HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why does the media want Z...

Fri May 18, 2012, 04:36 AM

Why does the media want Zimmerman to be found not guilty?

Why does the media want Zimmerman to be found not guilty?

52 replies, 4978 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 52 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why does the media want Zimmerman to be found not guilty? (Original post)
brettdale May 2012 OP
I owe a May 2012 #1
MrSlayer May 2012 #2
dkf May 2012 #4
pinboy3niner May 2012 #5
dkf May 2012 #6
sendero May 2012 #7
KansDem May 2012 #22
pinboy3niner May 2012 #8
randome May 2012 #9
pinboy3niner May 2012 #11
randome May 2012 #24
dkf May 2012 #28
pinboy3niner May 2012 #33
dkf May 2012 #37
pinboy3niner May 2012 #41
frylock May 2012 #51
TBF May 2012 #18
randome May 2012 #26
TBF May 2012 #42
randome May 2012 #44
Yavin4 May 2012 #27
dkf May 2012 #29
TBF May 2012 #43
Junkdrawer May 2012 #3
randome May 2012 #10
SDjack May 2012 #12
Arkana May 2012 #20
razorman May 2012 #21
dkf May 2012 #30
razorman May 2012 #38
spanone May 2012 #13
Iggo May 2012 #14
ScreamingMeemie May 2012 #17
razorman May 2012 #32
DonCoquixote May 2012 #15
leveymg May 2012 #16
TBF May 2012 #19
Blue_Tires May 2012 #25
Blue_Tires May 2012 #23
leveymg May 2012 #34
Blue_Tires May 2012 #40
EFerrari May 2012 #48
slackmaster May 2012 #31
leveymg May 2012 #35
slackmaster May 2012 #36
leveymg May 2012 #39
slackmaster May 2012 #46
ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #45
leveymg May 2012 #49
ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #50
leveymg May 2012 #52
coalition_unwilling May 2012 #47

Response to brettdale (Original post)

Fri May 18, 2012, 04:49 AM

1. hmmm

 

it proves Jesus rode a dinosaur?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brettdale (Original post)

Fri May 18, 2012, 05:03 AM

2. Do you get that sense?

 

I don't know that I do. I have only seen one tv report on it amazingly and it seemed fair. I still see it as a 50/50 situation in court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #2)

Fri May 18, 2012, 05:23 AM

4. If the defense can get the witnesses to testify that was Zimmerman screaming

 

I think it will be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not in fear of his life.

I guess the prosecution will have to prove Zimmerman illegally profiled Martin and therefore has no right to self defense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #4)

Fri May 18, 2012, 05:39 AM

5. We already know of an eyewitness who says it was Trayvon was screaming for help

The prosecution has more avenues than the one you suggest. They don't "have" to prove your point.

As much as you may try to constrain them, they have far more latitude than you suggest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #5)

Fri May 18, 2012, 05:44 AM

6. The two in the released info both said it was Zimmerman.

 

In the articles I've seen, there isn't a witness saying it was Martin. Martin's parents lawyers are relying on "ear witnesses" who say they thought it was a young person screaming, but I would think eye witnesses are better for ID.

Also Tracy Martin didn't ID the voice as being his son.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #6)

Fri May 18, 2012, 05:59 AM

7. Electronically..

.... I'm 99% sure it is ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE to determine who was screaming.

And personally, as I have said all along, the entire case hinges on that fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #7)

Fri May 18, 2012, 08:33 AM

22. I tend to agree...

...the entire case hinges on that fact.

Voice prints and filtering techniques have been around for decades. I'm surprised the media hasn't been reporting extensively on this, perhaps offering reports on past cases that were solved using this technology.

I know it was fiction but I was intrigued with the plot from "The Conversation" (1974) with Gene Hackman and how he was able to electronically manipulate a recorded conversation so that he could hear the words clearly that were originally muddled by distracting noise. Fiction? Yes, but the movie was made 38 years ago and I doubt if it strayed too far from what could have been done at the time.

And that was 38 years ago.

