Did ABC News Deceptively Edit Zimmerman Juror’s Controversial Interview? An Unlikely Source Is Calling Them Out
ABC News is being accused of
deceptively editing, or at least misrepresenting (intentionally or not),
some of the comments made by Juror B29, the lone “nonwhite” juror in
the George Zimmerman murder trial. Further, the media as a whole are
being accused of manipulating some of her statements.
These allegations come not from a conservative news source, but rather from Slate.com.
The key phrase latched onto by most
media outlets, due to its sensational nature, was “George Zimmerman got
away with murder” — words that were, in fact, said by Juror B29. But the
full unedited video of the comment, in context, tells a different
story, claims Slate’s William Saletan.
Here’s his case (emphasis added):
ABC News hasn’t posted a
full unedited video or transcript of the interview. The video that has
been broadcast—on World News Tonight, Nightline, and Good Morning
America—has been cut and spliced in different ways, often so
artfully that the transitions appear continuous. So beware what you’re
seeing. But the video that’s available already shows, on closer inspection, that Maddy has been manipulated and misrepresented. Here are the key points.
[...]
The phrase “got away with murder” was
put in her mouth. Nightline shows ABC interviewer Robin Roberts asking
Maddy: “Some people have said, ‘George Zimmerman got away with murder.
How do you respond to those people who say that?’ ” Maddy appears to
reply promptly and confidently: “George Zimmerman got away with murder.
But you can’t get away from God.” But that’s not quite how the exchange
happened. In the unedited video, Roberts’ question is longer, with words
that have been trimmed from the Nightline version, and Maddy pauses
twice, for several seconds, as she struggles to answer it. “… George
Zimmerman … That’s—George Zimmerman got away with murder. But you can’t
get away from God.”
You have to watch her, not just read
her words, to pick up her meaning. As she struggles to answer, she looks
as though she’s trying to reconcile the sentiment that’s been quoted to
her—that Zimmerman “got away with murder”—with her own perspective. So
she repeats the quote and adds words of her own, to convey what she
thinks: that there’s a justice higher than the law, which Zimmerman will
have to face. She thinks he’s morally culpable, not legally guilty.
Anti-Zimmerman media personalities,
like Al Sharpton and essentially anyone else at MSNBC, have pointed to
the interview as proof that Zimmerman actually got away with murder —
even the juror is admitting it! One MSNBC guest even personally attacked the juror, yelling “shame on you!” while reacting to the ABC interview.
Saletan goes on to note a number of other key portions of Juror B29′s much-talked about sit-down with ABC. His points include:
• She stands by the verdict: “ABC’s online story
about the interview ends with Maddy asking, “Did I go the right way?
Did I go the wrong way?” But that’s not the whole quote. In the unedited
video, she continues: “I know I went the right way, because by the law
and the way it was followed is the way I went. But if I would have used
my heart, I probably would have [gone for] a hung jury.”
Saletan also explains that the juror
making the distinction that Zimmerman was guilty of “killing” Trayvon
Martin, but that’s not the same thing as murder or manslaughter, which
requires evidence proving it was malicious and/or intentional.
• She thinks the case should have never gone to trial: At one point, Roberts asked the juror “whether the case should have gone to trial,” she replied, “I don’t think so. … I felt like this was a publicity stunt.”
• Race wasn’t discussed, and she didn’t focus on it:
“When the verdict was announced and she was released from
sequestration, she was dismayed to discover the national outrage. ‘I
didn’t know how much importance’ was attached to the trial, she says,
‘because I never looked at color. And I still don’t look at color.’”
Saletan goes on to debate the “value
of colorblindness,” but correctly concludes that the juror stayed
focused on the evidence in the case, not on what race and other factors
meant to the general public.
Saletan makes several other
interesting points on why he feels “Juror B29 is being framed.” To be
clear, the Slate writer does not appear to take a position defending
Zimmerman or supporting the anti-Zimmerman position in his analysis.
The full, unedited video or transcript of the Juror B29 interview had yet to be released on Friday afternoon, Slate notes.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/26/did-abc-news-deceptively-edit-zimmerman-jurors-controversial-interview-an-unlikely-source-is-calling-them-out/
Obama Promise To 'Protect Whistleblowers' Just Disappeared From Change.gov
They noted that the front page had pointed to the White House website
for a while, but you could still access a variety of old material and
agendas. They were wondering why the administration would suddenly pull
all that interesting archival information... and hit upon a clue. A
little bit from the "ethics agenda":
Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information
about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government
employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such
acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often
save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We
need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and
partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws
to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of
authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies
expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and
whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.
