THE STORY BEGINS: New York Times readers were grossly misled!

WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2013

Part 3—The Times didn’t care: Can Natalie Jackson say that?

In the New York Times, she could! On March 17, 2012, the Times published its first report about the killing of Trayvon Martin.

Quickly, Lizette Alvarez made a very serious factual error. As she did, she painted an astonishingly lurid picture of what had occurred that night:
ALVAREZ (3/17/12): Nearly three weeks after an unarmed teenager was killed in a small city north of Orlando, stirring an outcry, a few indisputable facts remain: the teenager, who was black, was carrying nothing but a bag of Skittles, some money and a can of iced tea when he was shot. The neighborhood crime watch volunteer who got out of his car and shot him is white and Hispanic. He has not been arrested and is claiming self-defense.

Beyond that, however, little is clear about the Feb. 26 shooting death of Trayvon Martin, 17.

As criticism of the police investigation mounts, so too do the calls for swift action in a case with heavy racial overtones. Protests grow larger each week, and lawyers for the family are now asking the Department of Justice to intervene. The case also brings into sharp focus Florida's self-defense laws, which give people who feel threatened greater latitude in defending themselves than most states.

The police in of Sanford, where the shooting took place, are not revealing details of the investigation. Late Friday night, after weeks of pressure, the police played the 911 calls in the case for the family and gave copies to the news media. On the recordings, one shot, an apparent warning or miss, is heard, followed by a voice begging or pleading, and a cry. A second shot is then heard, and the pleading stops.

''It is so clear that this was a 17-year-old boy pleading for his life, and someone shot him in cold blood,'' said Natalie Jackson, one of the Martin family lawyers.
Can Natalie Jackson say that? In fairness, it isn’t Jackson who makes the obvious factual error in the highlighted text. Alvarez stated, in her own voice, that two shots can be heard “on the recordings.”

Alas! Only one shot was fired that night; absolutely no one disputes that fact at this point. The inaccurate factual statement was made in Alvarez’s voice. But Jackson was then quoted making a neinously lurid claim, a lurid claim which completed an unmistakable picture:

George Zimmerman fired a first shot which missed. As Trayvon Martin pleaded for his life, Zimmerman fired a second shot, killing the boy in cold blood.

Had Alvarez actually heard the 911 tapes at the time this report was written? As of yesterday, we still assumed that she had not. As of today, we aren’t sure. Here is a bit of background:

In the early edition of the March 17 Orlando Sentinel, Rene Stutzman presented the same lurid tale. But as she did, there was no suggestion that Stutzman had heard the tapes yet herself, and the lurid tale was attributed wholly to Jackson:
STUTZMAN (3/17/12): The family of Trayvon Martin spent hours Friday night with police, listening to the eight 911 calls made the night the 17-year-old was shot and killed by a neighborhood crime-watch volunteer in Sanford.

"What you hear on that tape is shocking. It's riveting," Benjamin Crump, an attorney for Trayvon's family, said after the group emerged from the meeting with police late Friday.

Police had previously refused to release the calls. The shooter, 28-year-old George Zimmerman, has not been arrested and is not charged with a crime. He claimed the Feb. 26 shooting was in self-defense.

Natalie Jackson, another attorney, said Zimmerman fired a warning shot, then a kill shot.

“You hear a shot, a clear shot, then you hear a 17-year-old boy begging for his life,” Jackson said. “Then you hear a second shot.”


It was the first time that anyone said two shots were fired that night.
“It was the first time that anyone said two shots were fired that night.” As we now know, no one had ever described two shots because only one shot was fired.

Alas! You’re looking at horrific examples of runaway tabloid journalism. Only one shot had been fired that night. But Jackson now said that “you hear” two shots, and she drew a lurid portrait of what had happened between the two shots, one of which never had happened.

Should Stutzman have published that lurid tale, in which George Zimmerman shoots a boy with “a kill shot” as the boy is “begging for his life?” We’ll have to say she shouldn’t have done that, unless the claim was adorned with a great many warnings about its highly speculative and uncorroborated nature.

In fact, Jackson’s speculations were heinously false; they introduced evil into the world. Three days later, the Orlando Sentinel corrected the record, to the extent that such a thing can be accomplished.

