy- not sure how well this works. Suppose a woman meets a guy in a bar, and invites her home to have sex with her. They go to her home. They make out. They undress. He gets on top of her, and suddenly she decides that she's changed her mind, she doesn't want to have sex. He ignores her change of mind, he forces himself in anyhow. Legally this is rape. It doesn't matter that the girl invited the guy home, undressed, and got into that position. The second she changes her mind and informs him that she does not wish to have sex, it becomes rape. Even if she engages in sex, and during the sex decides that she wants to stop but he won't stop and forces her to continue, that's rape as well. Of course, these things are often very difficult to prove. But that doesn't change the law.
I don't really care much about the Neighborhood Watch guidelines and whether Zimmerman followed them. If a man with a gun follows an unarmed man and the result is the death of the unarmed man by shooting, the burden of proof is on the gunman to show that he was threatened in some way. If I don't see evidence of that (and in this case there is none) I'm going to be pretty sure that the guy with the gun is at fault.
He looks mean
The guidlines helps Zimmerman's credibility to his story. If he is the one screaming for help and follows this protocol to the "T", it makes his story more believable IMO. At first people were in an uproar that he was carrying or followed Trayvon. No where in the guidelines of the official Sanford police watch program does it say not too.
I'll try better to keep up.
Link to where Zimmerman became physically involved or apprehended Trayvon before being attacked?
Read the link and then tell me that the police say not to report as soon as anything seems questionable. Trayvon was not from around there. Zimmerman reports him neither on the street or the sidewalk. He is suspicious.
Link to explanation of what made Trayvon Martin a "situation"? Maybe he just had really nice abs and a venereal disease and Zimmerman got situation and "The Situation" confused?
Sure. If you're an idiot or you're a racist. If you're not, he's just a black kid walking to/from somewhere.Only question left is which one was Zimmerman?
Trayvon's dead. Following him was physical involvement. These facts are not disputed by anyone.
Sorry ATC1, but IMO you're spreading a lot of misinformation here:1. The reason people are in an uproar that he followed Trayvon is because he should not have confronted Trayvon. According to the guidelines:
He didn't report him in someone's yard either.