Yeah. That statement seems a bit embarrassing at the very same time Obama's administration is threatening trade sanctions
against anyone who grants asylum to Ed Snowden. Also... at the same
time that we get to see how whistleblower Bradley Manning's "full access
to courts and due process" will turn out. So far, it's been anything
but reasonable, considering that the UN has already condemned Manning's treatment as "cruel and inhuman." And people wonder why Snowden left the country...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130726/01200123954/obama-promise-to-protect-whistleblowers-just-disappeared-changegov.shtml
O'Reilly: Keep Those Right-on Commentaries Comin', White Boy
As a black conservative tea party activist, I am extremely excited about Bill O'Reilly's recent series of commentaries and TV shows
addressing the hypocrisy and exploitation by the American race industry
that has and continues to devastate the black community.
O'Reilly boldly called out all of the usual suspects: Sharpton, Jackson, the Congressional Black Caucus and Obama.
Eric
Holder and others on the left have been whining and arrogantly scolding
us saying that we need an honest discussion about race in America.
Whenever despicable race hustlers such as Holder suggest that we talk
about race, it means they want to further the false narrative that
America is still racist and somebody needs to get paid; more
entitlements, growing government bigger and increased deficit spending.
Well,
O'Reilly called Holder and company's hand and honestly addressed race
in America! And the Left are out of their minds with rage. Why? Because
like the famous line spoken by Jack Nicholson, the Left "can't handle
the truth".
In
fairness, Rush Limbaugh has been taking enormous heat for courageously
and honestly addressing race issues in America for years on his radio show. However, O'Reilly is the only white host on a number one TV show with the stones to address the huge elephant in black America's living room. Why is black America a mess?
O'Reilly tells it like it is:
fatherless homes, out-of-wedlock births, high rate of school dropouts,
drugs, crime and high unemployment in the black community.
Arrogant
racist white liberals have been patting themselves on the back for
their superior compassion for minorities for years. Their crappy
entitlement programs and insulting lowered standards have clearly
destroyed the black family.
In
reality, O'Reilly and Limbaugh are the guys who are expressing real
compassion for black Americans. The first step to fixing a problem is to
acknowledge that there is one.
Laura Ingraham guest hosted on the O'Reilly show
Friday. In her discussion with a black pundit, Ingraham stated that Al
Sharpton's hypocrisy injures blacks. The idiot pundit's reply was, "How
dare white people tell us who our leaders should be." (I paraphrase.)
What a stupid, racist response! I thought, "Madam
you and your ilk are the problem. You are the reason why blacks
continue to die via black on black crime, suffer broken families and end
up in jail. Get off of my TV you vile human being!" Yes, I grabbed my remote and muted her.
Folks,
my passions are high because this is serious business. Black lives are
being destroyed while white limousine liberals feel good about
themselves and black liberal sell-outs get rich.
Meanwhile,
the mainstream media (or the generation-of-vipers as I like to refer to
them) punishes and seeks to destroy anyone who dares to honestly
address the issues fueling the extinction of blacks in America.
Yes,
with blacks killing blacks in record numbers and half of black
pregnancies ending in abortions, we blacks are well on our way to self-induced genocide.
O'Reilly's
revelations about what has gone terribly wrong in the black community
are not new. I, along with other black conservatives, have been fighting
on the front lines writing articles and books, giving speeches and more
confronting these issues for years.
But with the mainstream media's boycott of black non-liberal voices on TV, exposure of our ideas has been extremely limited.
O'Reilly's
rant has unquestionably brought the source of the problem and our ideas
front and center. Finally, a broad audience of Americans, black and
white, have a rare opportunity to hear the truth.
I
am prayerfully optimistic that O'Reilly's "honest" conversation about
race will spark positive change; saving black lives and the futures of
black youths.
Thanks Bill. Keep those right-on commentaries comin' white boy.
Obamacare call center in CA: Half the jobs will be part time
The irony here is so thick you can taste it.
Contra Costa Times:
The
Contra Costa County supervisor whose district includes the call center
called the whole hiring process -- which attracted about 7,000
applicants -- a "comedy of errors."
"What's really ironic is working for a call center and trying to help people get health care,
but we can't afford it ourselves," said the worker, who asked for
anonymity out of fear of losing the job. The county says it had been
telling the public and supervisors all along that some positions would
be full-time and some part-time. However, portions of staff reports list all 204 jobs as full-time, and a job posting said the same.