Including the headline, this is the way that report began. At one point, Stutzman discussed the effects of Jackson’s false tale, which she called an “interpretation:”
STUTZMAN (3/20/12): Trayvon Martin shooting: Gun that killed teen fired once

The handgun that killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black 17-year-old, was fired once—not twice—by a neighborhood crime-watch volunteer, according to information obtained by the Orlando Sentinel.

Police found a single shell casing at the scene, and when they seized George Zimmerman's handgun, a Kel Tec 9 mm, its magazine was full, according to a source close to the investigation. The only bullet missing was the one in the chamber, the source said.

That contrasts with the graphic interpretation that lawyers for the victim's family made Friday night after listening to 911 calls from neighbors who heard or saw a fight between Zimmerman and Trayvon.

Lawyers Natalie Jackson and Benjamin Crump insisted then that they could hear two shots on one 911 call, a warning shot and a kill shot, and that that proved Zimmerman was a murderer.

"You hear a shot, a clear shot, then you hear a 17-year-old boy begging for his life then you hear a second shot," Jackson said.

Those statements fueled a great deal of anger and frustration among those following the case in cyberspace. Twitter, Facebook and other social media exploded with news that two shots were fired.

Jackson and Crump were not available for comment Monday evening, but a statement released by their spokesman said, "Regardless of how many times George Zimmerman pulled the trigger that night, unfortunately for Trayvon Martin, it only took a single bullet to end his life."

Their Friday night statements about the two loud bangs on the recording run counter to other evidence. Three witnesses who have made public statements described a single shot. Sanford police would not discuss gun evidence.
For the record, Stutzman noted that a second lawyer, Benjamin Crump, had “insisted” that there were two shots.

In fairness, Stutzman still didn’t know at this point that only one shot had been fired. She was reporting information from an unnamed source.

This information turned out to be accurate, unlike the lurid claims advanced by attorneys Jackson and Crump. On the record, Sanford police were still declining to “discuss gun evidence.”

On the record, the police were still playing by the rules. Can the same be said for Jackson and Crump? For Stutzman and Alvarez? For their deeply irresponsible editors?

Let’s discuss the evil that enters the world when people invent lurid “interpretations,” when journalists agree to loose these invented tales on the public.

Stutzman described some of the harm that was done when the New York Times and the Orlando Sentinel published this evil, false speculation. “Those statements fueled a great deal of anger and frustration among those following the case in cyberspace,” she reported. “Twitter, Facebook and other social media exploded with news that two shots were fired.”

Even there, Stutzman (or her editor) still couldn’t bring herself to speak in clear direct language. Instead of using a term like “false speculation,” she described the public’s reaction to “news” that two shots had been fired.

In that passage, Jackson’s false story was still described as “news!”

The public’s reaction to that false story was perfectly understandable. If Stutzman can be trusted on this point, Jackson’s lurid statements produced “a great deal of anger” out in the world. “Twitter, Facebook and other social media exploded with news that two shots were fired.”

This was deeply unfortunate—we’ll call it evil—in two major ways.

On the one hand, Natalie Jackson’s lurid false tale was deeply unfair to George Zimmerman. She spread a false story which was so lurid that it can only be thought of as evil.

This has been done, since time immemorial, to other types of suspects in the south, and of course all over the world. Whether our lizards like it or not, Jackson behaved like the head of an old-fashioned southern lynch mob in this disgraceful performance.

(When she was asked why she had done this, Jackson was “not available for comment.” Somewhat similarly, the Orlando Sentinel never explained why they had given those lurid claims such an extremely high profile.)

Jackson’s disgraceful conduct was deeply unfair to George Zimmerman, who is an actual person, not an actor in Jackson’s internal dramas. But it was also unfair to all those people out in the world who exploded in anger.

According to Stutzman, many people exploded in anger when they were exposed to Jackson’s lurid false tale. Those people had been played about the facts of this case, a process which continues on cable right to this very day.

Just last week, decent people were still getting played about basic facts all over the cable dial. They heard a wide range of cable players making a string of false statements.

They heard the august Professor Cobb make at least two different false statements on the PBS Newshour. If they were watching MSNBC, they saw Maya Wiley make a certain false statement on several different programs.

Is this a democracy? Are our government and our society really “of the people?” If so, it’s an evil thing when elites go on TV, night after night, and keep misinforming the people about deeply serious matters.