I tend to believe both sides of the Z-Man case know who it really was, but won't say in fear of tainting their trail strategies...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #6)

Fri May 18, 2012, 06:03 AM

8. Perhaps you haven't been following closely...


By the CNN Wire Staff
updated 1:07 AM EDT, Sat April 7, 2012

...


Who yelled for help?

...


"From the very beginning and I still do feel that it was the young boy," the witness, who wants to remain anonymous, told CNN Friday.

The witness lives in the apartment complex where the shooting occurred and saw the incident through her window.

...


When pressed if she could determine who was yelling, the witness said "it was the younger, youthful voice (rather) than it was the deep voice I heard when they were arguing."

...


http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/07/us/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t3



The video of this CNN interview is here:
http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/04/07/ac-trayvon-martin-eyewitness.cnn


This has been posted here multiple times. Strange that you missed it...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #8)

Fri May 18, 2012, 06:09 AM

9. "...I still do feel..."

 

That's not going to work at trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #9)

Fri May 18, 2012, 06:21 AM

11. Thanks for your concern...

...but her eyewitness testimony on the witness stand is what will count, not her phrasing in a media interview.

How can you tell that her testimony won't "work at trial" when the trial hasn't begun and she hasn't yet testified?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #11)

Fri May 18, 2012, 08:41 AM

24. Just going by her statement so far.

 

Even at trial, a good defense attorney will quote that statement to give doubt to the jury.

Zimmerman is going to get manslaughter at best. It's sad but that's how this is shaping up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #8)

Fri May 18, 2012, 08:53 AM

28. That isn't listed as part of the evidence released.

 

Why is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #28)

Fri May 18, 2012, 09:04 AM

33. Better question...

Why is it that, from the get-go, you have insisted on defending Zimmerman?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #33)

Fri May 18, 2012, 09:15 AM

37. That is where the explanations of interpretation of the law are leading me.

 

If the law said what he did was manslaughter I would be arguing for that.

I am viewing this case as if I was on a jury.

Also, the recently released evidence seems to support Zimmerman's account which goes to his credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #37)

Fri May 18, 2012, 09:33 AM

41. You glom onto anything pro-Z, and profess to be ignorant about any pro-Trayvon points

Like this interview, which has been posted here multiple times. Why is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #6)

Fri May 18, 2012, 11:35 AM

51. independant voice analysis has already determined the screaming wasn't from zimmerman

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #4)

Fri May 18, 2012, 08:02 AM

18. Your Zimmerman is an adult who was stalking an unarmed child.

Spin, spin, spin ... but you can not change that fact. If he had stayed in his vehicle like 911 told him to none of this would've happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #18)

Fri May 18, 2012, 08:43 AM

26. None of which is illegal.

 

At least not from the standpoint of a murder charge.

Not staying in his vehicle is not a crime.

Hopefully, causing a kid's death will still be viewed as a crime and Zimmerman will get at least manslaughter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #26)

Fri May 18, 2012, 09:35 AM

42. There are stalking laws and hate crime laws -

I hope you're prepared for the riots if this is manslaughter or less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #42)

Fri May 18, 2012, 09:37 AM

44. Manslaughter or not, Zimmerman will be in fear of his own life for some time to come.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #4)

Fri May 18, 2012, 08:47 AM

27. How Can You Claim Self-Defense When You Started The Fight?

Please explain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #27)

Fri May 18, 2012, 08:54 AM

29. He claims Martin started the fight. That is what the prosecution needs to prove.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #29)

Fri May 18, 2012, 09:36 AM

43. Martin was walking home with his iced tea and skittles. He didn't start crap. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brettdale (Original post)

Fri May 18, 2012, 05:09 AM

3. Tempering the reaction to the inevitable verdict....

Between police foul ups, the prosecution's unwillingness to look in to official misconduct, and the nature of the district where the trial will be held, I don't see much hope for a conviction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brettdale (Original post)

Fri May 18, 2012, 06:11 AM

10. It's a more interesting story?

 

From the standpoint of reporting on something that viewers will want to hear more and more about if only to be outraged.