It's the latest controversy involving the call center, one of three created statewide to help citizens enroll in various new health care options under President Obama's Affordable Care Act when it goes live at the start of next year.
Contra
Costa was selected early on by the state to run the call center, but
the deal mandated the county run the operation itself, with state funding,
or lose it to another county. Once Contra Costa secured the call
center, Concord and Richmond battled for the right to host it. Unions
nearly derailed the project before some last-minute wrangling to ensure
workers weren't transferred needlessly and would receive appropriate
benefits.
The
state budget allows for 180 customer service agents, half of them
part-time, when the call center opens Oct. 1, said Contra Costa Deputy
County Administrator Theresa Speiker. The full-time employees, she
said, will handle the core 40-hour work week, while the part-timers
will handle the extended hours. For the first three months, the call
center at 2500 Bates Ave., off Highway 4 and Port Chicago Highway, will
be open 72 hours a week. After that, it drops to 59 hours a week.
"In open session and in (staff reports) we've been pretty clear that not all will be full-time jobs," Speiker said.
Speiker
said the 7,000 applications were "totally outside what we anticipated
with the demand for these jobs. We were blown away."
The new hires, many of whom left other full-time jobs for the call center positions, were told they were the "cream of the crop," the recent hire said.
Orientation
and training started in July, but stopped on the afternoon of July 18,
when employees were told they would have private meetings about their
positions, the employee said.
More evidence that implementation of Obamacare is making the US a part time nation.
Once
all the "bugs" become apparent (some bugs are actually features),
Democrats in Congress will demand fixes. And those fixes are going to
become more and more coercive as businesses dig in their heels. The
definition of "full time" will probably change, as will the number of
employees that would exempt a business from Obamacare requirements
(currently at 50). Insurance companies will be squeezed, a blizzard of
regulations will be piled on top of the thousands of pages already
published, and the complexity of the law will allow the government to
interpret it just about any way they want to.
None
of this will help make Obamacare work any better. But it will bring us
closer to the day when Obamacare will become a single payer system.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/07/obamacare_call_center_in_ca_half_the_jobs_will_be_part_time.html#ixzz2aHwS8X5n
The American Oligarchs
The
political history and mores of the late Roman Republic shed interesting
light on the current governing elite in DC and the state of the
American republic.
In his classic study of the last days of the Roman Republic titled The Roman Revolution,
Sir Ronald Syme presents a scholarly yet vivid account of how Rome lost
its republic after it had gained an empire. Beginning around 60 B.C.,
Sir Ronald reveals how the nearly five hundred year old republican
institutions of the cit were finally consumed in a massive blaze of
civil wars, partisan politics, individual political ambition, and a
complete loss of restraint and adherence to tradition.
Sir
Ronald's chronicle of the last days of the Roman Republic, the only
republic of historical significance to precede our own, sheds
interesting light on the present state of the American republic. Sir
Ronald makes clear that for most of the later Republican period, Rome
was governed by an oligarchy comprised of two political factions. These
were composed of men who belonged to the same ruling class and who had
the same goals: power and prestige for themselves, their families, and
their personal political operatives, and favors for their adherents
(clientelae). These two rival factions claimed to support policies
favorable, on the one hand, to the aristocratic and moneyed interests
and the Senate (the optimates; the Sulla-Pompey faction), and on the
other hand to the interests of the plebeians and the popular assemblies
(the populares; the Marius-Caesar faction). In reality these political
programs were used by the politicians as a means of obtaining crucial
votes for important government offices or appointment
to powerful positions of state, both civil and military, which any
aspiring oligarch had to obtain on his road to power. They also provided
a base of support for the individual oligarch's personal political
power and influence, what the Romans termed auctoritas, which the oligarch had to acquire in order to be able to take a meaningful part in public affairs.
Despite
the differing political programs of the two factions, what was always
of primary interest to each individual oligarch was his auctoritas,
which determined his overall standing in the oligarchic clique that
ruled Rome. As in the case of all cliques, things were rigged in such a
way that the road to power and influence was only open to members of a
well-established network of Roman good old boys (which periodically
admitted outsiders like Cicero). These advanced their interests via the
utilization of a well-oiled machine of extensive political, social and
economic patronage and alliances based upon an equally complex web of
extended family relationships, friendships, and social connections.
Money was the essential grease of the oligarch's machine. Elections and
the provision of amusements, grain, and games (the major entitlements of
the ancient Roman populace) were an expensive matter, not to mention
the desire for personal enrichment, if not of the oligarch himself, then
of his family, friends and allies. The most successful oligarch not
only acquired auctoritas, but also dignitas.
This implied a certain greatness of spirit, a desire to maintain one's
good name and reputation at all costs, and a degree of moral and ethical
standing which guaranteed the adherence to certain highly prized
principles. A proper Roman oligarch never checked his dignitas at the door.
We
Americans are presently being governed (and have been for some time) by
a political oligarchy. Whether it be Republican or Democratic, its
primary purpose and goal is both its own preservation and the
acquisition and maintenance of the auctoritas of each member of
the oligarchy, while viewing the rest of us like the Roman plebs.
American plebians which serve the oligarchs as a source of power and
which must be flattered and wooed every few years during elections but
which are otherwise unfit to have any political power or independence
of their own. Hence the disdain of Boehner, McCain, Rove et al. for the
Tea Party or for non-oligarchs like Cruz or Bachmann, and the focus of
these Republican party leaders on the preoccupations and prejudices of
the long established DC-based oligarchy as the only matters of
importance or relevance in their political and social lives. The same
thing of course applies to the Democratic oligarchs. The rules of membership
in the DC oligarchy explain the behavior of politicians like Paul Ryan
or Marco Rubio, who seem to have disappointed the many conservatives who
thought that they were reliable supporters of the conservative cause.
Ryan and Rubio are rising oligarchs; a review of their careers reveals
both of them to be party men who have spent virtually their entire
professional lives in the halls of government. No ambitious oligarch
will cross his patrons or the party hierarchy and machinery, which would
be suicidal when one's goal is to obtain power and prestige. Thus Ryan
will not buck Boehner, and Rubio will not buck the Senate Republican
leadership, to whom they owe their present prominence and appointments.
Dignitas
is one very important characteristic of the ancient Roman oligarch that
is lacking in present day American politicians. Any need or desire on
the part of the contemporary American oligarch to cultivate dignitas was destroyed by politicians like the Kennedys, LBJ, and Bill Clinton.
Recurrent contemporary appeals for bipartisanship resemble a call for a kind of concordia factionum (a harmony of political parties) along the lines of what Cicero used to call the concordia ordinum (a harmony of the social orders). But any contemporary concordia factionum
would be no more than a mirage. Just as the longstanding Roman
power-sharing arrangement finally broke down to leave Caesar and his
successors as the exclusive holders of power in the state, so the
Democrats are presently seeking a total subjugation of the country to
their progressive platform. Clueless Republican oligarchs have not yet
figured out that the rules of the game have permanently changed and the
old comfortable power-sharing arrangement between the oligarchs of the
two parties is no longer of interest to the Democrats.
Sir
Ronald Syme states that the traditional Roman oligarchy was fine for
ruling a city-state, but was a wholly ineffective way to govern the huge
empire that Rome had acquired. The traditional Republican oligarchy
eventually collapsed, with the pieces first falling into the lap of
Caesar the Dictator (which marked the end of the Republic), and
subsequently was definitively abolished by Octavian, the so-called
"first among equals" (primus inter pares) who passed into
history as Augustus, first emperor of the Roman Empire. Under Augustus
and his successors the Roman Republican institutions were respected and
observed de jure, but de facto all effective power passed into the hands of the Emperor and his advisors and administrators forever.
The
question then inevitably comes to mind: has the nature of America and
its people changed to the point where our nation can no longer be
governed de facto in accordance the principles of the Constitution? Are
those of us who still pine for the American Republic on the road to
obsolescence as surely as were Caesar's assassin Brutus and his fellow
conspirators? I do not believe we have crossed that critical threshold
yet, but we are perilously close. However, at this point any restoration
of the republic will have to come from outside the oligarchy, from a
new and vigorous party wholly dedicated to getting the job done. There
is still time to turn away from the Roman precedent, if that is what
Americans still want.
Remember the Free Market?
Hard to believe these days, but just a generation or so ago the 1991
collapse of the Soviet Union was hailed as a victory for capitalism. In
the 20th century’s brutal war of ideas, central planning had lost, and
the free market had won. Or so it seemed. But that’s not how it’s
working out among the developed nations. Instead, government meddling in
the economies has grown and grown, and with it — lo and behold — so has
this persistent problem of unemployment, especially among the young.