The people who exploded in anger didn’t know they were being misinformed when they read that lurid false tale. They exploded in anger because they cared—and because they had been misinformed by a reprehensible lawyer and some horrible journalists.

To the credit of the Orlando Sentinel, the paper tried to walk back its earlier mistakes in that March 20 report. Right in its headline, the paper reported that only one shot had been fired that night. The paper signaled concern about the conduct of Jackson and Crump in pushing that lurid false tale.

The New York Times didn’t do that! Showing its typical horrible judgment, the deeply horrible upper-class paper had taken Jackson’s lurid false tale and pimped it extremely hard. The lurid false tale formed the basic framework for the paper’s first report about the killing of Martin.

That lurid tale was heinously false. But so what? To this day, no correction has been appended to that appalling news report, announcing that only one shot was fired.

In fairness, Alvarez committed a shitload of factual errors in that first news report. One of them has been formally corrected, although this horrible newspaper waited more than two weeks before it did even that.

(A more lurid version of that false claim was still being peddled by Cobb and Wiley and several others in recent weeks. We will detail that conduct tomorrow. That conduct was very bad.)

Alvarez included a boatload of errors in that first report. It would have been awkward for the Times to correct its full range of mistakes.

Apparent result? The mighty newspaper corrected one of its boatload of errors. The assertion that two shots were fired stands uncorrected to this very day. Beyond that, no attempt was ever made to address the lurid false story Alvarez peddled—a lurid false story which may have caused many Times readers to explode in anger.

The Sentinel attempted to address the harm it had done. Tomorrow, we’ll show you how the New York Times handled its boatload of errors.

Many people exploded in anger when that read that gruesome report. Those people had been vastly misled.

The New York Times didn’t seem to care. But then, this appalling newspaper has behaved this way for quite a few decades.

We’d say the pattern is obvious here:

Average people get treated like fools. Upper-class players don’t care.

Tomorrow: As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, false claims without end. Amen.

What better judgment looked like: The Associated Press showed much better judgment concerning Jackson's lurid false claims.

What did better judgment look like? Details tomorrow.

26 comments:

  1. In real time it should have been clear that the lawyers for the Martin family had no special knowledge about the confrontation and shooting. No client of theirs was present. Furthermore, they had a financial incentive to promote an interpretation blaming Zimmerman, because a lawsuit was in the offing. Also, those interpretations were obviously going to stir up hatred of George Zimmerman and racial hatred in general.

    So IMHO the Martin family lawyers' interpretations should have been ignored. They shouldn't have been reported even as attributed to these lawyers, let alone as fact. Instead those interpretations continued to be reported before the trial, throughout the trial, and after the trial.

    I have read that the Martin family got a million dollar settlement from the insurance company representing the community where Zimmerman lived. If so, then their lawyers were well-rewarded for the lies they spread. But, why in the world did the New York Times and other media help them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IYHO should Zimmerman's story also be ignored since he has a financial incentive to put the blame on Martin?

      Or are you OK with giving the benefit of the doubt to the guy with violence in his past?

      Berto

      Delete
    2. I'm OK with giving the benefit of the doubt to the guy who was acquitted at trial.

      Delete
  2. "I have read that the Martin family got a million dollar settlement from the insurance company representing the community where Zimmerman lived".
    Is that true? Where have you read that?
    Or is the sliming of Martin's parents just picking up steam?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it is or isn't a fact, which I don't know, how in the world is a "sliming?"

      IF an insurance company paid them, I would suppose it to be because that company's directors felt either that they had a valid claim against them or that it would more expensive/damaging to try to defend against the claim.

      In any event, accepting payment from an insurance company is not slimy. People everywhere do it every day.

      Delete
    2. Anon@1141: if you look at the context and the source, it is CLEARLY a sliming.

      Delete
    3. The settlement was publicly announced in early April. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/us/trayvon-martins-parents-settle-wrongful-death-suit.html?_r=0

      Huffington Post quotes a Florida newspaper that the amount of the settlement "is believed to be in excess of $1 million."
      http://www.digitalafro.com/trayvon-martins-family-wins-wrongful-death-suit/

      As an insurance guy, I would note that the settlement was made long before Zimmerman was acquitted. Under Florida law, self-defense is a bar to civil as well as criminal liability. I wonder whether the insurance company regrets having made this settlement.

