Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

[oVo]

Yes, there is a reported dialogue. Of course you don't see anything wrong with editing a 911 call to make it seem racial.

The reported dialogues are between Trayvon Martin with his girlfriend, George Zimmerman with the 911 Operator and Zimmerman with the police at the scene after the shooting. There is no conversation between Zimmerman and Martin in Zimmerman's statement to the police or any other news reports.

You think NBC's edited short from the 911 audio reads as racist? More so than the complete exchange with the 911 Operator?

Nice of CNN to piss in the already muddied waters of this story with an out of context enhanced audio. This continuous BS seems to be ongoing from all media outlets who seem desperate to find something new to report on this story.

[Phatscotty]

Yes, there is a reported dialogue. Of course you don't see anything wrong with editing a 911 call to make it seem racial.

The reported dialogues are between Trayvon Martin with his girlfriend, George Zimmerman with the 911 Operator and Zimmerman with the police at the scene after the shooting. There is no conversation between Zimmerman and Martin in Zimmerman's statement to the police or any other news reports.

You think NBC's edited short from the 911 audio reads as racist? More so than the complete exchange with the 911 Operator?

Nice of CNN to piss in the already muddied waters of this story with an out of context enhanced audio. This continuous BS seems to be ongoing from all media outlets who seem desperate to find something new to report on this story.

What did NBC apologize for then? There is no proof that a racial slur was uttered. Surprisingly, only the people who want to hear the racial slur are the one's who hear it.

[Symmetry]

Yes, there is a reported dialogue. Of course you don't see anything wrong with editing a 911 call to make it seem racial.

The reported dialogues are between Trayvon Martin with his girlfriend, George Zimmerman with the 911 Operator and Zimmerman with the police at the scene after the shooting. There is no conversation between Zimmerman and Martin in Zimmerman's statement to the police or any other news reports.

You think NBC's edited short from the 911 audio reads as racist? More so than the complete exchange with the 911 Operator?

Nice of CNN to piss in the already muddied waters of this story with an out of context enhanced audio. This continuous BS seems to be ongoing from all media outlets who seem desperate to find something new to report on this story.

What did NBC apologize for then? There is no proof that a racial slur was uttered. Surprisingly, only the people who want to hear the racial slur are the one's who hear it.

Hmm, I think he's talking about the "coon" mention in the full piece, while you're talking about the edited CNN reference to him being black.

[bedub1]

And Night Strike knows this has nothing to do with race, because he does.

It technically could have a racial component, but no evidence to that affect has been presented to the public. The uproar has been over the fact that a black teenager was killed by someone who is not black, not because the black teenager was killed for being black.

I think the uproar is an uproar because the media is sensationalist and americans are stupid*

* purely unfounded generalisation.

If you extended that to non-Americans, like Finnish and Brits, then I'd agree that most of them have been excited by the mainstream media and cuz they be stupid.

This is what bugs me the most. Black kid gets killed, time to play the race card. Half white guy get's elected president, gotta play the race card. Give it a rest already. Black guy takes a shit. Gotta play the race card. Black guy get's arrested. Race card.

[Symmetry]

And Night Strike knows this has nothing to do with race, because he does.

It technically could have a racial component, but no evidence to that affect has been presented to the public. The uproar has been over the fact that a black teenager was killed by someone who is not black, not because the black teenager was killed for being black.

I think the uproar is an uproar because the media is sensationalist and americans are stupid*

* purely unfounded generalisation.

If you extended that to non-Americans, like Finnish and Brits, then I'd agree that most of them have been excited by the mainstream media and cuz they be stupid.

This is what bugs me the most. Black kid gets killed, time to play the race card. Half white guy get's elected president, gotta play the race card. Give it a rest already. Black guy takes a shit. Gotta play the race card. Black guy get's arrested. Race card.

How about not playing the race card when a black kid gets killed? Maybe just be upset that a kid got killed? And not be angry about people potentially playing the race card.

