Sounds of silence: Paging Kurtz!

FRIDAY, MAY 25, 2012

Prediction—he won’t say a word: As of Wednesday, even Mediaite had managed to notice the smaller part of the problem.

Mediaite is a tabloidy media web site founded by the useless Dan Abrams. In this post, Noah Rothman noted last week’s silence of the lambs. We’ll include the headline:
ROTHMAN (5/23/12): MSNBC Primetime Makes Zero Mentions Of Trayvon Martin Case After Pro-Zimmerman Evidence Surfaces

In March and April, MSNBC’s primetime hosts ran with nearly wall-to-wall coverage of the killing of Florida teen Trayvon Martin. They regularly suggested that the lack of national interest in the case was worthy of outrage. Last week, when an avalanche of new evidence favorable to George Zimmerman came to light, MSNBC’s primetime lineup didn’t just bury the story, they didn’t mention Martin or Zimmerman once...
Rothman noted one part of the problem. Last week, MSNBC completely ignored the breaking news in the Zimmerman/Martin case.

Major newspapers wrote sprawling reports about the documents, photos and tapes released by prosecutor Angela Corey. But how strange! In its major programs, from 5 PM on, MSNBC didn’t say a single word about this important story!

How weird! Trayvon's name wasn't mentioned once. George Zimmerman didn't exist.

That was pretty remarkable conduct. But Rothman ignored the larger problem in MSNBC’s silence. The new documents made it abundantly clear that MSNBC had broadcast reams of mis- and disinformation about this important case.

A serious news org would correct such egregious mistakes, informing millions of misled viewers.

MSNBC clammed.

Rothman noted part of the problem. He failed to note the larger scandal involved in MSNBC’s conduct. This raises an obvious question:

Where is Howard Kurtz?

Kurtz is our most famous media reporter. Every Sunday, he hosts an hour-long show on CNN devoted to media topics.

MSNBC has staged a major, ginormous scam. It peddled reams of disinformation—and it has refused to correct or explain its endless, egregious misstatements.

In a rational world, Howard Kurtz would speak up. But here’s our prediction for Sunday:

Kurtz won’t say a word.

MSNBC’s conduct has been egregious. We’re not sure we’ve ever seen a cable news network behave more grossly than this.

The disinformation was ugly and endless. But the guild has agreed not to speak.

That said, this is precisely the way the guild works. If your “errors” tilt in certain directions, the guild will agree not to notice.

After all, they only slandered a bunch of cops and spread a bunch of bogus claims about someone who is charged with murder. Why should anyone care about that? What possible harm has been done?

For decades, the guild has worked this way. Our prediction: The guild won’t be saying a word.

Neither will the fiery “liberals” you’ve learned to love and trust. Your lizard brain will keep insisting that there must a very good reason.

The Republican brain on acid: With regard to those liberals, one small question:

According to Chris Mooney's new book, isn't this the way the Republican brain is supposed to work? Aren't we liberals supposed to adore the complexity and all the nuance?


  1. Ah yes, here it is: Today's feeding of sweet hay to Bob's new herd of cattle branded "Zimmerman is Innocent".

    1. I have no idea of Zimmerman is "innocent," though he might be not guilty of the crime he was charged with. Doesn't it concern you that MSNBC has chosen to ignore the evidence that might be exculpatory for Zimmerman? Isn't that something that the other side (i.e. Fox News) is supposed to do?

    2. No, it doesn't bother me in the least. If the evidence is indeed exculpatory, then what MSNBC does or does not say about it doesn't mean shit to a tree.

    3. So, it doesn't matter if one of the major news sources for liberals can't (or won't) accurately report information about a major news story?

    4. Anonymous, you are a profane liar.

    5. Oh, so what did I lie about? That it really does bother me that MSNBC has chosen to move on from the Trayvon Martin story now that it is the realm of the court system? Sorry, but I don't need MSNBC to do my thinking for me, nor do I rely on MSNBC as my primary, or even secondary or tertiary, source of information.