This has produced endless discussion centered on the idea that yet
more government meddling is needed to “create jobs.” Thus did the head
of the United Nations International Labor Organization, Guy Ryder,
lament to the world last week that unemployment among the G-20
industrialized nations remains at “unacceptably high levels.” Under the
headline “Ambitious job creation policies needed to tackle unemployment
in G20 countries,” the UN press office crammed a sampling of Ryder’s remarks into a press release, including such mattress filler as:
Experience suggests that high employment levels and
inclusive growth can be achieved through a well-designed combination of
supportive macroeconomic policies and employment, labour market and
social protection policies that are designed to spread the benefits of
growth.
Translation: he is urging lots more government, tuning, fiddling,
regulating, redistributing (and, by implication, taxing). Which is a
great way to choke the life out of individual incentives, creativity and
opportunity to genuinely create those elusive jobs.
What’s gone missing entirely from this discussion is the idea that
when government leaves people free to choose for themselves, in free
markets, the process of voluntary exchange creates wealth — and, yes,
jobs. Actually, not only does it generate jobs, but it gives a lot more
people a lot more choice about what kind of jobs they prefer to take —
since only in a perfectly gray and dormant economy is a “job” an utterly
standard, interchangeable unit.
Apparently oblivious to the irony, the ILO chief delivered his
remarks in Moscow — capital of a 20th century experiment in state-run
job creation that went to such extremes that, having deprived
generations of freedom and taken the lives of scores of millions, it
finally collapsed — replete with such grim jokes as “we pretend to work,
and they pretend to pay us.” No, I’m not saying that from Moscow the
head of the ILO was advocating a return to communism. But he was talking
about yet more steps in that general direction; the state as the grand
arbiter of who needs what, and which tradeoffs constitute some uniform
pursuit of happiness. It’s not a good direction to take.
There’s a time-tested better way. Remember the free market?
http://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/remember-the-free-market/
NBC to air miniseries about Hillary Clinton, timed
ahead of 2016 presidential elections
A miniseries about Hillary Clinton,
timed to precede the 2016 presidential election, is part of NBC's effort
to create "event" programming that will draw viewers to the shrinking
world of broadcast network TV, the network's programming chief said
Saturday.
"We need to be in the event business. I think you're going to hear
that from every broadcast network," said Bob Greenblatt, NBC
Entertainment chairman.
Though Clinton hasn't announced her intention to seek the Democratic
nomination for president, Greenblatt spoke as if her candidacy is
expected.
"Hillary" could air before Clinton announces her decision, but the timing has yet to be determined, he said.
The four-hour miniseries "Hillary," starring Diane Lane as the former
first lady and secretary of state, is one such bid for distinctive
programming, Greenblatt said.
The goal is to woo viewers who are increasingly drawn away by cable
TV's eye-catching, critically acclaimed fare like "Mad Men" and
"Breaking Bad" and other media choices.
Broadcasting's audience is shrinking by 4 percent to 7 percent
annually, Greenblatt told a meeting of the Television Critics
Association.
"Anything that can shake up the landscape and say, `we have something
special"' would be considered part of the varied group of event
projects, he said.
At NBC, that ranges from the new fall game show "Million Second Quiz"
to big-ticket scripted fare including "Hillary" and other projects
announced Saturday: "Rosemary's Baby" a four-hour version of the Ira
Levin novel that was adapted as a 1968 movie; an adaptation of "Stephen
King's Tommyknockers," and "Plymouth," about the Pilgrim's journey and
settlement in America.
A six-hour miniseries about Cleopatra is in development, Greenblatt said.
He didn't address how a Clinton miniseries, which will track her life
and career from 1998 to the present, might affect the presidential
contest.
The part of former President Bill Clinton has yet to be cast. Lane's
credits include the feature films "Unfaithful" and "Under the Tuscan
Sun" and the TV movie "Cinema Verite."
Other networks seeking to stem audience erosion are jumping on the
event bandwagon, especially in light of the success of another King
adaptation, CBS' summer series "Under the Dome." Announced plans include
a Fox's remake of the "Shogun" miniseries based on James Clavell's
novel.
Greenblatt argued that NBC, which finished the last September-to-May
season in fourth place in total viewers, is in better shape when the
entire year is taken into account, especially among advertiser-favored
young adult viewers.
He credited the popular talent contests "The Voice" and "America's Got Talent," as well as dramas "Grimm" and "Hannibal."
NBC has high hopes for the fall sitcom that brings Michael J. Fox
back to TV but is prepared for a big tune-in for the debut episode that
might not be sustainable, Greenblatt said.
No comments:
Post a Comment