Just be angry about the killing, rather than journalists and politicians. Just saying, yaknow, maybe the blame should be more focussed on the killer, and less on a vague sense of "the media".

[Phatscotty]

How about not playing the race card when a black kid gets killed? Maybe just be upset that a kid got killed? And not be angry about people potentially playing the race card.

Just be angry about the killing, rather than journalists and politicians. Just saying, yaknow, maybe the blame should be more focussed on the killer, and less on a vague sense of "the media".

Symm, this entire thread's purpose is to fight against the race card being played. even if they did play the wrong card.

That does not mean we remain silent as the media reports a Hispanic person as a white person, or as the media doctor's audio clips to make the crime sound more racially motivated, or that we remain silent as fucking lynch mobs form in our streets demanding Zimmerman be "put under arrest or else shot in the chest" and celebrities are tweeting the address of Zimmerman and taking the law into their own hands.

Nobody can bring Trayvon back to life, but we can all play a part in preventing media lies turning into even more innocent deaths.

Sadly, the "Trayvon crimes" have already started.


‘Kill That White Man!’ 'This is for Trayvon!': 78-Year Old Man Beaten By 6 Youths in Alleged Racially-Motivated Attack

78-year old Dallas Watts says he was walking home around 4:45 p.m. on Saturday in Toledo, Ohio when a group of six youths, both white and black, nearly beat him to death for the color of his skin.

Watts said he heard one of the group say, “take him down!,” and then, “the next thing I knew, I was sucker punched from the back,” he said. At one point, he was allegedly lifted up by one then “drop kicked” by another, before someone put his foot on Watts’ neck and said “kill him.”

Watts says he appealed to Trayvon Martin’s memory, saying: “Why me? Remember Trayvon! Remember Trayvon!” The group’s response was reportedly along the lines of: “This is for Trayvon … Trayvon lives, white [man]. Kill that white [man].”

For the next four minutes, the group of juveniles punched and kicked Watts, until he nearly passed out. Two customers at the nearby gas station stepped in to help.

“All I could hear before I passed out, [one of the group said] ‘Don’t kill him, or we all go to jail,’” Watts recalled. “If [the customers] had not gotten involved, he would have killed me.”

“I meant [the reference to Trayvon Martin] in a peaceful way,” he continued. “What happened to Trayvon, I was not responsible for, I live 1,000 miles away! But they kept saying, ‘Kill him! Kill Him! Kill him!‘ because I’m a white man.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/kill-th ... ed-attack/

If only we could have prevented these low thinking-animals from being manipulated (by the media, brain-dead celebrities, and even Obama and all the lie-gulping media pawns) sooner. It's also too bad there are so many media pawns defending the media manipulation. The tragedy of Trayvon continues to get worse, and it's all the media's and the media pawns fault.

This mans blood is on their hands, and I'm sure there will be others.

[Symmetry]

Utter crap, Scotty. Utter crap. You're arguing against race being an issue at all in this case. You have done nothing but criticise those who have argued that it might, and your standard is that is has no relevance at all.

Yet you argue that it has relevance.

[kentington]

Everyone forms a conclusion about a person before dialogue. Ever heard of a first impression? It is something you can't get back because everyone forms one even if they aren't biased about race, clothing, or even hair cut.

There is no reported dialogue between Zimmerman and Martin. I don't find NBC's edited version of the call too outrageous, since the entire conversation with the 911 operator was already on TV and in the news. NBC's editing also omits Zimmerman's phrase, "they always get away with it."

Too outrageous? Where do you draw the line? What is the purpose of altering the clip if not to make it sound a certain way? So it is now ok to alter audio evidence and broadcast it as truth because people had access to the truth through other means? Bull.
It doesn't matter if it omits other bad things, they shouldn't be omitting anything without letting people know they are.

Seems to me first impressions usually include conversation before jumping to conclusions.