      The Trayvon Martin story is an excellent example of a story in which both sides are under the fallacy that they know far more than they could possibly know from the comfort of their living rooms, and thus are qualified to open their pieholes about it.

      Now you can rail all you want about the legal system, but I'll still hazard a guess that it's still a far better place than the comment box of The Daily Howler to determine the guilt or innocence of George Zimmerman.

    6. I wish one of Bob's sheep will explain this to me.

      He seems to be complaining that MSNBC's coverage was as "egregious" as he has ever seen. Now he seems to be complaining that there isn't enough of it.

    7. Pretty simple.

      When they didn't have facts, MSNBC went whole-hog pushing a narrative that they told viewers was the truth.

      THAT was "egregious."

      THEN, when facts disputing the fictitious MSNBC version became available, MSNBC clammed up and stopped reporting on the case.

      Somerby has a crazy expectation that a professional news organization might balance as much time reporting facts as they do fantasy. Like I said, it's a c-r-a-z-y expectation.

      One of Bob's Sheep

    8. Anon 12:43 posted what seems to be the dumbest comment ever at this website.

    9. Well, sorry, but sheep, but the answer is far more revealing about your shepherd than you care to see.

      Go look over the last couple of months. The posts that seem to get, by a fairly wide margin, the most comments (and, perhaps, the most hits) are the Trayvon Martin posts.

      Bob's gotta keep feeding the sheep to keep 'em coming. So he blasts MSNBC when they say something. Then he blasts MSNBC when they say nothing.

      Absolutely easy way to run a blog.

    10. HB from a public computer.

      The reason this is important is because, once again, my fellow liberals have made needlessly spectacular public a-holes out of themselves by slavishly endorsing a narrative before all the facts were in. I've seen this happen at least a dozen times in my life going from the Super Bowl Domestic Violence hoax to Tawana Brawley to Duke lacrosse, with even a feminist-inspired witch hunt thrown in for good measure, that was so perverted that feminists and Evangelical Christrians, two of the most natural enemies in the world actually formed a nefarious alliance in attacking an utterly non-existent problem.

      And there's plenty more where that came from.

      The only way to recover some shred of credibility when you've publically not only screwed the pooch but somehow managed to get him pregnant is to publically fess up. If you don't, if instead you choose to pretend that nothing happened after calling the people who turned out to be right idiots at best and evil racist jerkwads at worst after basing your entire case on a combination of disinformation and anti-white stereotypes, you may think there's no reason why people should regard liberals as a bunch of arrogant, reverse-racist kooks, but there's no reason why anybody else should be expected to refrain from reaching that conclusion.

      If you want to know one of the most important reasons why Republicans keep beating us in elections despite the demonstrable superiority of liberal policies the idiot Anonymous at 12:43 and 3:15 is a most excellent place to start. What a bonehead.

    11. Bob's Sheep,
      Now I see the problem. The Howler and his fluffers are under the false impression MSNBC is a professional news organization. Cable news hasn't been professional since at least the OJ Simpson trial in the mid-90s.

    12. Eloquent, but you do seem a bit obsessive on the failures of our tribe; I must be one of the few here who recalls the satanic cult story, to which I think you elude, but even I missed the "Super Bowl Domestic Violence Hoax" as dd, sadly enough, Edgar Allen Poe.
      There is a bit of validity, also, in Anom at 12:43, even if MSNBC's commented further on The Martin Case, and were apologetic, it takes a great deal of imagination to envision him accepting said apology. Aye, he has seen the great white lesbian and if O'Donnell survives it will only be to tell the tale.
      In the deeper sense I think you are talking about a lowly human impulse it would be folly to expect to observe party lines: the call of the mob. It is a much more comfortable place to be than the defender of the wretched, and the left has, in our lifetime, largely given up. On this score only the pious could judge us too harshly.

    13. 12:43 Anonymous isn't making a coherent case against Bob. (BTW, I don't always agree with Bob myself on some issues.) 12:43 seems to be saying that MSNBC is a worthless source of information, just a bunch of hacks, and nobody should take them seriously. Well, that's pretty much what Bob says. Unfortunately, there seem to be liberals do seem to take MSNBC seriously. I know some in real life.