But I don't think the media has been that biased in this case so far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brettdale (Original post)

Fri May 18, 2012, 07:29 AM

12. If Zimmie is found "not guilty", that will encourage more SYG killings,

and those stories increase sales of newspapers and TV time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SDjack (Reply #12)

Fri May 18, 2012, 08:05 AM

20. If Zimmerman is found not guilty, it's going to be like the jury

found OJ Simpson not guilty.

Legally he was exonerated, but everyone will know he did it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SDjack (Reply #12)

Fri May 18, 2012, 08:33 AM

21. I don't think they are even using SYG as a defense, are they?

When this incident first came to light, there was talk of 'Stand Your Ground' as a factor, but I haven't actually heard of it being officially used. I could be wrong, though. Does it really have any bearing here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to razorman (Reply #21)

Fri May 18, 2012, 08:55 AM

30. There is to be a hearing on SYG from what I understand.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #30)

Fri May 18, 2012, 09:18 AM

38. I see. Sounds like the defense may not have decided whether SYG is useful to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brettdale (Original post)

Fri May 18, 2012, 07:31 AM

13. i do not consider faux as part of the media

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brettdale (Original post)

Fri May 18, 2012, 07:36 AM

14. Because riots make for great video.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggo (Reply #14)

Fri May 18, 2012, 08:01 AM

17. +1

I really believe they know they are attempting to stoke the flames.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggo (Reply #14)

Fri May 18, 2012, 08:55 AM

32. There may be riots either way.

I am concerned that the Martin/Zimmerman incident might inflame the already-touchy relations between the African-American and Hispanic communities in Florida. No matter which way the verdict goes, one group or the other will likely feel cheated. I just hope it doesn't lead to violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brettdale (Original post)

Fri May 18, 2012, 07:36 AM

15. Blood = Gold

It's why the media has done nothing to slow down the war machine. No offense meant to Jews, Armenians, or any other genocide victims, but if the media found way to make money off of concentration camps, they would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brettdale (Original post)

Fri May 18, 2012, 07:57 AM

16. 1) maintenance of class/race relations; 2) social violence has entertainment value

That can only happen on terms acceptable to a conservative institution, such as corporate-owned media, if white men with guns are allowed to continue shooting black youths in hoodies with impunity.

Armed vigilantes, such as Zimmerman, are characters in an eternal morality play that is supposed to teach us lowly consumers of TV news how to maintain our proper place in society - that includes obedience to men with guns. Note the central role of ABC in releasing exculpatory evidence. A conviction would undermine that narrative, and might deter future spontaneous violence against lower-class Black youths. Programmed acts of social violence not only "sells newspapers", it keeps money and power in the hands of the One Percent, and many reporters seem to relish working these racially-tinged crime stories to death. Look at the OJ Simpson spectacle.

As for race/class, and the role of individuals that's become more complex, and more difficult to handle in recent decades. There is still racial avarice at work in this narrative ("F-cking coons), but it is no longer acceptable to attack an adult black man wearing a suit or in uniform, as it was in the '50s in many parts of the US. There's a reason that Obama is rarely seen in public without his trademark power suit. That signifies his elevated status as a non-target, which maintains the existing power structure, despite his race.

I know that's very dry and academic, but it's also the answer that fits your question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #16)

Fri May 18, 2012, 08:03 AM

19. +1 -

it may be dry and academic but it's also the correct answer imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #16)

Fri May 18, 2012, 08:41 AM

25. You're probably closer to the bullseye than you think

good insight...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brettdale (Original post)

Fri May 18, 2012, 08:40 AM

23. I'm way 'out there' on this and am probably wrong, but

I think at least some of the higher-up media execs want to troll the president...Once he gave an opinion on this, it was open season...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #23)

Fri May 18, 2012, 09:05 AM

34. The President and the media execs work for the same power structure.

Any "trolling" would be superficial turf-marking - little more meaningful than dogs peeing on trees.

