The Zimmerman trial has been over for a week. It's five days since the NOT GUILTY verdict was handed down, and yet it's still all over the television news. The big questions are, "will there be riots? Will the Feds try him for Civil Rights violations? Will the Martin family ever heal? Will someone hunt George down and do him in?" All valid concerns, but the big concern that can be put to rest once and for all, is the question of his guilt. Sure, NOT GUILTY doesn't mean he didn't kill the man. George freely admits he used his small automatic pistol and killed his attacker.
We have no reason to doubt his word on the occurrences of that night, leading to, and culminating in, the death of Mr. Martin. Why? Because Zimmerman's story is consistent. Liars' stories change as they're told, in many substantial ways. His story made enough sense to the police and County Prosecutor, that he was not originally charged. At trial, the jury found the same thing.
At this point, George is as much a victim as is the dead man. What? How can you say that, Don? It's true he made flawed and fatal decisions that night. So did Travon Martin. Neither man took the safe and sensible path, right from the start of the incident. As a result it ended up in the worst possible scenario. The death of one man, and a lifetime of shame and blame for the other.
"How is the news media at fault, for even more wrong being done?" Good question.
Simply by not letting it go away. It was newsworthy, but it came to a conclusion. Lives are lost and forever damaged, but it's time to heal, and get on with life the best way everyone involved can. The television networks, cable and broadcast, are still stirring the racial pot. The tension will die a lot slower, if it's shoved in everyone's face whenever they try to watch a newscast.
I have a question of my own: "What happened to Walter Cronkite type of news reporting?" You know, tell the story. What, when, where, how, and why, if it's known. The why is usually not available to news media, lawyers, courts, or the public. We never really know the "why". That's what news reporting should still be. Here's something to hang your hat on. That "talking head" on the screen? Their opinion and view is no more valid than yours. You only need him/her to tell you what has happened. You can form your own opinions. Novel idea, eh?
If America wants this Martin and Zimmerman thing to settle down peacefully, it's time for it to stop being the lead story on every news outlet. Remove the publicity seekers platforms. Once that's done, everyone, including the rabble-rousers, pot-stirrers, and disinterested, un-involved, protesters, will shut up and go the hell home.
More news media? Here's another thing I recall from recent newscasts. In March of this year, in Brunswick, GA, a white mother was pushing her white 13 month old baby boy in his stroller. Only a few yards from their home, in a 73% black neighborhood, she was accosted by two black teens. They demanded her money. She told them she had none, because it was true. They told her they'd shoot her baby is she didn't give them money. She couldn't give up what she didn't have. So they proceeded to shoot the infant in the face, killing him on the spot.
The mother suffered two gunshot wounds trying to protect her child. National news agencies reported it in passing, as a "robbery attempt". Two black teens, ages 13 and 15 have been arrested and charged with murder. No media has mentioned the words "hate crime", or "civil rights violation". No famous religious leaders or protest organizers have swooped down on Brunswick to publicize the wrong doing of the black teens.
While I'm addressing media issues, I also want to mention the Boston Marathon terrorist bomber. His photo showed up on the cover of Rolling Stone, this week. There's an outcry all across the nation, and maybe around the world, protesting the publication of his likeness on the magazine's cover. Many large chain retailers are refusing to sell the issue in their stores.
Why? Charles Manson was on RS's cover. So was Patty Hearst after gaining fame as a terrorist. What outcry came from those covers? The answer is, "not much!"
Truthfully, Rolling Stone Magazine has a feature article detailing the life of the 'seemingly normal young man' who became notorious for blowing up the finish line at this year's Boston Marathon. People were killed, and dozens injured. That's news! Why shouldn't he be on the cover? RS isn't saying he's a good guy. They're featuring him in their issue, to tell the wondering world more about this pariah.
I don't recall an outpouring of venom when his picture graced the cover of nearly every newspaper and scandal sheet in America, and several other countries, for a month after the bombing. It's still a news story, just as it was then. If people don't want to read it, or wish to lodge a protest against Rolling Stone, they can keep their money in their pocket. Leave this issue on the newsstand. That will cast their negative votes a hell of a lot more efficiently than a lot of huffing and puffing, and pulling the issue off the stands.
I'm tired of the special interest groups, splinter factions, and self appointed 'political correctness police', making a lot of noise about nothing. They seem inclined toward sitting back and shutting up about real, genuinely problematic, issues. I've given one example above, so don't hold your breath for more on that subject.
