15 replies to this topic

[Hasan]

http://abcnews.go.co...32#.T7Lvf-trPl0

[sixpence]

http://abcnews.go.co...32#.T7Lvf-trPl0

oh snap!

[kujo]

So, there you have it. The narrative pushed by the media can officially, and shockingly [/sarcasm], be declared as bullcrap.

[Hasan]

So, there you have it. The narrative pushed by the media can officially, and shockingly [/sarcasm], be declared as bullcrap.

This story was published by the media.

[kujo]

This story was published by the media.

Uh huh, along with the weeks and weeks of other stories that were a) bereft of any real "facts", which is not surprising considering police investigations don't occur in an open an transparent manner, and b) were pushing the idea that this was an example of "the white man" gunning down the innocent, angelic "black boy." Of course, now more information has surfaced, including witness testimonies, and other pieces of actual evidence supporting the story that Zimmerman and his attorney(s) have been saying all along.

These tidbits don't conform to the "bad man shoot good boy" novella that transpired all over the TV and internet for a few weeks, but you won't be hearing or reading retractions.

Regardless of your personal beliefs on the subject, it is unequivocally true that the media outlets in this country--television, radio, electronic, national, local, etc.-- purposefully and intentionally sensationalized this tragedy for one reason: money. This is not to say that the intentions of the protesters and family members weren't sincere, but rather that the coverage was so intense and all-encompassing for the sole purpose of profit off of a product. In this case, the product being sold was a story about a poor black child being gunned down by an angry, racist adult male, simply because he was black. It didn't matter that some of the very few facts we have about what happened that night contradicted the veracity of this narrative. The thing about the media is that the stuff they sell doesn't have to be good, or true, or even worthwhile. No, they've got the golden goose--they monopolize our senses, to the point that all they've gotta do is say "hey, look at this," and you're in. You turn on the TV or click the link, and boom, the profit has been made. And guess what--unlike the pair of jeans that ripped as soon as you put them on, or the can of soup that was sold past its expiration date, the s*** they sell can't be returned for a refund.

Edited by kujo, 15 May 2012 - 11:20 PM.

[Papist]

Uh huh, along with the weeks and weeks of other stories that were a) bereft of any real "facts", which is not surprising considering police investigations don't occur in an open an transparent manner, and b) were pushing the idea that this was an example of "the white man" gunning down the innocent, angelic "black boy." Of course, now more information has surfaced, including witness testimonies, and other pieces of actual evidence supporting the story that Zimmerman and his attorney(s) have been saying all along.

These tidbits don't conform to the "bad man shoot good boy" novella that transpired all over the TV and internet for a few weeks, but you won't be hearing or reading retractions.

Regardless of your personal beliefs on the subject, it is unequivocally true that the media outlets in this country--television, radio, electronic, national, local, etc.-- purposefully and intentionally sensationalized this tragedy for one reason: money. This is not to say that the intentions of the protesters and family members weren't sincere, but rather that the coverage was so intense and all-encompassing for the sole purpose of profit off of a product. In this case, the product being sold was a story about a poor black child being gunned down by an angry, racist adult male, simply because he was black. It didn't matter that some of the very few facts we have about what happened that night contradicted the veracity of this narrative. The thing about the media is that the stuff they sell doesn't have to be good, or true, or even worthwhile. No, they've got the golden goose--they monopolize our senses, to the point that all they've gotta do is say "hey, look at this," and you're in. You turn on the TV or click the link, and boom, the profit has been made. And guess what--unlike the pair of jeans that ripped as soon as you put them on, or the can of soup that was sold past its expiration date, the s*** they sell can't be returned for a refund.

This deserves a prop.

Until this stops working, the media will continue to do it.

[Hasan]

Uh huh, along with the weeks and weeks of other stories that were a) bereft of any real "facts", which is not surprising considering police investigations don't occur in an open an transparent manner, and b) were pushing the idea that this was an example of "the white man" gunning down the innocent, angelic "black boy." Of course, now more information has surfaced, including witness testimonies, and other pieces of actual evidence supporting the story that Zimmerman and his attorney(s) have been saying all along.

These tidbits don't conform to the "bad man shoot good boy" novella that transpired all over the TV and internet for a few weeks, but you won't be hearing or reading retractions.

Regardless of your personal beliefs on the subject, it is unequivocally true that the media outlets in this country--television, radio, electronic, national, local, etc.-- purposefully and intentionally sensationalized this tragedy for one reason: money. This is not to say that the intentions of the protesters and family members weren't sincere, but rather that the coverage was so intense and all-encompassing for the sole purpose of profit off of a product. In this case, the product being sold was a story about a poor black child being gunned down by an angry, racist adult male, simply because he was black. It didn't matter that some of the very few facts we have about what happened that night contradicted the veracity of this narrative. The thing about the media is that the stuff they sell doesn't have to be good, or true, or even worthwhile. No, they've got the golden goose--they monopolize our senses, to the point that all they've gotta do is say "hey, look at this," and you're in. You turn on the TV or click the link, and boom, the profit has been made. And guess what--unlike the pair of jeans that ripped as soon as you put them on, or the can of soup that was sold past its expiration date, the s*** they sell can't be returned for a refund.

