DART for inflaming an already tense situation: Business Insider, The Daily Caller, Michelle Malkin, NBC News Following Trayvon Martin’s death in February, several media outlets embarrassed themselves with inaccurate reporting and selective editing. Business Insider and The Daily Caller published what were thought to be negative photos of Martin, BI’s from a white-supremacist website. One of the photos on Michelle Malkin’s website said to be of Martin turned out to be of someone else. Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman (who claims he shot Martin in self-defense), is suing NBC for “accidentally” editing Zimmerman’s 911 call for a segment on the Today show to make the shooting seem racially motivated.
LAUREL for going deep: Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight and SCOTUSblog In political terms, 2012 shall be known as the Year of the Niche Bloggers. These two did great work that also showed up their mainstream media competition. On his blog, which has been licensed by The New York Times since 2010, Silver’s statistical method correctly predicted the results of all 50 states and foresaw an Obama win while other pundits and pollsters said the election was too close to call.
When the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act came in, journalists scurried to be the first with the story, but in their haste, several (most famously CNN and Fox News, but also Huffington Post, Time, and NPR) got it wrong. Not SCOTUSblog, which live-blogged the ruling, and took its time in posts to make sure it got everything right. The result: 5.3 million hits (more than 10 times its previous daily high). The Court may want to reconsider its decision not to give scotusblog press credentials.
--George Zimmerman (who claims he shot Martin in self-defense), is suing nbc for “accidentally” editing Zimmerman’s 911 call for a segment on the Today show to make the shooting seem racially motivated.
--Yahoo News: No steps were specified, but the New York Times reports that the next day "a Miami-based producer who had worked at NBC for several years" was fired, and "people with direct knowledge of the firing characterized the misleading edit as a mistake, not a purposeful act." ...
On Thursday, Reuters cited an unnamed NBC executive saying "The "Today" show's editorial control policies -- which include a script editor, senior producer oversight, and in most cases legal and standards department reviews of material to be broadcast -- missed the selective editing of the call."
#1 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Mon 24 Dec 2012 at 12:34 PM
Language Corner
For word – Little word, big meaning
... is suing nbc for “accidentally” editing Zimmerman’s 911 call...
#2 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Mon 24 Dec 2012 at 12:42 PM
No darts for the media that used incorrect information and outrageous quotes on the other side? Accepted a photo of TM that was 4-5 years younger than he really was? Ran stories that said GZ had not been arrested, without mentioning the investigation was ongoing and headed to a grand jury? That called GZ a "white Hispanic," disregarding that he identified as a Hispanic?
#3 Posted by SuzieTampa, CJR on Mon 24 Dec 2012 at 12:51 PM
for “accidentally” editing
What this formula means to me is that CJR's "The Editors" are stating that NBC deliberately (intentionally) edited the call "to make the shooting seem racially motivated."
That is a dangerous formulation. That is what the lawsuit is about. Editors should be cautious, especially in dealing with intent. A wise journalist once said in response to a question about what he had learned over the years was that you needed to be careful with imputation of motive.
Attributing motives and intentions can open you up to nasty surprises.
Perhaps the way it is put here is unintentional. But it is wrong.
#4 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Mon 24 Dec 2012 at 12:56 PM
YouTube: Zimmerman Today Show March 27:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good ...
Zimmerman: He looks black.
Not only do we have ellipsis after "no good," we also have a new speech heading "Zimmerman" for: "He looks black."
That does not excuse any subsequent bungling, but it makes it highly unlikely that at this point anyone had intentionally, without qualification, set out to finger Zimmerman as a racist. It very visibly looks like an edit. A clumsy edit is not always evidence of a conspiracy.
#5 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Tue 25 Dec 2012 at 08:55 PM