No. It was wrong and egregiously stupid, but not racist.
It is not, at least in some people’s minds, the only thing poniting to racism. Which you acknowledged here:
In which you admit the concept already existed. I think the idea that something that happened a week after the news went national shaped the initial response is really ludicrous.
I think it’s an argument without a cause. You and Marley are trying to say that it wasn’t the single spark from the first second of the outrage (as a point of argument).
It’s a pointless argument because the outrage builds with time and the information available. This was pure gasoline thrown on a fire, not the match.
This may have been already said but when I read the OP, I got the impression that he was questioning why this didnt explode in the media. He seems to be implying that if Fox did this, the Liberal Media would be all over it like Stink on pit
OK, so it was about 1 month after the shooting that the edited tape was aired.
As a point of reference, Obama’s comments were mode on March 23.
Even a retarded monkey would have understood that the context was changed in a way that made Zimmerman out as a racist. I think it’s safe to say the person who did this was not a retarded monkey, therefore it was deliberate. Now maybe it wasn’t racist and the person just wanted to make his overlord news masters happy with some ratings. Call it what you like. When a person makes someone out to be a racist, I’m calling that person a racist sans any other information to go on.
I don’t have a problem accepting that retarded monkeys work at the Today show, and I agree the edit made Zimmerman out to be a racist. Now, how does that make the edit racist?
You seem to have already taken that job.
That makes no sense at all, but I don’t expect that to be a major obstacle here.
Why wouldn’t you call the editor an amoral sensationalist? Doesn’t that fit the evidence better?
A TV producer editing a tape to increase his show’s ratings. You’re giving that option a “maybe”?
Hanlon’s Razor states “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
I suggest a corollary, “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by greed.”
Or an incompetent cretin who deserved to be fired.
Well, I’d say that the edit was deliberate and intended to produce a particular result. That, at least to me, suggests more than incompetence; it wasn’t accidental.
What is not shown, though, is racism. It seems to me more likely that it was motivated by a lack of caring about the truth (amoral) and a desire to spark up the narrative (sensationalist).
Dammit, I was on a roll. Point taken and conceded. Good quote.
We now have the Cheesesteak Razor.
The edit was definitely deliberate. I don’t know that the false implication about Zimmerman was deliberate. I think it’s possible they heard the reference to Martin’s race and decided it had to be included in the broadcast (since there were already racially-charged debates about the incident) with other noteworthy parts of the call without appreciating the huge change in meaning that came from removing the dispatcher’s question.
I always hate to guess at someone’s motives, especially when we know nothing about that someone at all, not even his name.
So, back to the OP. Did this little “mistake” fan the flames of the fire? Probably. But the flames were already raging, so I don’t know whether it added that much and I don’t really think there is any way to know.
Seems like the idea that Zim called Martin a “coon” (dubious, at best) was the more impactful error.
Not quite the same. Just because malice is driven by greed doesn’t mean it’s not malice. Whether or not it was racist, the NBC edit was certainly malicious and unethical. That is, I do not believe it was caused by incompetence.
I grant the possibility; I doubt the likelihood.
Was “coon” interpretation ever reported as such or was it thrown out for comment?
I would say it was deliberate in the sense that the person knew the implications. I can’t say for certainty that a racist did it. I can only conjecture. It was certainly done with malice or a malicious disregard for Zimmerman.
CNN raised the question, though they also said it couldn’t be determined what what was said on 3/21.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/21/did-trayvon-martins-shooter-use-a-racial-slur/?iref=allsearch
I thought it was reported in the context of “he appears to say ‘coons,’” but certainly some people felt he definitely said it.
He said “toons”. One of them dropped an anvil on his brother. Hates them toons!