Friday, April 6, 2012

Bullshit from the Media

Altering Zimmerman's 911 call to make him sound racist was an accident!


Totally unintentional. They were shocked - shocked! - when this show went live. It was an honest mistake. Oh, they fired him by the way. But they can't say who it was. And no one there will say who it was.

That would be the act of a journalist, after all.

Edit: I'm being too brief with this. Not doing the subject justice.

Look, it wasn't an accident. No one should believe it was an accident. It has all the makings of a very intentional muckraking act, happening at the absolute height of tension in the case. But, here's the funny thing.

What reporter is going to investigate this case?

Maybe a blogger will try to suss out the name of who was fired, but that's going to be the real extent of the investigation. NBC told everyone 'it was a mistake, this was handled' and... that's that.

Do you think it would end there if a similar 'gaffe' happened with, say... a politician? "Oh, a staffer did something like this. I won't say who. He was fired though. This was all an accident."? Particularly a Republican politician.

There's more that could be said here, but for now, I just want to cap it off with that. "They said it was an accident, it's utterly non-believable, but that's where it will end in all likelihood."


Syllabus said...

Where's Anderson Cooper when people actually need him to keep them honest?

Crude said...

I would love, just love, to see someone sit down for an interview with a journalist, and for them to completely turn things around and start asking the journalist questions. Awkward questions about their job and their place of work. Would be good for a laugh if nothing else.

Syllabus said...

Well, that's pretty much all that most of the media is good for. Funnily enough I find Jon Stewart to be one of the better sources of news out there - even though we're not too politically similar. But at least he's not a dishonest doofus.

Crude said...

I like Stewart, and especially Colbert. Both liberal, but Colbert seems like a sincerely Catholic liberal who is doing exactly the sort of thing I wish more Catholics/Christians would do. (I recall he's had some guests on his show who you normally wouldn't see, like NT Wright.) Stewart... I don't know about honest or dishonest, since I'm hypersensitive to presentation and skewing. But I can't say he doesn't have a great sense of humor.

(Not that I've watched a full ep in years.)

Syllabus said...

I just finished reading a biography of Colbert, entitled "And Nothing But the Truthiness". Good read, actually. Looking at his life history, it's easy to see why he's more of a political liberal. And yeah, he comes across as actually pretty sincere in his lampooning - some of which I actually agree with, since I distrust much of the Right as well as the Left. But, as far as an entertainer, the man's a fucking genius. Some of his more interesting guests were guys like Francis Collins - since he plays the creationist shtick rather heavily - and Tricky Dicky the Dawkins - given the uber-Republican, faux Bill o'Reilly character that he plays

Jon Stewart is pretty darn funny, too. As far as his presentation goes, he's a little more liberal than I am, but he criticizes the liberal branches of the media and government quite a bit as well. He seems the kind of guy to point and laugh uproariously and anyone who is engaging in any sort of bullshitting. Maybe honest isn't quite the right word, but he's at least not above criticism of the Left as well as the Right. He does, after all, go after CNN as much - if not more - than after Fox news. Even-handed, let's call him.

Crude said...

For the record, as my distributivism post of the past should indicate, I'm "conservative" in a qualified way. I'm not a neo-con, and I don't have contempt for sincere liberal Christians like (say) Vic Reppert. And I hate a lot of the arguments I see coming out of the 'conservative' side of things, even if I agree with the conclusions.

By most people's lights, I'm damn conservative. But I don't get into the "rah rah republican" game. I've seen how those guys treat the actual 'anything close to actual conservative' base.

BenYachov said...

For all I know maybe Zimmerman was at fault for the death of this young man. But if that turns out to be the case Jerk-offs like Sharpton and Jackson could derail the investigation with their antics and set a guilty man free!

This is of course assuming Zimmerman is at fault. My position, or as I like to call it the rational & correct position is "I don't know let's look at the evidence and make a determination from that alone".

I hate the politics here. I pray the Right doesn't fall into the trap of thinking "Zimmerman = not guilty" because that is the "conservative" view.

I believe in the facts and evidence alone. Everyone should.

Mind you the right hasn't fallen into that trap but we should be vigilant it doesn't.

Obama is an idiot. God forgive him.

Crude said...

Yeah, I have no idea about whether or not Zimmerman is guilty of anything. Really, at a glance the case looks tough. And I've seen ridiculous downplaying of what went on. 'Martin defended himself!' Well, no. We don't know that. If Zimmerman attacked Martin - and no, following does not mean attacking - then yes, Martin was defending himself. If Martin decided to kick Zimmerman's ass for annoying him, how is that defense?

But now Trayvon Martin is, like it or not, a martyr. He was killed because he was black, period, no matter what evidence is found. Yet again, evidence and reason don't do all that much for people.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...


Crude said...

Yeah, I've long thought that the people who made this a big issue wished they could turn back the clock the moment they found out Zimmerman was fully half hispanic. Zimmerman with black ancestry will make this hilarious.