      (Personally, I exempt Chris Hayes from this criticism--he runs a good show, but the weekday evening lineup is pretty damn awful.)

      Yet another anonymous

  2. Bob Somerby is of course completely correct as any decent person would immediately understand. The way in which the tragic case was treated by NBC in particular was wildly prejudiced and wildly dangerous to any fairness involving an understanding of the case. NBC has behaved beyond all conscience or ethics.

  3. He is completely correct that MSNBC has erred grievously in its coverage of this issue -- not in treating it as a serious matter that should be given national attention, since it appeared at the beginning that the death of a black teenager apparently minding his own business, the shooter appeared to face no consequences, and no other media outlet was giving it the serious attention it deserved, but because its coverage has been grossly one-sided.

    What he is completely incorrect about is his obnoxious "lizard brain" comments about everyone who doesn't despise Rachel Maddow and some others personally as much as he does, or who is as willing as he routinely is to lurk in wait to pull out offending segments of their work and make judgments as if they are the whole of their output.

    I guess it takes great integrity to offend the majority of your small audience.

    1. Actually, the network that broke this as a national story, and has been doggedly on it ever since, has been ABC News, not MSNBC, as Somerby would love his sheep to believe.

      MSNBC has jumped on it, no question, and their prime time talking heads were all over it at one point.

      But it was ABC News that did, and is still doing, the heavy lifting and made this a national story.

      Of course, we'll never hear Somerby evaluate the job ABC has done on this story. That would ruin his own narrative that this story has been solely driven by MSNBC.

      What would he tell the children?

    2. Anonymous,

      What you fail to acknowledge is the fact that ABC News HAS, in fact, corrected itself on many of the most important issues, and, indeed, was often the media source responsible for first bringing forth the very facts that seemed to tilt in Zimmerman's favor. An example of this was the evidence ABC offered up that Zimmerman DID seem to have injuries on a high resolution videotape, after ABC's first report suggesting that he did NOT display injuries on a videotape.

      Where has MSNBC done this?

      If you don't see the important difference, why should anybody take you seriously?

      Yeah, there are sheep on this blog, alright. And your post is just one long "Baa".

  4. I usually tape and watch to Rev. Al Sharpton's Politics Nation.

    I learned to fast forward through the Trayvon Martin segments, because I knew much of what Sharpton and his talking heads were saying were unsubstantiated theories.
    (Sharpton does that with his "Willard" reports as well).

    As far as conscience or ethics, Is MSNBC violating those of journalists, which they are not, or of a corporation, which they are?

    1. You are on to something, gravy.

      People who are under the impression that any of these prime time talking head shows -- from Al Sharpton to Sean Hannity -- are "journalism" do so at the risk of what's left of their sanity.

      That horse left the barn the moment Bill O'Reilly signed on and found and audience.

      And "finding an audience" is what these shows are all about. And in the fragmented world of cable/satellite TV these days, you don't have to find much of an audience any more to sustain yourself. Any sizeable niche will do.

      Good grief, the history of MSNBC would make an excellent sit-com.

      First they started off as an alternative to CNN. When they (and also Fox) found out how expensive it was to do 24-hour news, they turned to the far less expensive "talking head" format, giving shows to such contemptible hosts as John Gibson and Carlson Tucker. (Meanwhile, on sister station CNBC, we had the likes of Chris Matthews and Geraldo Rivera giving us the absolute latest on the Lewinsky scandal.)

      Then they screwed up and gave a show to Phil Donahue, who actually found an audience for a "liberal" show. That scared the shit out of Jack Welch, not only ideologically, but also because no "liberal" show had ever succeeded.

      So they give Donahue's slot to who? Keith Olbermann, who came from where? Fox News, which shows you the scruples Olbermann holds.

      Slowly but surely, the nation turns against George Bush and the Iraq War, and Olbermann finds an audience for his Edward R. Murrow impersonation. Soon, they are hitching their wagon to Barack Obama's star, and the rest is history.