That is so wrong. If I show up for an interview in pajamas do you think the interviewer is going to wait for some nice conversation before kicking me out? If I walk into a liquor store and keep glancing at the camera and have a hand in my jacket pocket, do you think the owner is going to wait for conversation to be suspicious or afraid? Behavior, posture, and dress are far more important than conversation. Body language says more than conversation. It always has and always will.

[Symmetry]

Everyone forms a conclusion about a person before dialogue. Ever heard of a first impression? It is something you can't get back because everyone forms one even if they aren't biased about race, clothing, or even hair cut.

There is no reported dialogue between Zimmerman and Martin. I don't find NBC's edited version of the call too outrageous, since the entire conversation with the 911 operator was already on TV and in the news. NBC's editing also omits Zimmerman's phrase, "they always get away with it."

Too outrageous? Where do you draw the line? What is the purpose of altering the clip if not to make it sound a certain way? So it is now ok to alter audio evidence and broadcast it as truth because people had access to the truth through other means? Bull.
It doesn't matter if it omits other bad things, they shouldn't be omitting anything without letting people know they are.

Seems to me first impressions usually include conversation before jumping to conclusions.

That is so wrong. If I show up for an interview in pajamas do you think the interviewer is going to wait for some nice conversation before kicking me out? If I walk into a liquor store and keep glancing at the camera and have a hand in my jacket pocket, do you think the owner is going to wait for conversation to be suspicious or afraid? Behavior, posture, and dress are far more important than conversation. Body language says more than conversation. It always has and always will.

They have apologised for it, have they not? I've not seen anyone who felt deceived by them here, so what are you trying to say? Are you asking for another apology? Or perhaps suggesting that someone here was fooled by the item, and you're seeking to disillusion them?

[kentington]

Everyone forms a conclusion about a person before dialogue. Ever heard of a first impression? It is something you can't get back because everyone forms one even if they aren't biased about race, clothing, or even hair cut.

There is no reported dialogue between Zimmerman and Martin. I don't find NBC's edited version of the call too outrageous, since the entire conversation with the 911 operator was already on TV and in the news. NBC's editing also omits Zimmerman's phrase, "they always get away with it."

Too outrageous? Where do you draw the line? What is the purpose of altering the clip if not to make it sound a certain way? So it is now ok to alter audio evidence and broadcast it as truth because people had access to the truth through other means? Bull.
It doesn't matter if it omits other bad things, they shouldn't be omitting anything without letting people know they are.

Seems to me first impressions usually include conversation before jumping to conclusions.

That is so wrong. If I show up for an interview in pajamas do you think the interviewer is going to wait for some nice conversation before kicking me out? If I walk into a liquor store and keep glancing at the camera and have a hand in my jacket pocket, do you think the owner is going to wait for conversation to be suspicious or afraid? Behavior, posture, and dress are far more important than conversation. Body language says more than conversation. It always has and always will.

They have apologised for it, have they not? I've not seen anyone who felt deceived by them here, so what are you trying to say?

Who cares if they apologize. The damage is done the second they air it. Even if they retracted it the next day.
My first post in this was a response to oVo saying that it was more damning as the original clip. I disagreed.
This second was a response to oVo saying that it wasn't too outrageous. My point is that it is outrageous that they altered it. I then asked oVo where to draw the line and what the purpose of altering the clip was if it wasn't meant to alter peoples opinions. I also stated that it doesn't matter if there is a balance between good and bad omissions; there shouldn't be any.

All of this was in my original post with the quote from oVo. I thought my points were pretty clear.

[Symmetry]

Everyone forms a conclusion about a person before dialogue. Ever heard of a first impression? It is something you can't get back because everyone forms one even if they aren't biased about race, clothing, or even hair cut.

There is no reported dialogue between Zimmerman and Martin. I don't find NBC's edited version of the call too outrageous, since the entire conversation with the 911 operator was already on TV and in the news. NBC's editing also omits Zimmerman's phrase, "they always get away with it."

