Journalistic Malpractice

The thing that has struck me most about the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman shooting is the media’s incredible incompetence covering this story. Among the inaccuracies: physical descriptions of the two. The media published a photo of Martin in middle school rather than a recent photo. Initial reports were that Zimmerman outweighed Martin by 100 pounds. Actually, the difference was closer to 20 pounds and Martin was taller than Zimmerman.

Zimmerman was repeatedly described as white when he’s actually Hispanic. Some media outlets chose to use the phrase “white Hispanic” for the first time in their editorial history.

It was reported on CNN that Zimmerman was heard describing Martin as a “f***ing coon.” But later enhancement of the audio showed that Zimmerman was actually commenting on the unseasonably cold Florida weather, saying “f***ing cold.” CNN has since retracted their allegation of a racial slur.

Zimmerman’s claim that he was assaulted and injured by Martin, a claim supported by an eyewitness, was dismissed by media as false following the release of video of Zimmerman being taken to police HQ. However, the enhanced versions of the video clearly show lacerations on the back of Zimmerman’s head.

Most recently, the left-wing blogosphere and other media are reporting that armed neo-Nazis are patrolling the town of Sanford, Fla., in case of racial violence against whites. The Sanford police department flatly denies that this is the case.

Martin’s background has been largely ignored. For example, the non-resident was in Sanford because he was under a 10-day suspension from his high school. What does a student have to do to earn a 10-day suspension? He was also known to police for drug offenses and possession of stolen property.

All this can be explained, if not excused, as nothing more sinister than incompetence and badly trained journalists operating under deadline pressure who failed to double source.

Then there is the case of NBC airing an edited version of Zimmerman’s phone call to police concerning Martin. According the version aired on the “Today Show,” here’s what Zimmerman told the police dispatcher:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

Pretty cut and dried; Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin.

The problem is that that’s not what Zimmerman actually said, as the unedited tape shows:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

After the discrepancy was revealed on Breitbart.com and Newsbusters.org, NBC launched an internal investigation. NBC News President Steve Capus told the British wire service Reuters that the selective editing was,  "a mistake and not a deliberate act to misrepresent the phone call," on the part of a “seasoned” producer. NBC apologized and fired the “seasoned” producer responsible.

Capus claimed that the editing was simply made to fit time constraints, not change the context.

Hogwash!

I spent too many years in editing bays to believe that. It was not an accident; it was not sloppy editing. The editor had to have known what he was doing and recognized that he was changing the entire tone of the audio. It was done to fit the narrative that George Zimmerman was a racist profiling African-American kids to gun down.

I see no other rational explanation.

The facts of the case are still largely unknown. A grand jury is investigating and federal agencies are looking into the case. It may well turn out that Zimmerman is a rabid racist as guilty as Cain of killing Able. It may also turn out that Martin was a thug who assaulted Zimmerman. We just don’t know at this point.

What is known is that Zimmerman shot Martin dead. We also know that the media’s handling of the story is disgraceful.

What Media Bias?

Remember the media coverage falsely accusing Tea Partiers of spitting on African-American Congressmen and hurling the "N" word at them? So do I.

Remember the media making claims of violence at Tea Party rallies that never happened? So do I.

Remember the media claiming the Gifford's shooting was somehow linked to conservatives in general and Sarah Palin in particular when the shooter was actually a deranged Bush-hating, anti-war lefty? So do I.

Remember the media coverage of numerous and credible death threats against Wisconsin Republican lawmakers? No, neither did I.

Even some of those on the left are starting to notice.

What Media Bias?

For those who still deny there is a left-wing bias in the mainstream media, I ask that they take a look at today's Los Angeles Times. The following appeared in its corrections section:

Ashcroft ruling: An article on Saturday’s Page A1 about a federal appeals court ruling involving former Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft inaccurately described the breadth of the court’s decision and mischaracterized some elements of the case. The 2-1 ruling by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday held that Ashcroft could be sued personally for allegedly violating the constitutional rights of a Muslim man, Abdullah Kidd, who was detained after the Sept. 11 attacks. The opening paragraph of the article incorrectly said that the court held that Ashcroft had “violated the rights of U.S. citizens.” The appeals court did not decide that question. Instead, the judges ruled that Ashcroft could be held personally liable if Kidd’s allegations proved true. They sent the case back to a lower court for a trial to determine whether the allegations were accurate.

The allegations involve Kidd’s arrest under a federal law that allows officials to detain witnesses in criminal cases whose testimony is needed and who might otherwise flee before a trial. Kidd alleges that Ashcroft adopted a policy that authorized officials to deliberately misuse the material-witness law to detain people the government lacked probable cause to arrest. The court ruled that such a policy — if it existed — would violate the Constitution.

The article also compared the alleged material-witness arrests to another Bush administration anti-terrorism policy, the seizure of suspects outside the U.S., and in doing so referred to both types of arrests as “secret.” Kidd’s arrest and detention were not secret. The article quoted one portion of the ruling, which sharply criticized those who “confidently assert” that the government has the power to detain people on material-witness warrants, but it incorrectly attributed the quotation to “the panel,” rather than to the two judges in the majority. Moreover, the article described the judges as having aimed their criticism at the Bush administration’s policies. Although that was the clear implication of the judges’ words, they never directly named the targets of their criticism, and the article should have made clear that the criticism of the administration was implied, not stated.

Finally, the article quoted two constitutional scholars as praising the ruling, but failed to note that both of them had previously been on record as criticizing Bush administration policies in the area of civil liberties. The article should have included a broader range of reaction to the decision.

While I give credit to the Times for admitting its error and printing a correction, I hope the editors will take a close look at reporter Carol Williams, who wrote the original piece. She is either incompetent or guilty of intentionally writing a dishonest story. She brought dishonor on the journalism profession and a once-great newspaper.

ABC’s Chief Washington Correspondent in Democrats’ Pocket

With each passing day, the mainstream media is dropping all pretence of objectivity or fairness. The latest example is former Democrat-operative-turned-journalist George Stephanopoulos, ABC’s chief Washington correspondent and host of the Sunday news program “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.”

The Politico blog last week revealed that Stephanopoulos has daily phone discussions with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Democrat strategist James Carville and another former Democrat-operative-turned-journalist Paul Begala of CNN.

At the very least, there is the appearance of impropriety on the part of Stephanopoulos. This is a clear violation of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. Among those tenants are:

Journalists should:

— Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.

The Media Research Center, a watchdog group, has written an open letter to ABC President David Westin asking that the network publicly address and resolve this issue. So far, both Westin and Stephanopolous have responded with silence.

It is no wonder why the mainstream media is losing viewers and readers. The public no longer trusts them, nor do they deserve to be trusted.

Gateway Pundit: Guilty!... NBC Bans Ann Coulter FOR LIFE

It’s amazing how one slender woman can so frighten a media giant. Gateway Pundit: Guilty!... NBC Bans Ann Coulter FOR LIFE

Media Hypocrisy: Caroline Kennedy vs. Sarah Palin

Anyone who still denies a liberal bias in mainstream media is either delusional or simply dishonest. An article by Victor Davis Hanson compares the media's coverage of Sarah Palin and Caroline Kennedy.