I don't know what Obama is saying.
Obama and the media are using them both like cheap postitutes.
It is not good, but it is apparently acceptable and encouraged for reporters and journalists to use misleading pictures and soundbites to pursue an agenda. The media, being staffed by media specialists, understand how to use images and soundbites to create a certain perspective/perceived reality which may not be the whole truth or the real truth. They understand that today's people, especially young people, will not usually take the time to read or study an issue in depth, but will accept the image presented (if the image is trending popular and is opposed by the "unpopular") and draw the intended/obvious conclusions.
AMEN CHARLIE! As far as the media is concerned,this is the tragedy that keeps on giving! They stir up emotions and encourage reactions. Never are people urged to think things through. The jurors made the decision that they felt was the correct one based on their understanding of the law. People have over-reacted in either support or disagreement for all the wrong reasons. Personally, I think the jury did GZ no favor by not convicting him. He will be miserable regardless, just not on the taxpayers dime. He IS responsible because he WAS NOT responsible and another person is dead. Maybe all the people who sent him money for his defense will send him some more for the civil suits. Karma is a *****
DRL, When you say "People have over-reacted in either support or disagreement for all the wrong reasons." true very...
Also saying "He IS responsible because he WAS NOT responsible and another person is dead" true true...
The media in all does not show any compassion in matters such as this, so often fueling these problems.
CAH, I agree.
The case is emblematic of the ills that plague contemporary American society. We are faced with deteriorating race relations. The withering away of the state and any sense of civic responsibility has led to the rise of puerile stand your ground statutes and the growing sentiment that vigilantism is to be preferred. We are also witnessing the trivialization of basic rights enumerated in The Bill of Rights, particularly the right to bear arms enunciated in the Second Amendment. In a rational society, Zimmerman, a deeply troubled man with a history of domestic violence , would never have been allowed to own let alone carry a deadly weapon on his person.Not to be overlooked is the perverse victory dance exhibited by cultural termites such as Ann Coulter who has insisted that case has somehow stemmed the tide of reverse discrimination, a fear that looms large in her fevered imagination. We are beset with racial animosity,a failing civic culture, an aberrant reading of US history, and more than a few false prophets.
As it stands now, it is very likely that Zimmerman will walk away scot free and enriched by his defamation of character lawsuit. Perhaps he will be able to use the proceeds of that case to under -write his defense in the pending civil lawsuit and the recent child molestation charges he faces.These are sad times indeed.
And let's not blame it all on the media.If the picture of the young black boy was not staged and a legitimate representation of what has transpired at protest demonstrations, then it was not a matter of a lack of compassion or a matter of media manipulation but rather a matter of photojournalism. If we expect the media to act as tribune,we need to accord members of the media the respect that they deserve. The current contempt for the press and for intellectuals of any stripe has dire consequences for a free society.
I did not follow the media that closely (it does appear to be ridiculous), but I did read the court documents and transcripts of testimony as they came out. The most disturbing thing to me were the false assumptions made at the scene: everyone, including the police, assumed that Trayvon did not belong in the neighborhood. This affected how the police treated the case and ultimately how the court case proceeded. Maybe it would have been the same outcome, but those initial assumptions made by almost everyone were clearly driven by race politics.
As opposed to paying attention to the media, I have been closely following the reactions of people I care about and respect. I have one law-abiding friend who is afraid of neighborhood watch signs. This is because they are a member of neighborhood email listserves where people complain in a frightened way about black people walking through their neighborhood. The Trayvon Marin case has only exacerbated this fear of neighborhood watch signs.
I know people who do not know how to communicate to their children that because they are black, they will inevitably be treated differently by the police and the justice system. The Trayvon Martin case makes this conversation much more important.
I also know a judge who won the William H. Rehnquist Award for the best judging in our United States in a year. He is an avid prison reformer and has stated repeatedly, and to the Supreme Court, that the justice system is fundamentally racist. He is not reacting well to the Trayvon Martin outcome.
I also happened to travel by a "no justice, no peace, no justice, no peace" chant after a baseball game this weekend. I have never personally seen people in the streets over a court ruling before. I know it happens, but it made a strong impression on me to see it firsthand as I passed by.
I honestly do not know the dept of meaning in this case, but I know it will resonate powerfully in many people for many years. Sure hope it leads to a more just justice system.
How many other black teenagers were killed on the same day as Trayvon? How many were killed by other blacks? How many Hispanics were murdered on that day? Where is the outrage over other senseless deaths?
I did not follow the Martin case for two reasons. First, I could rest assured the media would present a slanted, race driven pretense of coverage (both with Zimmerman as a racist and as a simple neighborhood watch member)with emphasis on emotion and no regard for facts. Second, I could also be assured that this single incident would be blown up into a symbol of our racist culture, or the deterioration of race relations or some other claptrap which pundits would learnedly lecture us about so that we might wring our hands and lament our decline into vigilanteism.
And - since I would have to live in a cave in Nepal to escape the coverage - I believe my attempt to avoid becoming embroiled and opinionated about something I know very little about to have been the proper course.
The newspaper is replete with such killings ,and it unfair to assume that all the news is slanted and all newsmen pander to an appetite for sensationalism. And like it or not racism and vigilantism were present in the case. We should wring our hands ,and then we should strive to make sure than such tragedies do not become an accepted part of the American landscape.
Bryant, I applaud your candor and honesty.
Fly, I would add this caveat. The local news may not be fraught with bias and yellow journalism, but many 'national' outlets are. I have respect for most (but not all) local news folks, however, I would not use one drop of my bodily waste to extinguish a network reporter if they burst into flames right in front of me.
Fly, I did not assume or imply that all news is slanted nor that all newsmen pander to sensationalism. I spoke specifically to the Martin case and the issues I mentioned all came to pass on your TV screen and in your AP and other national news distributors.
Everyone appears to agree that the US has the best criminal jusicial system in the world - until you disagree with a verdict. Then it's the prosecutor's fault, the defendant's lawyer's fault, the racial make-up of the jury, or pick some other reason out of the air. But, God forbid, we should accept the decision of the jury based upon the facts presented.
As to Florida's stand your ground law, I support it. It needs tweaking to eliminate some obvious shortcomings as many Florida law enforcement officials and prosecutors have stated. But I believe if I am threatened by someone and fear for my safety, I have the right to protect myself and not scurry away until my back is up against a wall (proverbial or not) before I do so.
Stand your ground laws would make some sense if concealed carry laws made some sense. Why would any jurisdiction grant a man with a history of violence the right to own a gun let alone the right to secrete a gun on his person? Protecting a domicile is one thing-- acting out old Charles Bronson movies is quite another.
People are always saying "Innocent until proven guilty" that is until the person they WANT to be to guilty is found "Not Guilty" then it surly has to be a reason other than the fact that person is really NOT GUILTY!
Am I right or am I right...