      Also, it's worth noting how little attention was paid to this settlement. It's an objective fact that the Martin family lawyers made a lot of money from this case. Yet, when they appeared on TV or were quoted in the papers, their financial interest was seldom if ever mentioned.

      Delete
    4. If the insurance company did NOT, or has NOT paid them a million dollars, what is the point of socializing the idea that they have been paid?
      I had not read that the Martin family had filed a suit against the development. Of course I could have missed it.
      Zimmerman was found not guilty and that the doctrine of self defense allowed him to do what he did. He had the right to kill Martin. Why settle a claim when the deceased was found to be at fault?
      I am not a lawyer and would welcome an explanation.

      Delete
    5. tammie, although what I reported is factual, you are correct that I meant to slime the Martin family lawyers. Those people set back race relations throughout the country. They probably helped to inspire a number of attacks by blacks on whites. Their false narrative led to black children being raised with unnecessary fears. Their actions could have led to major race riots, but luckily led only to minor ones.

      These lawyers caused all this harm in order to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars for themselves. I despise them.

      Delete
    6. D in C,
      Apologies,
      I had not read about the settlement.
      My error.
      Anon: 11:37A

      Delete
    7. Without going into to the merits, I didn't say that you were just sliming the lawyers. Nice try, though.

      Delete
    8. Why settle a claim when the deceased was found to be at fault?

      As I said, the claim was settled before the jury verdict. Although Florida law says that self-defense is a bar to civil penalties, I'm not clear whether the finding of the criminal case would bar a lawsuit. The Martin family might have a right to re-litigate the self-defense claim all over again in a civil suit.

      Another factor is something called Excess of Policy Limits (XPL). Under certain circumstances, a liability insurance company can be required to pay an unlimited amount, even though their policy has a fixed limit. The law in Florida makes it relatively easy for a plaintiff to put the insurance company into an XPL situation. It wouldn't surprise me if the insurance company paid their full limit in order to protect themselves against having to pay a much larger figure.

      I once visited a Florida insurance claims man who was pleased that he had settled a claim for the full policy limit. That seemed bizarre to me, until he explained the XPL risk.

      Delete
    9. "Anon@1141: if you look at the context and the source, it is CLEARLY a sliming."

      Except that it isn't false. Slimed by the truth?

      Delete
  3. "Police found a single shell casing at the scene, and when they seized George Zimmerman's handgun, a Kel Tec 9 mm, its magazine was full, according to a source close to the investigation. The only bullet missing was the one in the chamber, the source said."

    Why was the magazine full? After the round in the chamber was fired, the next round should have replaced it, so the magazine should have been minus one round.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This came out at the trial. Zimmerman'se gun had a bullet in the chamber as well as a full magazine. According to testimony, this is the normal practice, when a gun is carried for self-defense.

    ReplyDelete
  5. DAinCA,

    Immunity from civil prosecution applies only to the killer, not his HOA. And even the, you have to assert the defense.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well dear readers, I refrained from commenting on this Howler all day waiting for a sharp eyed TDH follower to point out Mr. Somerby's latest example of complaining about how the NYT is all wet while he himself is peeing into the same type of wind. Nobody has so I will.

    From yesterday's tale on this topic:

    "According to Alvarez’s report, she herself hadn’t actually heard the 911 tapes which the police had played “for the family.”

    From today's tale:

    "Had Alvarez actually heard the 911 tapes at the time this report was written? As of yesterday, we still assumed that she had not. As of today, we aren’t sure."

    Somerby not only assumed it yesterday, he stated it as fact. He went on to denounce her for getting her side of the story only from Martin family lawyers. And he derided the Times for never correcting the original story. He did the latter again in this post.

    Why the change in "assumption?" Perhaps because a commenter to yesterday's post noted in the thread that Alvarez not only never said she did not listen to the tapes but actually wrote:

    "Late Friday night, after weeks of pressure, the police played the 911 calls in the case for the family and gave copies to the news media.".

    In his statement of fact yesterday Somerby conveniently "disappeared" the highlighted fact in her work.

    I could implore people to listen to that now famous 911 tape, in which there is a loud crash, followed a later "crack" then the caller reporting plural "gunshots." She corrects herself to the 911 operator to say it was one shot, but the person with her in the household can himself later be heard in the background once again calling them plural "gunshots." But I have no interest in discussing why Martin family lawyer or NYT reporters might hear things differently than other people.

    My concern is the sanctimony underlying so much of Somberby's valid and needed criticism of the media.
    The Times did not correct its error. Neither has Somerby. His original post remains unamended to reflect his new uncertainty. It has been days since he launched this line of attack on our miserably bad "upper class" newspaper. Did Alvarez herself listen to the tape and hear what she thought were two gunshots? You would think on such a crucial point he could pick up the phone, call Alvarez, and ask her himself.

    ReplyDelete
  7. nike shoes, Cheap Jordans,Cheap Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Max,Cheap Free Run Shoes,nike shoes,nike outlet,nike factory,nike store,nike factory outlet,nike outlet store,cheap nike shoes,nike sneakers, toms outlet, toms outlet,tom shoes,toms shoes outlet,tom shoes,toms wedges,cheap toms,toms.com, air jordan, air jordan,jordan shoes,cheap jordans,air jordans,jordan retro,air jordan shoes,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan retro, cheap jordans, cheap jordans,cheap jordan shoes,cheap jordan,cheap jordans for sale,jordans for cheap,jordan shoes,jordans,air jordan,jordan retro,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,air jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes,air jordan retro, jordan retro, jordan retro,jordan shoes,air jordan,air jordans,retro jordans,air jordan retro,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,cheap jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes, air max 90, air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 95,air max 2014,air max 2013,air max 1,nike air max,air max,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, air max 95, air max 95,nike air max 95,air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 2013,nike air max,air max,air max 2014,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, nike free 5.0, nike free 5.0, nike free trainer 5.0,nike free run 5.0,free running 2,nike free run,nike free,free running,nike running shoes,nike free trainer,free runs,free run 5.0, omega watches, omega watches,omega watch,replica watches,rolex watches,replica omega watches,rolex,watches for men,watches for women,rolex watches for sale,rolex replica,rolex watch,cartier watches,rolex submariner,fake rolex,rolex replica watches,replica rolex, ralph lauren outlet

    ReplyDelete
  8. ralph lauren outlet,ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren outlet,polo ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren,ralph lauren,polo ralph,polo shirts,ralphlauren.com,polo outlet,ralph lauren polo, oakley sunglass, oakley sunglasses,cheap oakley,cheap oakley sunglasses,oakley sunglasses cheap,oakley outlet,oakley sunglasses outlet,oakley vault,oakleys,oakley.com,sunglasses outlet,cheap sunglasses,oakley prescription glasses,fake oakleys,oakley glasses,oakley store,fake oakley,oakley sale,cheap oakleys,discount oakley sunglasses, ray ban sunglasses, Ray Ban Sunglasses,Ray Ban Outlet,Ray Ban Sale,Cheap Ray Bans,Cheap Ray Ban Sunglasses,ray ban sunglasses outlet,ray ban,rayban,ray bans,ray-ban,raybans,ray ban wayfarer,ray-ban sunglasses,raybans.com,rayban sunglasses,cheap ray ban, burberry, burberry,burberry outlet,burberry outlet online,burberry factory outlet,burberry sale,burberry handbags, chanel bags, chanel bags,chanel handbags,chanel sunglasses,chanel outlet,chanel purses,chanel handbags official site, coach outlet store, coach outlet,coach outlet store,coach outlet store online,coach outlet stores,coach factory outlet,coach factory,coach factory online,coach factory outlet online,coach outlet online, chaussures louboutin, louboutin,louboutin pas cher,christian louboutin,louboutin chaussures,louboutin soldes,chaussure louboutin,chaussures louboutin,chaussure louboutin pas cher,louboutin france, sac michael kors, michael kors,sac michael kors,michael kors sac,michael kors pas cher,sac michael kors pas cher,michael kors france, north face outlet, north face outlet,the north face,north face,the north face outlet,north face jackets,north face jackets clearance,northface, yoga pants, yoga pants,lululemon,lululemon outlet,lululemon athletica,lululemon addict,lulu lemon,lulu.com,lululemon.com, beats by dre

    ReplyDelete