Notice how I didn't push my personal concern for starvation and poverty right here in the good old United States?
News happens, folks. Get on with your lives. More news and controversy will be right along.
We have no reason to doubt his word on the occurrences of that night, leading to, and culminating in, the death of Mr. Martin. Why? Because Zimmerman's story is consistent. Liars' stories change as they're told, in many substantial ways. His story made enough sense to the police and County Prosecutor, that he was not originally charged. At trial, the jury found the same thing.
At this point, George is as much a victim as is the dead man. What? How can you say that, Don? It's true he made flawed and fatal decisions that night. So did Travon Martin. Neither man took the safe and sensible path, right from the start of the incident. As a result it ended up in the worst possible scenario. The death of one man, and a lifetime of shame and blame for the other.
"How is the news media at fault, for even more wrong being done?" Good question.
Simply by not letting it go away. It was newsworthy, but it came to a conclusion. Lives are lost and forever damaged, but it's time to heal, and get on with life the best way everyone involved can. The television networks, cable and broadcast, are still stirring the racial pot. The tension will die a lot slower, if it's shoved in everyone's face whenever they try to watch a newscast.
I have a question of my own: "What happened to Walter Cronkite type of news reporting?" You know, tell the story. What, when, where, how, and why, if it's known. The why is usually not available to news media, lawyers, courts, or the public. We never really know the "why". That's what news reporting should still be. Here's something to hang your hat on. That "talking head" on the screen? Their opinion and view is no more valid than yours. You only need him/her to tell you what has happened. You can form your own opinions. Novel idea, eh?
If America wants this Martin and Zimmerman thing to settle down peacefully, it's time for it to stop being the lead story on every news outlet. Remove the publicity seekers platforms. Once that's done, everyone, including the rabble-rousers, pot-stirrers, and disinterested, un-involved, protesters, will shut up and go the hell home.
More news media? Here's another thing I recall from recent newscasts. In March of this year, in Brunswick, GA, a white mother was pushing her white 13 month old baby boy in his stroller. Only a few yards from their home, in a 73% black neighborhood, she was accosted by two black teens. They demanded her money. She told them she had none, because it was true. They told her they'd shoot her baby is she didn't give them money. She couldn't give up what she didn't have. So they proceeded to shoot the infant in the face, killing him on the spot.
The mother suffered two gunshot wounds trying to protect her child. National news agencies reported it in passing, as a "robbery attempt". Two black teens, ages 13 and 15 have been arrested and charged with murder. No media has mentioned the words "hate crime", or "civil rights violation". No famous religious leaders or protest organizers have swooped down on Brunswick to publicize the wrong doing of the black teens.
While I'm addressing media issues, I also want to mention the Boston Marathon terrorist bomber. His photo showed up on the cover of Rolling Stone, this week. There's an outcry all across the nation, and maybe around the world, protesting the publication of his likeness on the magazine's cover. Many large chain retailers are refusing to sell the issue in their stores.
Why? Charles Manson was on RS's cover. So was Patty Hearst after gaining fame as a terrorist. What outcry came from those covers? The answer is, "not much!"
Truthfully, Rolling Stone Magazine has a feature article detailing the life of the 'seemingly normal young man' who became notorious for blowing up the finish line at this year's Boston Marathon. People were killed, and dozens injured. That's news! Why shouldn't he be on the cover? RS isn't saying he's a good guy. They're featuring him in their issue, to tell the wondering world more about this pariah.
I don't recall an outpouring of venom when his picture graced the cover of nearly every newspaper and scandal sheet in America, and several other countries, for a month after the bombing. It's still a news story, just as it was then. If people don't want to read it, or wish to lodge a protest against Rolling Stone, they can keep their money in their pocket. Leave this issue on the newsstand. That will cast their negative votes a hell of a lot more efficiently than a lot of huffing and puffing, and pulling the issue off the stands.
I'm tired of the special interest groups, splinter factions, and self appointed 'political correctness police', making a lot of noise about nothing. They seem inclined toward sitting back and shutting up about real, genuinely problematic, issues. I've given one example above, so don't hold your breath for more on that subject.
Notice how I didn't push my personal concern for starvation and poverty right here in the good old United States?
News happens, folks. Get on with your lives. More news and controversy will be right along.