Uh huh, along with the weeks and weeks of other stories that were a) bereft of any real "facts", which is not surprising considering police investigations don't occur in an open an transparent manner, and b) were pushing the idea that this was an example of "the white man" gunning down the innocent, angelic "black boy." Of course, now more information has surfaced, including witness testimonies, and other pieces of actual evidence supporting the story that Zimmerman and his attorney(s) have been saying all along.

These tidbits don't conform to the "bad man shoot good boy" novella that transpired all over the TV and internet for a few weeks, but you won't be hearing or reading retractions.

Regardless of your personal beliefs on the subject, it is unequivocally true that the media outlets in this country--television, radio, electronic, national, local, etc.-- purposefully and intentionally sensationalized this tragedy for one reason: money. This is not to say that the intentions of the protesters and family members weren't sincere, but rather that the coverage was so intense and all-encompassing for the sole purpose of profit off of a product. In this case, the product being sold was a story about a poor black child being gunned down by an angry, racist adult male, simply because he was black. It didn't matter that some of the very few facts we have about what happened that night contradicted the veracity of this narrative. The thing about the media is that the stuff they sell doesn't have to be good, or true, or even worthwhile. No, they've got the golden goose--they monopolize our senses, to the point that all they've gotta do is say "hey, look at this," and you're in. You turn on the TV or click the link, and boom, the profit has been made. And guess what--unlike the pair of jeans that ripped as soon as you put them on, or the can of soup that was sold past its expiration date, the s*** they sell can't be returned for a refund.

You're turning the media into a monolith. I'm sorry but Fox news did not entertain the same narrative as Al sharpton. You're writing as though Al Sharpton's behavior exemplifies the media universally. which it doesn't. Fox was continually skeptical of the narrative promoted by MSNBC while the traditional broadcasts generally provided responsible coverage. Hence ABC news publishing this story.

[CatherineM]

I remember the comments after a sensationalized case was ended with a not guilty verdict. The outcry was "was the jury watching the same case we were?" Of course the answer is no. Juries are only allowed to see admissable evidence, not heresay or opinion. Same with watching a case from the media perspective, no matter what the slant is. These cases should be handled and decided by those people tasked with handling the evidence and making the decisions. CSI has turned us all into armchair forensic specialists and criminal attorneys.

[MissScripture]

I remember the comments after a sensationalized case was ended with a not guilty verdict. The outcry was "was the jury watching the same case we were?" Of course the answer is no. Juries are only allowed to see admissable evidence, not heresay or opinion. Same with watching a case from the media perspective, no matter what the slant is. These cases should be handled and decided by those people tasked with handling the evidence and making the decisions. CSI has turned us all into armchair forensic specialists and criminal attorneys.

And Law and Order...

[cmotherofpirl]

You're turning the media into a monolith. I'm sorry but Fox news did not entertain the same narrative as Al sharpton. You're writing as though Al Sharpton's behavior exemplifies the media universally. which it doesn't. Fox was continually skeptical of the narrative promoted by MSNBC while the traditional broadcasts generally provided responsible coverage. Hence ABC news publishing this story.

Yeah Fox News was right all along and if Al Sharpton promotes it, it must not be true.

[ardillacid]

Hasan, do you still think Zimmerman is 'a piece of poo'?

[Hasan]

Hasan, do you still think Zimmerman is 'a piece of poo'?

Should have withheld judgement.

Edited by Hasan, 16 May 2012 - 04:25 PM.

[Hasan]

Yeah Fox News was right all along and if Al Sharpton promotes it, it must not be true.

I wouldn't go that far. This only shows that there was a fight of some sort. Martin wasn't committing a crime and Zimmerman did follow him against the instructions of the 911 operator. There is still a lot that is unknown and you still have a dead teenager.

[dominicansoul]

zimmerman pissed martin off by following him, and martin showed his disapproval with his fists. zimmerman, fearing for his life, shoots martin dead. iono, it doesn't seem fair to me, to provoke a person and then shoot that person when he responds to the provocation... zimmerman shouldn't have messed with him in the first place...make the 911 call, and listen to what the operator tells you, don't make matters worse, dumb arse...

if zimmerman gets off, it won't be without punishment...his life has forever changed... for one thing, he's killed a man...i'm sure nothing is the same after that... plus, he will probably always have to watch his back for the rest of his life...

[ardillacid]

There is a distinct line between a fight and beating someone's skull into the pavement.

Props to you Hassy btw, for your opinion evolving as facts come to light

You're a decent enough fellow, despite what jason says

[regina_coeli]

I'm praying for everyone who was part of these sad events.