It's Watch!... Neighborhood Watch. Not shoot.

imjustagirl · Mar 27, 2012

TowelWaver said:

imjustagirl said:

dreunc1542 said:

The Twitter and Facebook stuff (if they're even him, which they don't appear to be) is such bullshit misdirection. Even if the kid did swear on Twitter and give the finger in photos, why should that make him a target for someone to follow and then shoot?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. But it shows that he's not some baby-faced kid who was singing hymns on his way back to his house. It shows why he might have looked "suspicious." And if someone has been in trouble, it's less of a leap to picture them getting into a confrontation in a situation like that.
Click to expand...

It's a different kid with the same name (linked above in my earlier post).
Click to expand...

No shit, sherlock. The question was "what even if he did these things."

YankeeFan · Mar 27, 2012

Question about the press coverage: did reporters/communists like Lemon, Blow, and Capehart bring, "a certain degree of understanding that comes from minorities, and particularly African-Americans," or did they bring their own biases to the story?

Sharpton clearly jumped on it based on one phone call from a lawyer he'd previously dealt with.

But, were Blow and Capehart objective?

“On this story, there is a certain degree of understanding that comes from minorities, and particularly African-Americans, just because we’ve lived it,” said Don Lemon, a CNN weekend anchor who has covered the case extensively for the last two weekends. He recalled that in a planning meeting for his program, one of his producers, a black mother of two teenage boys, was “almost in tears” as she said, “We’ve got to do something on this story.”

As the case was catapulted onto the national agenda and calls for Mr. Zimmerman’s arrest increased, prominent black journalists and commentators wrote about it in highly personal terms. “This is the fear that seizes me whenever my boys are out in the world: that a man with a gun and an itchy finger will find them ‘suspicious,’ ” Charles M. Blow of The New York Times wrote on March 17.

A day later, Jonathan Capehart of The Washington Post wrote of the rules he was taught as a teenager: “Don’t run in public,” “Don’t run while carrying anything in your hands,” “Don’t talk back to the police.”

...

Some reporters and anchors, like Mr. Lemon and Mr. Blow, said they were urged by their followers on Facebook and Twitter to find out about the shooting — evidence of the effect that the Web can have on news coverage. “People started sending me tweets saying, ‘What are you going to say about this case?’ ” Mr. Blow recalled.

He then looked up local stories about it, contacted Mr. Crump, and arranged for an interview with Trayvon’s mother, Sybrina Fulton. “They were very open to talking, and that was very important,” he said.

On television, the family spoke early and often to the Rev. Al Sharpton, the civil rights activist who has radio shows and an MSNBC television show. He was made aware of the shooting by Mr. Crump, who had previously enlisted Mr. Sharpton to speak out against the death of a Florida boy at a boot camp in 2006.

“The attorney called and said, ‘I need you again,’ ” Mr. Sharpton recalled in a telephone interview from Florida, where he staged a rally Thursday night to call for justice. He took his radio and TV shows with him, thereby amplifying his call.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/business/media/for-martins-case-a-long-route-to-national-attention.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all
Click to expand...

Azrael · Mar 27, 2012

Why would either be objective? They're columnists, are they not?

Azrael · Mar 27, 2012

Also.

Paging Dr. Freud.

YankeeFan said:

Question about the press coverage: did reporters/communists like Lemon, Blow, and Capehart bring, "a certain degree of understanding that comes from minorities, and particularly African-Americans," or did they bring their own biases to the story?
Click to expand...

imjustagirl · Mar 27, 2012

dreunc1542 said:

imjustagirl said:

dreunc1542 said:

The Twitter and Facebook stuff (if they're even him, which they don't appear to be) is such bullshit misdirection. Even if the kid did swear on Twitter and give the finger in photos, why should that make him a target for someone to follow and then shoot?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. But it shows that he's not some baby-faced kid who was singing hymns on his way back to his house. It shows why he might have looked "suspicious." And if someone has been in trouble, it's less of a leap to picture them getting into a confrontation in a situation like that.
Click to expand...

How exactly would that make him more likely to look suspicious? How does giving the finger (even though that's not even the same person) make one more likely to be/look suspicious?
Click to expand...

Seriously? Picture someone giving the finger. Picture that person in every day life. Are they sunshine and lollipops? Or do they skulk around?

YankeeFan · Mar 27, 2012

Azrael said:

Why would either be objective? They're columnists, are they not?
Click to expand...