    2. HB here from a public computer.

      They say a leopard can't change his spots. Al Sharpton has historically been one of the liberal/left's hugest boneheads. He was the star offender in the Tawana Brawley rape hoax which was another great liberal/left cluster eff in which Al Sharpton promoted an obvious rape lie. Not only did he predictably call everyone who saw the truth racists, not only did he claim that Gov. Mario Cuomo was blocking a legitimate investigation Sharpton actually compared Cuomo to Hitler.

      Sharpton was successfully sued for slander by the men he falsely accused. Despite that Sharpton continues to this day to claim Brawley told a stright story.

      Naturally, this in no way prevented Sharpton from becoming the darling of the liberal/left becasue, you know, we're fightint prejudice.

    3. Last time you were here, braintree, you either called to be liberal or to speaking in the voice of a liberal, so I guess that makes you an authority on the "darlings" of the liberal/left.

      Apart from his employers at MSNBC, who exactly is a fervid admirer of Al Sharpton? I'm sure I don't have to remind you that MSNBC does not hire its hosts by polling liberals.

      In all honesty, Sharpton does occasionally come out with a refreshing truth that the usual TV hacks, both right and left, would never be guilty of, but you might consider that he was hired for his entertainment value (liberals were not consulted). Unlike the far-right, whose TV personalities fully represent the madness and froth of the American right-wing, liberals have no vigorous representation. I know this is difficult for you folks to comprehend, but the liberals on TV are conservatives in other country.

  5. I agree with Bob. Surprised no one has mentioned today's Reuters story, tho:

    Trayvon's killer said to make self-incriminating statements

    1. From reading the article, it strikes me that there's no there there, so far. It's just the prosecution alleging that Zimmerman made some self-contradictory statements, and some that contradicted the evidence.

      Given that the prosecution has to make its case as best it can, I can hardly be surprised it would make such a claim. I should think that in general it's VERY hard for people to utter only statements perfectly consistent with each other and all the facts (how about the witnesses -- including I gather even the police officers -- who made statements inconsistent with known fact?).

      Maybe there's something there, but we have no reason to believe it yet.

    2. For not wanting this case tried in the press, these prosecutors are doing a lot of gum-flapping.

  6. MSNBC shows a lack of ethics and professionalism in not commenting on the emerging story, Even I, who have little respect for them, am a bit surprised. They have not been the only wrongdoers here, I am paging Joan Walsh and Bill Maher....

    That said, one of the anomini did a fine job answering Somerby's Jack Webbian grandstanding yesterday. The Daily Howler has gotten very fast and lose with it's hyperbole, as it, (there should be no disagreement here) attempts to use the case to settle his scores with MSNBC.

    MSNBC jumped to false assumptions, for instance, when they reported Zimmerman went home with his gun. But given the available evidence at the time they made the claim, was this egregious, or was it presented in the context of speculation?
    To me the worst breakdown was the reporting on Martin's expulsion from school, it was widely reported that he just had some pot residue in his bag( Maher, of course, loved this) , when he actually had a bunch of watches and a screwdriver. When I googled to see if this was true, the few stories put it in context of the cops not being able to tie the watches to a burglary. I suspect MSNBC was with the crowd on this one.
    It is fair to observe that the evidence became public in a very odd (suspicious?) fashion in this case. Why didn't we just get the damning photos of the beaten on Zimmerman from the get go? And the question is at least slightly begged: Is there no place for free swinging, old style "yellow" journalism? Is it possible that serious people will use this case to consider the wisdom of "stand your ground" laws, who otherwise wouldn't have without the stink? If Zimmerman is acquitted, isn't the real tragedy the needless loss of a young life?

    It's possible to say Zimmerman has been railroaded and committed no crime. It's a tougher sell to say he did nothing wrong. Like a child, he was playing cops and robbers, running around with a guy and disobeying the neighborhood watch instructions. I am willing to accept his apology and let him get on with his life. He still falls rather short of victim status.