Too outrageous? Where do you draw the line? What is the purpose of altering the clip if not to make it sound a certain way? So it is now ok to alter audio evidence and broadcast it as truth because people had access to the truth through other means? Bull.
It doesn't matter if it omits other bad things, they shouldn't be omitting anything without letting people know they are.

Seems to me first impressions usually include conversation before jumping to conclusions.

That is so wrong. If I show up for an interview in pajamas do you think the interviewer is going to wait for some nice conversation before kicking me out? If I walk into a liquor store and keep glancing at the camera and have a hand in my jacket pocket, do you think the owner is going to wait for conversation to be suspicious or afraid? Behavior, posture, and dress are far more important than conversation. Body language says more than conversation. It always has and always will.

They have apologised for it, have they not? I've not seen anyone who felt deceived by them here, so what are you trying to say?

Who cares if they apologize. The damage is done the second they air it. Even if they retracted it the next day.
My first post in this was a response to oVo saying that it was more damning as the original clip. I disagreed.
This second was a response to oVo saying that it wasn't too outrageous. My point is that it is outrageous that they altered it. I then asked oVo where to draw the line and what the purpose of altering the clip was if it wasn't meant to alter peoples opinions. I also stated that it doesn't matter if there is a balance between good and bad omissions; there shouldn't be any.

All of this was in my original post with the quote from oVo. I thought my points were pretty clear.

What damage? I've not seen any evidence of the "damage" you claim, indeed, I've only seen widespread acceptance of the mistake from posters of all ilks. Can you point me to a poster who has been taken in by this?

[kentington]

What damage? I've not seen any evidence of the "damage" you claim, indeed, I've only seen widespread acceptance of the mistake from posters of all ilks. Can you point me to a poster who has been taken in by this?

I didn't say one of the posters was taken in by this. Or that anyone was, although I am sure there were more than a few who based their views upon what MSNBC said (in the US not CC).
When I say damage I am referring to any attempt at changing a first impression, if someone hears an altered clip first, then their initial view will be different than it should have been. Did it affect people's views in this case? Maybe, maybe not. My point is it is never acceptable to alter audio and produce it as evidence. This is something the media shouldn't be doing; whether it makes him sound racist or like a great guy. When you are reporting a news story you should be presenting facts in whole unless otherwise stated.

[Symmetry]

What damage? I've not seen any evidence of the "damage" you claim, indeed, I've only seen widespread acceptance of the mistake from posters of all ilks. Can you point me to a poster who has been taken in by this?

I didn't say one of the posters was taken in by this. Or that anyone was, although I am sure there were more than a few who based their views upon what MSNBC said (in the US not CC).
When I say damage I am referring to any attempt at changing a first impression, if someone hears an altered clip first, then their initial view will be different than it should have been. Did it affect people's views in this case? Maybe, maybe not. My point is it is never acceptable to alter audio and produce it as evidence. This is something the media shouldn't be doing; whether it makes him sound racist or like a great guy. When you are reporting a news story you should be presenting facts in whole unless otherwise stated.

i guess I'd say that I haven't seen any evidence of this being problem in any way or forms. It seems like it's a manufactured issue, based on unfounded concerns.

[Phatscotty]

Symm? No outrage about the racial beating of a 78 year old man?

Is he the wrong color?

[spurgistan]

People keep mentioning violent acts in which we either don't know the perp or have had legal ramifications for said perp. This case has had neither.

[Phatscotty]

Interesting comments from I don't even know who he is. He is going on about how the media and the president thinks they can use the Trayvon Martin tragedy as a free pass to harass white people.

Which also happens to be the favorite tactic that Saul Alinsky teaaches, which Obama also passionately taught as a professor.

Obama's famous picture shows you Alinsky's "Writing on the wall".

[karel]

dude why do you always have to bring the prez into this...but any who this has not even gone to trial and people want to hang this dude,why dont people just shut up about this until it goes to court,we have not even heard the other side of the story,just 1 side.And you all have found him guilty already....sad

[Phatscotty]

dude why do you always have to bring the prez into this...but any who this has not even gone to trial and people want to hang this dude,why dont people just shut up about this until it goes to court,we have not even heard the other side of the story,just 1 side.And you all have found him guilty already....sad

Karel...............Obama brought the president into this..............