Maybe "objective" isn't the right word.

Were they fair? Were they "played"? Were they too quick to take one side of a story, when they didn't have all the facts?

Did they try to find out the "other" side of the story before presenting Trayvon's family's lawyer's side?

dreunc1542 · Mar 27, 2012

YankeeFan said:

Question about the press coverage: did reporters/communists like Lemon, Blow, and Capehart bring, "a certain degree of understanding that comes from minorities, and particularly African-Americans," or did they bring their own biases to the story?

Sharpton clearly jumped on it based on one phone call from a lawyer he'd previously dealt with.

But, were Blow and Capehart objective?

“On this story, there is a certain degree of understanding that comes from minorities, and particularly African-Americans, just because we’ve lived it,” said Don Lemon, a CNN weekend anchor who has covered the case extensively for the last two weekends. He recalled that in a planning meeting for his program, one of his producers, a black mother of two teenage boys, was “almost in tears” as she said, “We’ve got to do something on this story.”

As the case was catapulted onto the national agenda and calls for Mr. Zimmerman’s arrest increased, prominent black journalists and commentators wrote about it in highly personal terms. “This is the fear that seizes me whenever my boys are out in the world: that a man with a gun and an itchy finger will find them ‘suspicious,’ ” Charles M. Blow of The New York Times wrote on March 17.

A day later, Jonathan Capehart of The Washington Post wrote of the rules he was taught as a teenager: “Don’t run in public,” “Don’t run while carrying anything in your hands,” “Don’t talk back to the police.”

...

Some reporters and anchors, like Mr. Lemon and Mr. Blow, said they were urged by their followers on Facebook and Twitter to find out about the shooting — evidence of the effect that the Web can have on news coverage. “People started sending me tweets saying, ‘What are you going to say about this case?’ ” Mr. Blow recalled.

He then looked up local stories about it, contacted Mr. Crump, and arranged for an interview with Trayvon’s mother, Sybrina Fulton. “They were very open to talking, and that was very important,” he said.

On television, the family spoke early and often to the Rev. Al Sharpton, the civil rights activist who has radio shows and an MSNBC television show. He was made aware of the shooting by Mr. Crump, who had previously enlisted Mr. Sharpton to speak out against the death of a Florida boy at a boot camp in 2006.

“The attorney called and said, ‘I need you again,’ ” Mr. Sharpton recalled in a telephone interview from Florida, where he staged a rally Thursday night to call for justice. He took his radio and TV shows with him, thereby amplifying his call.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/business/media/for-martins-case-a-long-route-to-national-attention.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

A) Communists?

B) This has been discussed plenty on this site, but the idea of "objectivity" as people want it to exist doesn't. People bring their biases into every story. That their experiences give them more of an understanding of this kind of situation should be seen as helpful, not harmful to the coverage.

Azrael · Mar 27, 2012

imjustagirl said:

dreunc1542 said:

imjustagirl said:

dreunc1542 said:

The Twitter and Facebook stuff (if they're even him, which they don't appear to be) is such bullshit misdirection. Even if the kid did swear on Twitter and give the finger in photos, why should that make him a target for someone to follow and then shoot?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. But it shows that he's not some baby-faced kid who was singing hymns on his way back to his house. It shows why he might have looked "suspicious." And if someone has been in trouble, it's less of a leap to picture them getting into a confrontation in a situation like that.
Click to expand...

How exactly would that make him more likely to look suspicious? How does giving the finger (even though that's not even the same person) make one more likely to be/look suspicious?
Click to expand...

Seriously? Picture someone giving the finger. Picture that person in every day life. Are they sunshine and lollipops? Or do they skulk around?
Click to expand...

Are you exactly like your online persona?

Boom_70 · Mar 27, 2012

Azrael said:

Boom_70 said:

Azrael said:

Way more than 2 versions here.

Let's not forget that Martin lay in the morgue for 3 days because the cops never bothered to ID him. Or that Zimmerman has been allowed to go into hiding.

The Sanford cops play a very big and awkward role in this.
Click to expand...

Az - pretty sure that I read that Mr Martin IDed his son on Monday morning so original stories were not correct.
Click to expand...

If you find a citation, please share it. Everything I see continues to put the ID at 72 hours or so. Thanks.
Click to expand...

It was in Charles Blow column that brought story to national spotlight:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/opinion/blow-the-curious-case-of-trayvon-martin.html

"That was Feb. 27, one day after Trayvon was shot. The father thought that he was missing, according to the family’s lawyer, Benjamin Crump, but the boy’s body had actually been taken to the medical examiner’s office and listed as a John Doe.

