They are to race what the agitators over the Mohammed cartoons are to religion. Real-life trolls trying to start a riot.
Try this instead: Ask the people who use that phrase to name prominent, active proponents for racial equality who aren’t “race hustlers”.
Not having followed this story in any depth, I can’t point to any errors at all, and don’t know the details of the previous error you’re referring to.
But your original quote was:
That’s a pretty strong quote, and one that pretty clearly implies not just carelessness, or even carelessness-more-likely-to-happen-in-one-direction, but conscience malfeasance and deception. Which I find incredibly unlikely… not that I necessarily think NBC would be above something like that, but because I think they’d be above something concerning an issue which is nearly 100% certain to be disproven by a simple photograph at some point in the near future.
When I think “race hustler,” I think of Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Rish Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, and a host of other media figures who get a lot of mileage out of events like the Zimmerman trial.
OK, let me rephrase my question.
Alert!!! Alert!!! …HYPOTHETICAL… Alert!!! Alert!!!
If you had a gun, and someone had you pinned down and was bashing your head against a sidewalk, would you use the gun to defend yourself?
Alert!!! Alert!!! …HYPOTHETICAL… Alert!!! Alert!!!
Uppity niggers who don’t know their place.
In all seriousness, I’m not using that term to offend people but because I’ve literally never heard the term used to describe a white person and the people who do it practically dare you to call them racist for using racially loaded language.
Not thought. Felt.
The injustice! A jury having to consider the evidence! If you have a problem with that, may you live to be convicted by a jury’s feelings in defiance of evidence.
Not for conservatives.
First off, that’s not a rephrasing of “How do you surrender to a guy who is already doing that?” It’s a completely different question.
Second, it’s still not a hypothetical because you are asking it in the context of this thread. The second I say “Yes, I probably would,” you are going to use it against me to argue about Zimmerman. There’s no other rational reason to ask that question in this thread.
And, BTW, if Zimmerman’s story is true, I agree that he was justified in using the level of force he did. My problem, as I’ve said many times, was that the was not immediately arrested while they searched for this. If they’d have done that, this whole thing would never have become about race. That’s why SYG is relevant, because that’s almost certainly why he wasn’t at least arrested. If that had happened, there would have been no story about how a white guy was able to shoot a black guy and walk away.
And I must admit, I’m still not entirely convinced that SYG would have been assumed to apply if the races were different. I’m less concerned about Zimmerman’s racial motivations than those of the State of Florida.
Why would you expect the police to hamper their investigation by immediately arresting him?
This was not a SYG case.
No retraction of your lies about me then?
And yet they spent a week broadcasting and rebroadcasting their version of Zimmerman’s call to the police:
The whole country heard that, repeatedly, on both NBC Nightly News and on the Today show.
But then the Washngton Post’s Eric Wemple published a startling fact:
NBC did not say anything about this on the air. They issued a written statement:
They never explain to their viewers what the error was.
Zimmerman sued them for defamation. That suit is still pending. After he sued, NBC explains at the end of almost every Zimmerman story, “George Zimmerman is suing NBC Universal, the parent company of this network, for defamation. NBC strongly denies the allegations.”
What’s your opinion of that? Just carelessness?
I endorse Big T’s answer, John. I also admire the crisp and succinct way it is expressed, and i doubt it could be improved upon, even with the addition of screaming fonts and hysterical capitalization.
I would add only the piddling detail that I do not, and would not, carry a gun. And that renders your “hypothetical” absurd, since I am not remotely the person described as “you”. I will not live in Deadwood. You may if you wish, I can’t stop you, but I damn sure ain’t going with you.
Eh. Substitute “use potentially deadly force” if you wish. There are lots of ways to defend oneself without a gun. The gun is not the key element. The key element is the reaction to being set upon by someone whom you think is threatening your life. Not the reaction to someone who simply bloodies your nose.
The exclusion of a juror based on race is a violation of the juror’s rights, not the defendant’s.
No, assuming your description of what transpired is accurate*, that’s clearly unethical and poor journalism. But I find it far more likely that it ended up on the air due to a collection of minor failings rather than some meeting in which Brian Williams said “well, this quote from George Zimmerman doesn’t make him appear NEARLY evil enough… can we edit it dishonestly to make him seem worse? We can? Muahahahahahaha!”.
As for not issuing a clear retraction, that’s again inexcusable, but something easier to blame on embarrassment and a desire to sweep it under the carpet than a political agenda.
*I doubt you’re actually lying about what happened, but the context of NBC’s coverage of the whole case is large enough that there could clearly be plenty of examples of NBC being extremely fair that you just didn’t notice because you didn’t happen to be watching. Or not.
No, it’s both. “Purposeful racial discrimination in selection of the venire violates a defendant’s right to equal protection, because it denies him the protection that a trial by jury is intended to secure.” It also violates the juror’s rights, and as a bonus it “…undermine[s] public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice.”
Hm. Didn’t remember that part of Batson. Withdrawn.
You’re bending over backwards to give them the benefit of the doubt, I see.
In my view, that’s justified for the first instance – the “bad edit.” When they take steps to hide in when the error is discovered, that suggests to me a consciousness of guilt.
And then we have this third thing – the juror’s race. You are looking at each event in isolation, and saying that there’s no definitive proof of anything beyond poor journalism. But taking all three together? You seriously think that the most probable explanation is poor journalism, and again poor journalism, and, darn that unlucky Zimmerman, yet another bout of poor journalism?
I will completely abandon this claim, by the way, if you can show me any instance of NBC addressing this more fairly “…that I didn’t happen” to catch.