    1. Greg, whether Zimmerman is acquitted or convicted, the real tragedy is still the needless loss of a young life. Nothing can possibly bring Trayvon Martin back to life.

      Now as for the reasons for his suspension (not expulsion) from school, perhaps I am thinking too much like a lawyer, but the only reason to report that is to satisfy public curiosity.

      As far as evidence in a criminal trial, it should have no bearing on the events that happened on the night Trayvon Martin was killed. Perhaps if he were available as a witness, it could be used -- if allowed -- to impeach his integrity. But otherwise, it's like putting a rape victim on trial and delving into her entire sexual history, as if "she had it coming."

  7. There is a very good reason. If the truth were reported, all of the feel good outrage and racial drama would end, we wouldn't have our great white defendant, and then where would we be?

    1. Perhaps, but "on all sides" I would add.

  8. But given the available evidence at the time they made the claim, was this egregious, or was it presented in the context of speculation?


    1. Well, let's go to the video tape...laughing boy.

    2. AND be sure to read the link to Rothman, he does not impress. He does get a quote to establish the raw deal Zimmerman is getting, from one of O.J.' lawyers!!

    3. Lemme guess which one of OJ's lawyers? Dershowitz still looking for another 15 minutes of fame?

  9. "Is it possible that serious people will use this case to consider the wisdom of "stand your ground" laws, who otherwise wouldn't have without the stink?"

    I certainly hope so.

    The lawmakers that phrased the language of "stand your ground" laws were prompted by the NRA.

    Many cooler and wiser heads fought those laws, for reasons that are abundantly clear now.

    Aside: The Florida concealed carry permit is coveted by gun owners nationwide.


    Because the authorizing signature on the permits is "Charles H Bronson", making it a collector's prize.

  10. "Is it possible that serious people will use this case to consider the wisdom of "stand your ground" laws, who otherwise wouldn't have without the stink?"

    You can be sure they won't consider it since the main problem with the shooting was sold as "race" and now that evidence is showing race was never a factor and the shooting was justified, it will be chalked up to just another Sharpton Tawana Brawley Duke Lacrosse Trayvon Martin load of crap.

    1. by some, perhaps. Perhaps not all.

    2. Well actually, new "Stand Your Ground" proposals in many states came to a screeching halt in the immediate aftermath of the Trayvon Martin case, and even those states that have already passed them are considering at least amending them before open season is declared on black kids in hoodies.

      And that even includes Florida in which the original sponsor of the nation's first "Stand Your Ground" law, and the governor who signed it (Jeb Bush) have publicly stated that perhaps the law needs a bit of tweaking.

      But, of course, we all know what an avid fan of Al Sharpton that Jeb Bush is.

  11. "Zimmerman is innocent" -- I even put it in quotes.

    I pretend Somerby said that.

    I have no shame.

    I am,
    Anonymous Idiot

    1. Shorter comment: I can't argue with what people actually say, so I'll just make it up. I learned that from Bob.

  12. This discussion of MSNBC's shortcomings should not end without mentioning Melissa Harris-Perry's donning a hoodie in solidarity with the cause of justice for Trayvon. Jennifer Granholm and Keith Olbermann did the same on Current TV. These three rushed to associate themselves with a cause that they clearly expected would be so unambiguously noble without the glimmer of forethought that would have told them that the act was silly and that it could backfire with distressing consequences for their credibility.

    1. They won't be distressed in the least. As Bob notes, their MO is to just sweep it under the rug, ignore it, pretend it didn't happen.

    2. Yeah, how dare struggling cable talk show hosts do such a thing in order to attract both attention and an audience. How will the poor, pitifully weak United State of America ever survive such an ourtrage?

      And while we're piling on, let's not forget the Miami Heat doing the same thing. Good God! An NBA basketball team from the kid's hometown stood in solidarity with such a thug who mercilessly beat up a defenseless, innocent man who so obviously needed to pack a gun to protect himself from a Skittles-munching, cellphone-talking teenaged Negro.

