Zimmerman sues NBC for editing of audio tapes.

Here's the summary:

NBC edited the audio tapes of George Zimmerman on the night he shot Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman is claiming that they did so to make him look racist.

Here's the link to the story.

Zimmerman Sues NBC

Opinions?

reply to post by ProfessorChaos

I'm glad to hear it. This editing of news material from audio, to video to photoshop'ing war footage is entirely out of hand. I don't think it should matter what side people come down on for what happened that night. The editing was obvious, blatant in it's effect and inexcusable. It's about time an example be shown....even if he winds up losing his own case later to pay back whatever this gets to others. That doesn't make NBC any less scummy for altering raw material to manipulate viewer opinion. Bad MSM.

I'm surprised he didn't do this sooner. The MSM caught in their old tricks.

reply to post by ProfessorChaos


Good for him....I remember when they did that.

So much for fair and unbiased reporting.
Those days are gone.....

Now all we have is the manipulative MSM that doesn't care about the news, only their agenda.

Good for him,when I first heard the tapes the MSM where trying to put in your head what he was saying.

If a jury of his peers find him guilty ,so be it. but not a jury of a biased media.

Rob

When you read any topic relating to this case, the vast majority of people are against Zimmerman, yet it always seems that the sensationalism perpetrated by the media gets ignored. They edit and tweak to get their ratings and hope no one notices, then when they are caught, they issue a weak "apology" and never mention it again. They got their boost, and the public is even more poorly informed (if that's possible) from that point on.

Someone really needs to drop the hammer on these people.

Originally posted by ProfessorChaos
When you read any topic relating to this case, the vast majority of people are against Zimmerman, yet it always seems that the sensationalism perpetrated by the media gets ignored. They edit and tweak to get their ratings and hope no one notices, then when they are caught, they issue a weak "apology" and never mention it again. They got their boost, and the public is even more poorly informed (if that's possible) from that point on.

Someone really needs to drop the hammer on these people.

I remember the MSM kept calling it a "hate" issue even though Zimmerman is Peruvian/White/Black mix.

reply to post by snarky412


They initially reported that he was white (that really gets the headlines). Then, when his true ethnicity was revealed, their hands mysteriously went over their mouths in regards to it.

It's disgusting what these "news" agencies get away with.

It's disgusting what these "news" agencies get away with.

reply to post by ProfessorChaos


So I have been trying to figure out what "News Analyst" means. When I was in college I remember the Department of Journalism at the University of Kentucky. I can;t recall ever hearing about the Department of News Analysts. What does that mean?

reply to post by sirjunlegun


The only definition of News Analyst that I could find was "Commentator".

However, an analyst analyzes something.

What is the definition of Analysis?

a·nal·y·sis
/əˈnaləsis/
Noun
Detailed examination of the elements or structure of something, typically as a basis for discussion or interpretation.
The process of separating something into its constituent elements.
Synonyms
test - assay - examination

I would conclude, based on what we see in the news media at large is that they analyze the news, and then interpret it for public consumption.

So if interpretation is the job of an analyst, what does interpretation mean?

in·ter·pre·ta·tion
/inˌtərpriˈtāSHən/
Noun
The action of explaining the meaning of something: "the interpretation of data".
An explanation or way of explaining: "it's open to interpretation".
Synonyms
explanation - rendering - reading - rendition

So essentially, a News Analyst gets the news in its raw form, and then interprets it for the public, thus leaving the public to rely on the interpretation of the analyst.

Of course, the way that a person or a like-minded group of people interprets something is subject to their particular world view. In other words, the news we hear is second-hand and already tinged with the world view of the person or people responsible for providing it.

reply to post by ProfessorChaos


As an addendum to my above response, I would like to say that I think that "News Analyst" is a poor title for the people that work in the News Media.

I think a far more appropriate title would be: "Propagandist".

GOOD FOR HIM! I hope he takes those idiots to the cleaners!
The idiots at NBC lied and have put Zimmermans life in danger.
And I hope he sues the New Black Panthers as well.
That 'dead or alive' crap out of them .....

reply to post by Foundryman


The Same NBC cheering and war mongering about Syria having stockpiles of WMDs. NBC could have basically ruined Zimmerman's life.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by ProfessorChaos

 

I'm glad to hear it. This editing of news material from audio, to video to photoshop'ing war footage is entirely out of hand. I don't think it should matter what side people come down on for what happened that night. The editing was obvious, blatant in it's effect and inexcusable. It's about time an example be shown....even if he winds up losing his own case later to pay back whatever this gets to others. That doesn't make NBC any less scummy for altering raw material to manipulate viewer opinion. Bad MSM.

Excellent response Wrabbit.

Surely the point of the news is to put across what actually happened. The discussion parts (in the studio) are where they get to put their particular slant on it but the actual reports should be just that....reports.

Now we all realise that different news agencies have different agendas. Fair enough and to be expected. However, their success relies on people watching or buying (papers, etc). If news agencies are consistently shown to be guilty of this, the simple way to ensure it stops is to stop endorsing that particular news agency. Sooner or later the owners will take notice of the falling revenues and demand answers and changes.

This is great news, although I'm surprised this took so long. The news media's negligent portrayal of this man jeopardized his life, and the life of his family. End them.

reply to post by chasingbrahman


I'm not surprised that it took so long, when everything happened, the media turned the whole thing into a circus. It's probably taken this long just for things to settle a bit and allow them to really look at the treatment he received at the hands of NBC and other news outlets.

Normally I disagree with some of the posters in this thread, but on this subject I don't. They doctored the tapes to change the context and create a story out of nothing. In doing so, they have put this man's life, liberty and happiness in jeopardy, as well as created a situation where finding a jury of peers that are unbiased is going to be incredibly hard.

For all those that keep pushing for deregulation of business in America. It is because of deregulation that news outlets are allowed to get away with this type of information manipulation, and when it comes to informing the public on information, the news' job is to inform with facts, not dictate opinion using intellectually dishonest tactics..