His comments here troubled me a bit. He did okay, but he in no way called for people to "remain calm" or use keywords like "patient" or "wait for the facts" he used some much more mild words, but he should have made sure his message was clear. He encouraged "feelings". He did say "we all (everyone) needs to do some soul searching"(??) But it was his main point, that he prepared a statement to say how Trayvon "LOOKS". Which screams "RACE!!!"

remember, a few weeks ago, the only pictures we knew Trayvon by looked like this (which is also exactly how he looked 8 years ago) Gosh, he really, REALLY, looks just like Obama, doesn't he? Gee whiz Sally, I wonder if the media considered this when they knocked over the first domino. Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh



The media set this up.....all the way baby. It couldn't have happened without the "white"-washing in the early weeks.

[oVo]

Scotty's too busy enjoying a good troll
to read the writing on the chalk bored.

[bedub1]

I was going to create this myself, but I see somebody else has already done it.

[oVo]

It's Good Friday so I guess you can give this a rest. The truth of what occurred that night will probably never be known and with the current lack of evidence will likely never go to trial. There are gaping holes in the story, but I sense the only guilt might be Zimmerman's conscience, if he has one, for needlessly escalating a situation to a tragic end.

Only Zimmerman knows what happened, no witnesses have come forward who actually saw the entire altercation. I still find it suspect that the police report contains no dialogue between Zimmerman/Martin and that a neighborhood watch volunteer created a situation that required the use of deadly force against someone who "looked suspicious," but was not actually committing a crime.

[Phatscotty]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sh ... rman-audio

NBC Fires Producer Who Created False Zimmerman Audio

NBC News has fired the producer it says was responsible for creating the deceptive audio recording of George Zimmerman communicating with a 9-1-1 operator, according to the New York Times.

The network is still refusing to release the name of the producer, although according to Times reporter Brian Stelter, the producer is based in Miami and has worked there for a number of years. According to Stelter's network sources, NBC is still insisting the deceptive edit was not done deliberatiely. The network has refused to say how exactly someone could accidentally have edited the tape to make Zimmerman appear to be racially motivated.

The action came in the wake of an internal investigation by NBC News into the production of the segment, which strung together audio clips in such a way that made George Zimmerman’s shooting of Mr. Martin sound racially motivated. Ever since the Feb. 26 shooting, there has been a continuing debate about whether race was a factor in the incident.

The segment in question was shown on the “Today” show on March 27. It included audio of Mr. Zimmerman saying, “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”

But Mr. Zimmerman’s comments had been taken grossly out of context by NBC. [...]

The editing of the segment was initially noticed by NewsBusters, an arm of the Media Research Center, a conservative media monitoring group. On March 31, NBC told The Washington Post that it would investigate. [...]

The people with direct knowledge of the firing characterized the misleading edit as a mistake, not a purposeful act.

While NBC has taken a good first step toward rectifying the situation, until the network releases the name of the person and explains its theory that the edit was not deliberate, its credibility is still under question.

[kentington]

I was going to create this myself, but I see somebody else has already done it.

Don't want to leave you hanging bedub.
I agree this is also wrong. I think a collection of the most recent photos should be used. At least some photos from their everyday life or something. Also, I hadn't seen that one of Zimmerman. I saw one of him with hair a little bit longer than that in the front. More weight. Red T-shirt and he looked more mexican. Before everyone screams racism, races look different it's not my fault.

[Phatscotty]

How dare anyone look at that and "profile" =him is a gangster? Aren't we supposed to ignore what we see and refrain from making a first impression based on our experience, because there is the possibility our impression might be incorrect? Oh, the horror!

[natty dread]

Apparently, anyone who is black is now a gangster. Thanks for clearing that up, phatso.