    3. Oh, by the way, Dipso. Bob likely will never concern himself with the excesses of Current TV, given who the ownership is.

  13. So much for the "reality-based" community!

  14. IMHO Trayvon Martin is an unfortunate role model. It's conceivable that racism played a part in his being shot to death, although there's virtually no evidence that such is the case. OTOH there's a lot of evidence pointing to the possibility that he was shot because he made a violent, unprovoked attack on Zimmerman.

    Either way, Martin was an illegal drug user with evidence that he had committed burglary and who was suspended from school. I know nothing particularly positive about Martin's life. He has become the face of black America only because he was a victim.

    It's a shame that this kind of attention isn't being given instead to David Blackwell, a brilliant black mathematician who passed away recently. It would be so much better to encourage black children to emulate Blackwell rather than Martin.

    1. I'm certain black people everywhere appreciate your advice on who their role models should be. How could they ever figure that out without some white guy telling them?

    2. It's too bad a young Trayvon didn't have a wise, fatherly white man teach him how to mop floors and clean toilets while he was in middle school.

      All this tragedy would have been avoided, and Trayvon could have had a long, happy-go-lucky life as a janitor.

    3. Oh, come now, gravymeister,

      Young Trayvon had the wise, fatherly Newt Gingrich just like the rest of us.

    4. David in Cal,

      I'll let others comment on the role model business, but there simply isn't "a lot of evidence" that Martin made a "violent, unprovoked attack" on Zimmerman. We know there was a confrontation, and we know that Zimmerman suffered some cuts, contusions, and a broken nose. We know that Martin suffered a fatal gunshot wound. The details of the circumstances of the confrontation come from Zimmerman's self-serving story. That doesn't mean that Zimmerman's version isn't the truth, just that it doesn't count as "a lot of evidence."

    5. sorbital, I based my evaluation on Jeralyn Merritt's talk left blog.

      Listen to all John's interviews: He's positive that Trayvon, the darker complected man with the dark shirt, was on top during the physical struggle, and Zimmerman, the lighter complected man with the red and white shirt, was on the bottom, and that during the struggle, George Zimmerman was trying to get up.

      Furthermore, the injuries to Zimmerman's nose and head and to Martin's knuckles are consistent with Zimmerman's story. So is the evidence showing the distance from which the gun was fired.

      I don't know whether that adds up to "a lot" of evidence, but Jeralyn thinks it's enough evidence to get Zimmerman acquitted.

    6. David in Cal,

      So now you don't know whether there's a lot of evidence. Last night you were so sure there was.

      Of course there's enough evidence to get Zimmerman off, but that's a different issue. In fact, there's enough absence of evidence that the judge could reasonably dismiss the charges before they can go before a jury. But that's different too.

  15. "Either way, Martin was an illegal drug user with evidence that he had committed burglary and who was suspended from school."

    Yeah, and that rape victim had it coming to her too because she wasn't a virgin and dressed too provocatively.

    Classic defense strategy. Put the victim on trial. And in this case, put a victim on trial who can no longer defend himself, thanks to your client. And for some people, it doesn't take much to convice them that a dead, young, black male just HAD to be a thug who just HAD to do something to deserve a bullet to the chest.

  16. I agree with you, Anon 8:31, that the defense will put Martin on trial. A new theory is that Martin may have been using a street drug called "lean", a concoction made from certain prescription cough syrups and a beverage medium, often made more palatable with candy. One of the recipes for “lean” calls for using Arizona Iced Tea Co. watermelon fruit juice cocktail as the beverage of choice, and Skittles candy… the items found on Trayvon Martin’s body. I don't know whether speculation about lean would be admissible in court. If the defense can raise a likelihood that Martin was under the influence of this drug, then I don't think he'll be convicted.

    I'm not getting your comment, gravymeister. I was advocating that black children be encouraged to be mathematicians, like the great David Blackwell. Why are you bringing up janitors?

    Anon 8:33 -- Lots of other white people are, in effect, promoting Trayvon Martin as a role model for blacks. Why shouldn't I also give advice on black role models?