The father called the Missing Persons Unit. No luck. Then he called 911. The police asked the father to describe the boy, after which they sent officers to the house where the father was staying. There they showed him a picture of the boy with blood coming out of his mouth. "

dreunc1542 · Mar 27, 2012

imjustagirl said:

dreunc1542 said:

imjustagirl said:

dreunc1542 said:

The Twitter and Facebook stuff (if they're even him, which they don't appear to be) is such bullshit misdirection. Even if the kid did swear on Twitter and give the finger in photos, why should that make him a target for someone to follow and then shoot?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. But it shows that he's not some baby-faced kid who was singing hymns on his way back to his house. It shows why he might have looked "suspicious." And if someone has been in trouble, it's less of a leap to picture them getting into a confrontation in a situation like that.
Click to expand...

How exactly would that make him more likely to look suspicious? How does giving the finger (even though that's not even the same person) make one more likely to be/look suspicious?
Click to expand...

Seriously? Picture someone giving the finger. Picture that person in every day life. Are they sunshine and lollipops? Or do they skulk around?
Click to expand...

So skulking around makes someone suspicious? And even so, how can you tell just from looking at someone (who you're not standing close to, as Zimmerman didn't seem to be at first) that they're skulking?

deskslave · Mar 27, 2012

imjustagirl said:

dreunc1542 said:

imjustagirl said:

dreunc1542 said:

The Twitter and Facebook stuff (if they're even him, which they don't appear to be) is such bullshit misdirection. Even if the kid did swear on Twitter and give the finger in photos, why should that make him a target for someone to follow and then shoot?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. But it shows that he's not some baby-faced kid who was singing hymns on his way back to his house. It shows why he might have looked "suspicious." And if someone has been in trouble, it's less of a leap to picture them getting into a confrontation in a situation like that.
Click to expand...

How exactly would that make him more likely to look suspicious? How does giving the finger (even though that's not even the same person) make one more likely to be/look suspicious?
Click to expand...

Seriously? Picture someone giving the finger. Picture that person in every day life. Are they sunshine and lollipops? Or do they skulk around?
Click to expand...

The purpose of that picture is beyond clear. It was used to show that he wasn't a fine upstanding young man, but rather just a ...

This is a somewhat more overt example of the same sort of racism that says "well, if you'd pull your damn pants up, people wouldn't think ill of you." Suffice it to say the pants are merely a stand-in.

Azrael · Mar 27, 2012

Boom_70 said:

Azrael said:

Boom_70 said:

Azrael said:

Way more than 2 versions here.

Let's not forget that Martin lay in the morgue for 3 days because the cops never bothered to ID him. Or that Zimmerman has been allowed to go into hiding.

The Sanford cops play a very big and awkward role in this.
Click to expand...

Az - pretty sure that I read that Mr Martin IDed his son on Monday morning so original stories were not correct.
Click to expand...

If you find a citation, please share it. Everything I see continues to put the ID at 72 hours or so. Thanks.
Click to expand...

It was in Charles Blow column that brought story to national spotlight:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/opinion/blow-the-curious-case-of-trayvon-martin.html

"That was Feb. 27, one day after Trayvon was shot. The father thought that he was missing, according to the family’s lawyer, Benjamin Crump, but the boy’s body had actually been taken to the medical examiner’s office and listed as a John Doe.

The father called the Missing Persons Unit. No luck. Then he called 911. The police asked the father to describe the boy, after which they sent officers to the house where the father was staying. There they showed him a picture of the boy with blood coming out of his mouth. "
Click to expand...

Interesting. Only place I've seen it.

Blow also mentions Zimmerman's 2005 assault arrest. I wonder where he got this stuff, and how accurate his source is.

Log in or Sign up

It's Watch!... Neighborhood Watch. Not shoot.

imjustagirl Active Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Azrael Well-Known Member

Azrael Well-Known Member

imjustagirl Active Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

dreunc1542 Active Member

Azrael Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

dreunc1542 Active Member

deskslave Active Member

Azrael Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

It's Watch!... Neighborhood Watch. Not shoot.

imjustagirl Active Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Azrael Well-Known Member

Azrael Well-Known Member

imjustagirl Active Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

dreunc1542 Active Member

Azrael Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

dreunc1542 Active Member

deskslave Active Member

Azrael Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches