This has become a joke, and a big one at that. I no longer care.

Understandable, jordan2. I think we're all a bit frustrated and tired.

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

A well written philosophical commentary on the Zimmerman/Martin case.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/ ... agedy.html

People behaving badly.. so pathetic.

Thanks very much, Hooson1st!



Excellent article, makes some very, very good points, Hooson1st!

Edit to add quote from the article linked by Hooson1st.

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

jordan2 - universally true, right?

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

Here's on I think we missed:


Read more at WND.

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

I mostly agree with Cashill's observation that part of the reason the media continues to demonize GZ is to "save face" or to cover up their prior lies. Where I differ slightly is that I suspect some, maybe even many, don't believe they were lying or wrong. Now they, the media and the Trayborg™ (but I repeat myself) seek to validate their ability to see the "truth" despite the obstacles placed in their way (such as the actual truth).

They desperately want to be proven "right", to view themselves as perceptive, even "smart" for seeing things as they do. "We knew it from the start," or "That's what we've been saying all along," etc. is frequently posted by Trayborg™ whenever some new bit comes along that conforms to what they want to believe. Before it, like their other mythical "proof" is also proven wrong.

We're all like that to a point, I suspect. We like to think we're open minded, will wait for all of the facts, etc., but even those who have a proven track record of doing just that aren't 100%, in my experience.

Thank goodness most don't take it to the extremes of the Trayborg™, including media. No wonder they're so bitterly unhappy.

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

Excellent and spot on. They want to believe they were right as much as they need to believe it.

Edit to omit lengthy quote (RT style guide) ~liesel

At 67, I am retired. I spent my entire career in the newspaper business... 10 years as Sales & Marketing Manager at the Tampa Tribune, after which I started a business that, at one point, had over 500 newspaper clients. My primary focus to help newspapers increase and retain subscribers through a couple of unique programs/promotions that I created. We were know as the "The Customer Retention People."

That said, my programs were not limited to circulation because some of them required the cooperation of all major departments, including news and editorial.

When I left the business, some newspapers were actually still slowly increasing circulation but that trend came to an halt soon after 9/11 and continues today. My observation today is that only educated, older folks appreciate the feel of a newspaper spread out all over on a Sunday morning. Large families had a "pecking order," so to speak and you had to wait your turn but everyone actually WANTED to read the paper. WANTED, of course, is the key word. How many teenagers today want to read a newspaper?

That said, newspapers had no strict written rules by which to abide editorially. They were self imposed and most newspapers were proud of their ethics and morals. Back then, a publisher had more power than anyone in a city but used that power cautiously trying to be fair and unbiased in their attempts to do the "right thing" and print a newspaper filled with truth. Mistakes were usually corrected immediately. Many papers had a section devoted to doing that. I am NOT saying, by any means, that all publishers were fair and balanced.

I cannot pinpoint when, but that all changed. I do not know for sure today who actually makes the decision to go with a story, without thorough investigation, that is suspect at first, but later found to be completely baseless. NO managing editor would have ever approved of any of these stories.

The George Zimmerman case revealed the failures of MSM on a large scale but yet, as of today, no one is admitting that they, in fact, lied and did so repeatedly and intentionally.

Truthful voices like Jack's are rarely heard in MSM and I doubt that will ever change so we all must SEARCH for the truth as I did when I discovered Jack even existed. Thanks for all that you do.

Wishful thinking on my part but I would sure like to see a multipart documentary TV series about the case that would focus on MSM. Is anyone brave enough to do that?

Thank you, LittleLaughter! Very kind of you. And made me think - "want" and "need" that affirmation maybe indicates they have waaaaaay too much of their self-worth tied up in random, often petty, things outside of their own lives.

In no way am I suggesting what happened to GZ or to TM™ is petty. But this case isn't the only thing some fixate on. With some Trayborg™ it seems like OCD, the way they carry on; refusing to accept the verdict, refusing to even try to understand the evidence, etc. etc.

They seem obsessive and compulsive in only considering things that support what they want to believe. A youtube video made by an anonymous forum poster will carry weight with them, but the actual trial doesn't because the former supports their belief system, and the latter completely contradicts it.

How to resolve such a conflict? Refuse the actual evidence, refuse trial footage, and/or their most recent specious claims, "the state threw the case." They don't believe something because there is evidence to support their opinion; they assert there must be evidence because they believe something. Ergo, the authorities are either incompetent, corrupt, or both, because they were unable to produce what doesn't exist - evidence to support the Trayborg™ belief system.

If a theory unsupported by law or fact (or even physics!) is enough to convince them (of what they already believed), they are outraged when it isn't (illegally and unconstitutionally) presented to the jury.

It's really a testament to their stubborn, even religious zeal. In a very scary way, of course. I've compared Trayborg™ to the French Revolutionaries, as have others much smarter than me. That's what makes them so scary.

Thankfully, they seem to be pitifully small in number; at least the ones that have taken their zealotry about this particular case up as a mission.

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

How very thoughtful, and much appreciated, jordan2. Thank you.

Unfortunately, any documentary would be done by the very people it should indict, or it wouldn't be aired. However, I would very, very, very much like to see it.

You'd (obviously) know much better than I how to do this, but perhaps you could work up some sort of outline to send to some of the rogue (read: conservative) outfits that may take on the challenge. Who are the directors/producers from Hating Breitbart, 2016, etc.? Gerald R. Molen on the latter. Pixel and Verse, Andrew Marcus, MJM Entertainment on the former. I'm trying to think of the other guy... Steve... Bannon? Is that right?

I'm serious - please do give it a shot. Or, if you'd like it to be a collaborative effort, please consider writing a Members Blog about it. You'd have to be specific in your instructions of what you're looking for in ideas/info from other members.

Of course, a Members Blog is open to all, and can be about virtually any subject in which you're interested. If you're interested, chances are others will be too. Some of you really, really should take the time to give your extended thoughts on things. It doesn't have to be about a case, or an issue (and it shouldn't be about politics); it could be about cooking, life experience, cars, whatever you find interesting.

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

Oh my - don't know why I get such a kick out of this, but I do! Trayborg™ still tweeting link to false/satire report of SZ being arrested.

Thanks for keeping our little secret about it. It's fun watching them froth over something that didn't happen. I mean, in addition to the whole "murder" that didn't happen, per a jury of GZ's peers, and the US judicial system.

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

Please TRY and keep to Topic of GZ and related matters.... OK to wander off topic and illustrate a point... but wander back

I dont have time to more than skim posts while I am on vacation..... and.....


Liesel and Mal are not as easy going as I am


SPEAKING of off topic... There was a guy on the plane... wore a hoodie the whole 10 hour flight I wondered if he was a Traybot...not seen the "Hoodies down Depends up" Memo yet. He looked stupid enough... had the airline earphones on ON TOP of hoodie... (and sound level is LOW even at full volume)... I guess info filtered and lost through thick hoodie material would not matter to a Traybot?

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

guywitharod - how about I move your post to the RT Members Blog so you can get some contributions/ideas from others, without taking this thread and getting us on Rumpole's list? You could put a link to it in your sig, so all will see and know where to go to comment.



Edit to add: See above. I swear he has an alarm. I promise, I was gonna delete this post after guywitharod replied! <ducking>

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

Liesel - I tend to agree with you on this aspect to a very large extent.

The "media" is an amalgam of a lot individual entities with a lot of competing, and yet, collective agendas.

At ground zero of the news-reporting chain is the standard reporter. A lot of your standard reporters, take the line reporters for the Orlando Sentinel, are in one sense, glorified stenographers.

If Mr. Crump holds a news conference and spouts a bunch of misinformation, the stenographers duly report what Crump had to say and that is disseminated. It is not the job of these stenographers/reporters to apply their own commentary as an overlay and interpret the accuracy, or lack thereof, to what Crump said. If feasible, bearing in mind deadlines and other constraints, the reporter will get a reaction quote from an opposing side for inclusion in the article. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

The editor will discuss with the reporter the status of an ongoing story at which, if not before, the reporter will express such reservation as he/she may have concerning the quality of Crump's statements. If opposing counsel holds a news conference, a similar stenographic reportage will be carried by the news outlet.

Opinion columnists, who normally answer only to the opinion editor, may weigh in with a column that digs into the Crump press conference. The editor may ask the reporter to check in on some controversial aspect of the press conference for a follow-up. The editor has a lot of discretion, yet still must answer to the publisher.

We have learned that the Orlando Sentinel editor was not interested in pursuing potentially explosive leads concerning Trayvon Martin's experiences in the Miami-Dade school system. So one can say that the O/S coverage was somewhat slanted, not by what they reported, but by what they chose not to look into when the issue was staring them in the face.

This slanting is not the fault of the reporter. It is the responsibility of the editor. Usually there is separation between the news-reporting section of the newspaper, and the editorial/opinion section. Sometimes there isn't, although theoretically there should be. The opinion columnists should provide context to the stories of the day. But it all depends on the editors and the editorial policy.

Even though the news/reporting business is made up of individual efforts, there is also a pack-mentality the permeates the production of news because at its essence, news-reporting and everything that flows from it is an economic enterprise. You have to sell papers, you have get hits on your website and if the competition is getting such traction from a developing news story, you have motivation to get some of that web traffic and newspaper sales for your enterprise.

The Zimmerman/Martin case provided a news event that was set off in the wrong direction by the dangling of the Crump/Julison narrative in front of a herd of hungry newshounds facing competition from the cable-driven 24 hour news cycle.

Thanks to the freedom of the internet, and to the efforts of citizen sleuthers providing true investigative journalism at a handful of websites, their collective efforts, which spanned the ideological spectrum, facts were brought forth that were vital to a successful defense for Zimmerman, and prevented what attorney West aptly put, a "tragedy from becoming a travesty."

Thanks, Hooson1st; appreciate the explanation.

I thought actual journalists/reporters were supposed to fact check things. If I'm understand you correctly, they're not; they're just to report without considering whether what they're reporting is true? That's just for opinion writers?

Maybe I'm just old, but I thought they used to, for example, quote So-and-So, then add, "but blank-newspaper or blank-reporter found information to contradict this assertion. It's actually blah blah blah, according to blah blah blah."

Otherwise, it's just reprinting a press release, imo.

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

liesel -

It is somewhere in the middle. A lot of it is in essence reprinting a press release.

Fact check? They have to be sure that they report accurately what they are covering.

I mean, look at what goes on with the White House press corps. Most of the time they might as well skip the press briefing and just reprint the prepared remarks.

The reporter should not make themselves part of the story.

Thanks to the freedom of the internet and competitive pressures from citizen/journalists the major media have made grasping attempts at "fact checking". The "pinocchios" from the Washington Post, the establishment of "ombudsmen" at newspapers etc are examples.

Newspapers will do "background" pieces from time to time on ongoing high-interest news stories, to cover the gap between the "stenographing" role and the journalistic inquiry role. As economic pressures increase on the old newspaper model, less resources are available for allocation to in-depth journalistic inquiry.

In a case such as the Zimmerman case, what is likely to happen is that two or three years from now, the New York Times or the Washington Post will do a balanced in depth long article looking back on the case and the aftermath. Or maybe, a free lance journalist will be able to sell a similar piece to a Vanity Fair.

I realize I'm a pedant - especially on this point - nevertheless, I have to point out (again): 776.032 immunity is not specific or limited to 776.013(3) (SYG) self-defense; it includes all of 776.013 (home protection, presumption of fear), as well as 776.012 (traditional self-defense) and 776.031 (defense of others).

If Zimmerman invokes 776.032 in a civil proceeding, a self-defense immunity hearing will be held, and Zimmerman will claim immunity first and foremost under 776.012, just as he used as his defense in the criminal trial. (That's not to say that Zimmerman couldn't or wouldn't also claim 776.013(3) - especially if the complainants try to use the "he didn't have to get out of the truck" canard.)

But 776.032 is not "SYG" immunity; it is self-defense immunity. The related hearing is a self-defense immunity hearing, not an "SYG" hearing.

The only way that 776.032 is directly tied to SYG is because the statute was added via legislation that was nicknamed the "SYG Law" in the Florida legislature.

(Further reading)

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)