    1. "Particularly you, a person who would go to such lengths to invent lies to smear a dead 17-year-old because you think you are "right" about his killer."

      How is he "inventing lies" by pointing out that Skittles and Watermelon AZ Juice are very commonly used as mixers for cough syrup drank. It's liberals who wanted to make skittles and watermelon AZ "iced tea" the centerpiece of this story. But it's just plain hilarious how badly this backfired now that we learn that this is like the margarita mix of robitussin cough syrup (which is also the most important ingredient in meth).

  17. I believe, David in Cal, that you're missing the point. Trayvon Martin is not a literal role model, no more than Rosa Parks is a literal role model in her time. He is instead, the human face of a current issue that needs to be addressed by our society. His death is larger than his life, and it highlights problematic issues in regard to the American propensity for violence and acceptance of violent self-defense. Trayvon Martin is an icon or metaphor for this and other questions and concerns surrounding the Zimmerman case.

  18. I don't see why everyone here is acting like this had a bad outcome. TrayVon was a violent drug abusing thug who basically had no future except spending the rest of his life bouncing in and out of prison and leaving a string of ruined lives in his wake.

    You take the gun out of this equation, and what do you get? TrayVon beats Zimmerman into a coma and either gets away with it or goes directly to jail. You consider that a better outcome?

    I'm guessing you folks don't live in a neighborhood invested with lots of TrayVons, but you're quite willing to sacrifice the physical safety of people like Zimmerman for your political principles.

    1. Anonymous on 5/27/12 @ 2:35P,

      Yeah, you're absolutely right. This wasn't a bad outcome. No, wait.... A kid is dead. I might have got that outcome thing wrong.

      You take the gun out of this equation, and what do you get? A fist fight. Zimmerman got a bump on the head and a broken nose. He was uninjured enough to get off a shot at close range, he was close enough pop his assailant in the face. In hindsight, Zimmerman wasn't close to slipping into a coma.

      And Martin wasn't a violent drug abusing thug except in your fanciful narrative. Narrative just like your predictions about Martin's future.

      My "political principles" extend to thinking that Zimmerman has a good case for dismissal under SYG. They don't extend to just making shit up. YMMV, and evidently does.

    2. This is the problem with liberals: you're unable to distinguish between good and bad. Sure, a kid is dead. A bad kid.

      When someone is committing a crime like assault and battery (in this case), or rape, or home invasion burglary, I don't consider it a tragedy when the victim exercises their right to self-defense. I don't just see it as "a dead kid" tragedy. I see it as one dead bad guy, and one saved innocent who doesn't have to suffer from a violent crime. It's a win-win.

      Apparently you can't make that distinction, and think that criminals and innocent victims have the same moral weight. I'm guessing that's because crime and threats to your personal safety are completely abstract concepts to you in your neighborhood.

    3. Anonymous on 5/29/12 @ 9:46A,

      And here's the problem with you: you're unable to distinguish between fact and your own narrative.

      Was Martin a "bad" kid? In general, there seems to be little evidence for this. Specifically on the night he was killed? I'm sure glad you know. I trust you've called the special prosecutor to let her in on your valuable input.

      Was Martin a "bad guy," and Zimmerman a "saved innocent"? I don't know. And that's the difference between us. It's not that I can't make the moral distinction; it's that I don't make the judgment until I know the facts.

      That means holding my prejudices and snap judgments in abeyance. It's more difficult than your approach, but I still recommend it to you.

    4. I base my judgment on the facts available. There are lots of them at this point. Please try to remember that this entire story only exists because liberals, stoked by Sharpton-wannabe Ben Crump, imposed their deranged Narrative on this case. Since then every fact has gone against them, including an overwhelming amount showing that TrayVon was a common drug abusing ghetto rat thug who physically attacked George Zimmerman and got what he deserved. It was the liberal media's prejudices and snap judgments that got annihilated by the facts, not mine. So get off your high horse, faggot.

    5. Anonymous on 5/29/12 @ 7:02P

      Quit lying to yourself. There are plenty of uncontested facts in this case, but none that shows Martin was a drug abusing thug. That you call him a ghetto rat tells us much more about you than about him.

      The evidence supports the scenario of Martin attacking Zimmerman. What we don't know was whether the law would allow such an attack as self-defense or define it as battery. That's because we really don't know what happened in the last minutes of Martin's life. Oh, wait. What do I mean by "we"? *You* know. I trust you've been in touch with the special prosecutor. I'm sure she'll appreciate your acumen.

      The "liberal media" has been no less egregious than you in their reporting, and I carry no brief to defend them.

      Faggot? I guess in your mind I must be a homosexual because, well, I don't know why. Only you can answer why a correspondent's sexual orientation would spring to your mind. And I guess in your mind, this is some kind of dire insult. It's not to me. It says nothing about me at all. Plenty about you, though.

    6. "The evidence supports the scenario of Martin attacking Zimmerman. What we don't know was whether the law would allow such an attack as self-defense or define it as battery."

      It is very clear that you don't know shit about "The Law". Let me frame it for you this way, idiot:

      If some white guy was high on drugs and got paranoid that some black guy was "following" him, and then the white guy started beating the black guy's head into a bloody pulp, this whole distinction never would have occurred to you. You'd be 100% on the HATE CRIME RACIST PROFILING PARANOID TEABAGGER bandwagon.

      It's only because the media led you so far astray that you're now grasping at straws to find some reason why it was totally OK for TrayVon to violently assault Zimmerman. Your lizard brain won't let you admit that you were wrong all along, so you're trying to justify the indefensible.

      Here's a hint, dumbass: Under no conceivable law anywhere in these 50 United States is it okay to violently attack someone just because you think they are following you. A world where such laws existed would be a million times worse than even the most paranoid liberal's "Stand Your Ground" nightmares. So no, there's no question (for any sane, informed person) "whether the law would allow such an attack as self-defense or define it as battery". It's battery, in every nook and cranny of the country.

      But if it makes you feel better, I really do hope that you're out walking one day and some TrayVon type thinks you're "following" him and decides to beat you into oblivion and you get serious brain damage. Hopefully that part of your brain that's telling you that you deserved it will stay intact. Bonus points if that TrayVon is high on marijuana and cough syrup at the time, like TrayVon Martin was.

    7. Anonymous on 5/30/12 @ 1:16A

      You can stop reading my mind at any time. You're not any better at that than you are at guessing what happened in the last minutes of Martin's life.

      If you could actually read for comprehension, you'd know that I am agnostic when it comes to the confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman. That's because I understand the limits of the evidence that we've been presented. Zimmerman's story is self-serving, but that doesn't mean it's not true, and if it is, then Martin assaulted Zimmerman, who is legally allowed to kill Martin if he himself is in reasonable fear for his own life. If, on the other hand, Zimmerman provoked or assaulted Martin, then the law requires Zimmerman to either retreat or if he can't, surrender in good faith before he's allowed to use force to defend himself. Under Florida law, if Martin had reason to fear for his life at Zimmerman's hands, then Martin had the same SYG protection that Zimmerman will claim.

      Here's a hint for you, ignoramus. The question isn't whether it's OK to attack someone simply because they are following you in a public place, and no one claims that it is, despite your racial fantasies. The question is who started the fight. I don't know, but since you appear to be certain, I trust you're in touch with the special prosecutor.

      Martin wasn't "high on marijuana"; reports say his blood test showed trace amounts so small they wouldn't affect behavior. Marijuana just gives people the munchies; it doesn't make them violent. The codeine in cough syrup is an opiate, so it's a depressant. If you want to make the case for a drug-crazed Martin, you'll have to go for something like PCP. There's no evidence for that either, but hey, that hasn't stopped you.

      And, no it doesn't make me feel better to know you hope that I'm beaten into brain damage. (It doesn't make me feel any worse either.) But I'm guessing it make *you* feel better, at least until the next time someone counters your racial hysteria.