One second thought, perhaps you are right. The takedown of Murdoch is a significant event (even though the authorities seem to be publicly ignoring the larger crimes of Murdoch and NewsCorp -- political influence-buying in the UK, Australia and US as a corporate agent of Saudi Arabia and its chief propagandist in the west).

But, I don't really think this is so much directed at Obama as it is a way to reaffirm the traditional narrative of social control over poor minorities. Can't allow a heroic "Neighborhood Watch Captain" to be fed to the rabble. Better to uphold him as a National Hero and protector of all that is good and safe in Florida.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #34)

Fri May 18, 2012, 09:31 AM

40. yeah, i liked yours better

Last edited Fri May 18, 2012, 10:12 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #34)

Fri May 18, 2012, 09:58 AM

48. Researching his book about the Americian media

which spans from the pre-history of the country to today, Juan Gonzalez found that the media has always taken a leading role in reaffirming the narrative of social control over poor minorities, even to the point of organizing violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brettdale (Original post)

Fri May 18, 2012, 08:55 AM

31. Bogus premise. The media don't give a flying fuck about that. The media exist to make money.

 

They want to sell advertising space so that other companies can sell shit. They'll respond to ANY outcome of the case in whatever manner they believe will make them the most money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #31)

Fri May 18, 2012, 09:06 AM

35. I disagree with that. The corporate media have an ideology and agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #35)

Fri May 18, 2012, 09:08 AM

36. Every person and every organization have those. The difference is that the main purpose of...

 

...a for-profit enterprise is to make money.

They media will publish things that run counter to the politics of their masters when it suits them. That's why people like Rachel Maddow can get long-running shows at the most prime times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #36)

Fri May 18, 2012, 09:19 AM

39. MSNBC also creates boundaries and frames, and Keith couldn't stay within them, so he's gone.

I don't think that Rachel runs counter to the acceptable lines of political discourse in America today. She helps define them for one market segment. The fact that she's still working, and won't touch certain subjects, should tell you that.

If it were all about ratings, Olbermann would still be on Countdown five nights each week.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #39)

Fri May 18, 2012, 09:43 AM

46. Keith has behavior issues. Rachel's behavior is almost always impeccable. She is free to say...

 

...exactly what she believes.

I believe that if significant restrictions were put on what she could say, she would quit.

If it were all about ratings, Olbermann would still be on Countdown five nights each week.

Sometimes working with a person becomes so much of a PITA that bosses just can't take it any more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brettdale (Original post)

Fri May 18, 2012, 09:38 AM

45. Its all about the benjamins...not an agenda

The media needs to get you to read their site, buy their papers, etc. I don't think there is a real agenda here so much as a drive for sensationalism to make profits. For example, every media outlet yesterday and today are doing Donna Summers retrospectives. Tomorrow it will be the next shiny thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #45)

Fri May 18, 2012, 10:14 AM

49. Can't keep making money if you don't maintain social control. That requires violence, and lots of

it in a country with the diversity and growing inequality of America, today. The agenda is property, and those with most of it holding onto what they have by any means necessary. Always has been.

You're trying to deny the obvious, I'm afraid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #49)

Fri May 18, 2012, 10:18 AM

50. The ability for just about anyone to publish these days took a serious whack out of big media

control and profits. That "property" has lost a lot of its clout

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #50)

Fri May 18, 2012, 06:32 PM

52. Unfortunately, the increasing number of guns and police powers more than compensate.

Shift from soft to use of hard power domestically is a leading indicator of our loss of world power and the breakdown of gov't legitimacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brettdale (Original post)

Fri May 18, 2012, 09:48 AM

47. Does "the media" want Zimmerman to be found not guilty? I refuse to

 

watch or read MSM after Operation Shocking and Awful (other than rare link outs from DU or DailyKos), so I honestly have very little idea how MSM is spinning the story.

This is the self-same MSM that pretty much signed on wholesale (McClatchy chain excepted) to the idea of WMD in Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread