MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 10 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
[Refuted] Egypt Highlights the Peril of Democracy
By PeraclesPlease on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 1:44pm |[Note: there is *NO* real source for claims about this law in Egypt - be careful with spreading - likely highly exaggerated urban myth]
With Egyptian politicians considering a 6-hour window on necrophilia, and lowering the marriage age to 14, we're left considering whether they were better off with Mubarak.
Ok, they haven't passed the law yet, and to their credit, many (including seemingly most women) oppose the changes, but it exemplifies issues of authoritarianism vs. liberal democracy in places (like the US?) where the populace as a whole seems to be veering off into insanity or cruelty or just backwardsness.
Mubarak's wife Suzanne helped push through changes in divorce law, which once took 10-15 years for a woman to obtain (but now comes much quicker if she gives up financial rights).
40% of marriages end in divorce, and there's a push to return to the old system. As if the causes for divorce weren't the issue more than the results.
Of course there are other alternatives between Mubarak's repressions and a full implementation of Sharia Law.
But in practice, does the 3rd (or 4th or 5th) way usually survive? How over-optimistic were we about the Arab Spring? [ignoring the US' shameful silence with Bahrain, and the more difficult situation in Syria]
While it's easy to say Mubarak and the Shah were the US' puppet, or that Qaddafi is a brute, what are our realistic expectations of their replacements? While we hate coups, what if a coup stops the Taliban or a Pol Pot from gaining power? Who takes the blame when the revolution isn't as peaceful or enlightened as predicted?
[like the heaps of black African bodies found after the rebels took out Qaddafi]
In the meantime, Rick Santorum may have found a place to go to build up his base. If only they were Christian.
- Add new comment
- 5129 reads
Comments
OK, the story has been picked up by Al-Arabiya and gone viral in the Western blogosphere. Al-Ahram, which is always cited as the source, seems never to have carried it as a news story. Rather it was a single sentence in an online blog by columnist Amr Abdul Samea. And his alleged source was Tawfik Okasha -- a very dark-horse presidential candidate who has been described as the Egyptian Glenn Beck (he started his own TV station a few years back and was a bigshot in Mubarak's party). What's happened since the rumor started appears to be that legitimate opposition critics are giving it credence by commenting on it.
What initially raised my suspicion was that the story didn't spell out who or what party had proposed this supposed legislation, or how much backing it had. There are indeed lots of hard-line Salafis in the Egyptian parliament, so it should have been simple to attach the name of an individual or party to it -- if it were true.
Which doesn't mean someone won't propose such a law. If that happens, let's wait for a parliamentary vote before screaming, "Egypt plans to legalize necrophilia!" (which I've seen on blogs from left to right). As it stands, the chorus of Egypt- and Muslim-bashing the story has engendered is an indictment not of the new Egyptian democracy but of Western journalistic standards.
by acanuck on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 4:50pm
Hey, it's a victimless crime!
by jollyroger on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 4:54pm
The murder of journalistic standards? I disagree.
by acanuck on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 5:02pm
The murder of non-existent journalistic standards.
And while I think I was careful not to guess how close this was to passing (I assumed it wasn't a slam dunk), I gave it more credibility of being a real movement than it deserved (Muslims accept necrophilia? considering a myriad of restrictions on things unclean, hard to imagine)
Let's hope child brides and rescinding divorce are also far from reality.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 6:35pm
The standards still exist, whether people follow them or not.
On the topic of child brides, let's avoid ethnic stereotyping (especially on the basis of blog rumors). The age of consent in Egypt is 18, which is higher than in 30 U.S. states. It's also higher than in Canada, which raised it to 16 -- from 14 -- only in 2008. And even then, there's a close-in-age exemption so we don't send kids to jail for doing what their bodies urge them to.
I personally think 16 is about right, but English common law allowed girls to marry at 12, and I believe that was the case in Canada through the 19th century.
As for restrictive divorce laws, within my own memory adultery was the only legal grounds in Canada, and every divorce required a separate vote in the country's Parliament. Quebec gave women the vote only in 1940. I could go on.
What I'm saying is: let's be a bit humble about patting ourselves on the back for how advanced and progressive we are compared with other societies. It was not always so, and (be warned) may not always be so.
by acanuck on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 7:14pm
raised it to 16 -- from 14 -- only in 2008
A sad retreat from a singularly civilized point of view...
by jollyroger on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 7:22pm
The whole idea of putting age limits on ability to consent is a tricky one, I agree. There are predators I want to protect 14-year-olds from, but I also don't want to criminalize precocious sexuality. Canada's two-year closeness-of-age exemption is a reasonable compromise, though I hope prosecutors would exercise even more discretion when the sexual activity is clearly consentual.
When kids first invent sex (that's how I remember it), their brains secrete a hormone that renders them incapable of accepting any argument for occasionally not doing it. It only begins to dissipate in their late 20s, if then. That's a known scientific fact.
by acanuck on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 7:44pm
There is a rule of thumb that, as a parent, whatever nightmare scenario of unholy precocity you can tolerate in your imagination, your are five years and five players behind the curve.
I was informed a few years back by a buddy whose son is 20, that a common pastime was for one girl and five to ten contemporary guys to form up for a circle jerk, and if the guys were really adventurous and cooperative they would reacharound, so to speak.
Now, eliding (mercifully) the last bit of data, I always assumed in my worst fears in re:my teenage daughter's exploits, that only one boy needed to be hunted down like the dog he is....
by jollyroger on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 7:57pm
Every time I think about democracy in foreign lands I end up thinking about Tito.
In the old Yugoslavia a hundred tribes hated a hundred tribes.
Tito managed to keep his distance from the USSR; he managed to keep the Muslims and Catholics from killing each other as well as the Jews.
Not a good time or place for religious writers of course!
Which underlines a theme in American Foreign Policy for decades. If it aint buggin us, leave it the frick alone.
Now we have been attempting to kill Khaddafi, or Qadaffi or whatever...for decades.
That prick really got scared when we entered Iraq. But there was hardly going to be a wet eye between repubs and dems as far as finding his dead body.
There are systems at work here. And when one element of a system fails or falls the entire system and the systems surrounding the system are altered irreparably.
Was Tito a nice guy? No!
Was what followed the death of Tito worse than Tito? Yes!
I laughed when Putin and w bush ended up in front of the press and bush decided he was going to diss Putin on the issue of THE VOTE and Putin just noted that our voting system did not always work so goooooooooood! hahahahahaahah
w was so goddamn mad. hahahahahahaah having been appointed Prez by the Supremes for chrissakes!
That's all I got right now!
Except that Hitler arose from the ashes of German Democracy!
by Richard Day on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 6:25pm
Tito got the Americans and Russians to pay him to not get too close to the other.
I remember having a very silent Thanksgiving after noting to my dad that Tito had kept these warring tribes relatively friendly together. Impossible that a Communist could have done anything positive.
Thanks for picking up the underlying theme. Really wasn't about necrophilia at all, though that's always a side bit of fun, eh?
(remember childhood joke about a woman whose husband's died, ending tragically for someone who tried to take his place - better to leave sleeping dogs lie)
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 6:42pm
Dead or alive, no way I'd fuck Tito.
Toto, maybe.
Just sayin'.
by Qnonymous (not verified) on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 7:33pm
And your little dog, too!
by jollyroger on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 7:36pm
Now that's against the law. Even in Canada.
by acanuck on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 7:46pm
What if you're also a dog? Wouldn't that grant jr an exemption?
by Verified Atheist on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 7:51pm
And for a walk down memory lane
-
Shopping
More-
New York, NY
Change locationSearch Options
Show search tools
Search Results
Prez to Bibi - TPMCafe - Talking Points Memo
by jollyroger on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 7:51pm
hahahaahahhhaahahahahah
That's all I got. hahahahahahahahaahahah
by Richard Day on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 7:44pm
Here's a well-researched piece (with good links) analyzing the necrophilia story and the reactions to it. A number of people who bought into the rumor early (like Andrew Sullivan) are backtracking, or at least highlighting the comments of those who called bullshit on it:
http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/about-that-egypti...
Shockingly, other agenda-mongers are still doubling down, demanding the debunkers prove it's not true. Which of course no one can do, since there isn't a specific fact in the rumor -- like, for example, the number of the draft bill, the legislator or party who proposed it, etc.
So this rumor will no doubt live on in Islamophobic folklore, like Ahmadinejad's threat to "wipe Israel off the map" with nuclear weapons (look it up).
In this case, at least, I'm happy dagblog was well ahead of the curve.
by acanuck on Sat, 04/28/2012 - 3:09pm
Peracles was well ahead of the curve (with your tip-off)
Most people are happy to have truthy-enough stories, even ones completely debunked, as long as they make the other side look bad.
There's always an "it could have been" or "but it's a metaphor for his character" excuse if all else fails.
Your example of Iran & "wiping Israel of the face of the earth" is horrificly spot on - including the add-on nuclear weapons bit.
It's like the childhood whisper game, pass on a sentence and see how distorted it is at the end. But inestead of laughing about how twisted it got, we instead go install bunkers and sprinkler systems based on the final result.
There was a NY Times Ombudsman hooplah earlier this year, which revolved a bit around "should newspapers report the truth". What it really addressed was, "should we nip this shit in the bud", and the obvious answer is "yes".
When the story is less about the original character and more about the news media itself, news media should report on itself.
That weeks after the Martin-Zimmerman story hit national news, media is still reporting the police let Zimmerman keep his gun? Or at least not able to say yes-or-no on a TV program? Sinful. How bad is reporting on stories that aren't front page?
The worst part of this necrophilia story is that 5% of the people who saw the original will see the retraction. It's why politicians don't care about telling a lie - even though they'll get their media orgs or unattributed source to provide it. They gain much more by lying, even if refuted.
To answer the ombudsman, "yes, you should be able to at least check a few sources on the most headlined stories, especially fucking weeks after the story debuted."
In the age of the internet, there has to be some kind of rumor control. But there isn't, or just Pilate washing his hands with "we haven't been able to verify it yet", while then proceeding to explain that your mother might be having consensual sex with a platoon of paratroopers, but stay tuned for updates.
And in any case, if a story's going to be top of discussion for weeks, there's no excuse for not having a full summary of background - knowns and unknowns - for readers or viewers to refer to. And for news hosts and guests to refer to.
While an accusation of Muslims of condoning necrophilia isn't something one can adequately prepare for, a response to 30-year-old "cutting taxes raises revenue" or an evaluation of the costs or emptiness of a GOP health care proposal isn't.
While I've bitched about Obama not using his bully pulpit to get public support for his causes, when has a media outlet used its bully pulpit to promote better reporting?
Nightly news announcement: "yesterday one of our reporters asked tough questions about [Afghanistan/Wall Street bailout/health care] and today she wasn't invited to the press pool. Would you like us to continue to ask these tough questions? please write White House or Congress at...."
It would likely take an outlet like McLatchy to do this, though - the top guys are making too much money off the outrage from bad reporting. Truth has poor ratings.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 04/29/2012 - 1:27am
The reporter who originally brought us the Seamus story weighs in on the dog hoopla here:
http://articles.boston.com/2012-01-08/magazine/30596586_1_romney-family-mitt-romney-dog
[Though I question even his conclusion that an animal having diarrhea once would adequately express the dog's reaction to the trip and kennel, or whether it was seriously sick. Is every case of animal diarrhea "severe"?]
And he does note that this was in the age of kids riding without passenger seatbelts, and neglects to mention the common practice of dogs - and kids - riding for hours in the back of pickup trucks.
And he has a good point, that it can show Romney's practical / intellectual side getting away from him, combined with an anecdote of Romney saying to a woman, "I know, you haven’t got your makeup on yet, right?"
But then I read a summation from a bloggy newsy opinion site like Opposing Views:
Holy Toledo. Not in a carrier box - directly tied to the roof. Multiple times, while sick. With "severe" diarrhea. [later] Leaking down the windows. (plural)
The writer then places Ann Romney's response commentless:
Which should give someone thought - what is a 2 week stint in a kennel like, especially for a sick dog with "severe diarrhea"? I remember ceaseless barking and chaos from my visits. Is an uncomfortable ride in a box for 12 hours (with breaks) worse than being locked up in fear with strange animals and nothing to do for 2 weeks? Apparently dog lovers everywhere agree.
Our news will be reflected and amplified through thousands of unofficial sites, providing "analysis" that's akin to hysteria. Of course even writers in the papers that come up with these stories can be hysterical. And we as readers become hysterical. How do we muddle through this mess?
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 04/29/2012 - 2:11am
I appreciate your weighing back in, Peracles. As an object lesson about news media, you are right: this story is much more important than the buzz over necrophilia in a strange, far-off land.
You mention my "add-on" to the "wipe Israel off the map" reference. I felt free to do that because that is the exact wording of an editorial that ran in my very own newspaper (the one I worked for) even after Juan Cole had debunked the supposed quote. "Wipe Israel off the map with nuclear weapons," my paper screamed. I was so discouraged by then, I never even pointed out his "error" to the editorial writer, whom I saw virtually every day. I was right, but it wouldn't have mattered.
Around the same time, I lost any respect I had for Hitchens, who rebutted Cole with the reasoning (I paraphrase): "That may not have been exactly what Ahmadinejad said, but as an islamofascist that's surely what he meant." Joining the hordes of folk who take already-well-spun "facts" and give them another little twist, because they are certain that -- although not technically true -- they represent a deeper reality.
You mention McClatchy, a company that has tried mightily to maintain journalistic integrity, while services like AP went into the toilet. Since acquiring Knight-Ridder, McClatchy has lost money by the boatload. Quality reporting simply does not pay.
by acanuck on Sun, 04/29/2012 - 3:09pm
It´s funny, we might trace back modern journalism to Hunter Thompson.
But Hunter had 2 speeds - his wasted, drug-induced phases, and his deadline-facing return to sober reality. The Hitchens types only have the outré patter down, without coming back to the sober state.
The Great Shark Hunt plus Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail are two greats of modern political analysis. We´re so far away from that greatness now, except with occasionally a Matt Taibbi weighing in (ironically or not, also for Rolling Stone magazine).
And then there are a few heads-down, push the ball forward types like Juan Cole and Glenn Greenwald and Marcie Wheeler. I´m rather distraught that McClatchy can´t make a profit on good solid work. I think that´s partly to blame on their style, presentation, but can´t tell for sure.
As for most mainstream media, it´s just art as entertainment, what´s truthy enough to sell, conform the story to the audience, not find a middle-ground where truth and audience connect. With the internets as the heckle and jeckle of our gallery, we´re left only to hope for, like Camus promised, howls of glee at hanging.
Andrew Sullivan is an alter-ego of Hitchens- he´s got his line and he´s sticking with it- gay conservative Catholic as an unusual bent, and whatever he spouts is gold, however rabid or off-the-cuff or un-thinking.
There is no embarrassment at getting it wrong.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 04/30/2012 - 2:30am
The Trayvon Martin story took off because a police department said that they didn't have enough evidence to arrest Zimmerman after a kid carrying Skittles and Arizona Ice Tea was murdered. Zimmerman was armed, Martin was not. If killing Martin is legal, when is murdering a black teen because of fear (over a high black crime rate illegal)?
Zimmerman put up a website to ask for money for his defense. Zimmerman waited until a court appearance to "apologize" to Martin's parents. He had ample opportunity to apologize on his website.
The bottom line is when would it be illegal to kill an unarmed black teen if a person is scared?
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 04/29/2012 - 11:11pm
You have misposted this comment, I think.
by acanuck on Mon, 04/30/2012 - 1:18am
No, it relates to the comments about media inaccuracies in the Zimmerman case. Most people were focused on having Zimmerman tried in a court of law. The only way to bring attention to the case involved getting media involved. An unarmed black teen was murdered and the murderer set free.
Zimmerman created much of the circus atmosphere with his black friend Joe Oliver who made coon/goon comments on air creating news. Zimmerman's father said that Obama was spewing hatred, this also creating news. Zimmerman had a conversation with Hannity, creating more news. Finally Zimmerman had a website appealing for monetary support. Initially the website had a picture of the defaced Hale Black Cultural Center on the Ohio State University campus with a slogan "Long Live Zimmerman" on the website. The picture was subsequently taken down.
If we criticize the media circus, we need to look at every aspect. Zimmerman was wearing an orange wig, big red nose and oversized clown shoes in the circus that surrounded the Martin killing..
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 04/30/2012 - 9:18am
No, the comment was irrelevant to media inaccuracy.
Zimmerman's friends and websites have nothing to do with media reporting of known facts, recordings and police reports of the immediate arrest.
No, we don't need to "look at every aspect"- I don't have to discuss your toenails to comment on your taste in movies. We don't need to get sucked into the media circus. "Just the facts, ma'am" as Joe Friday said.
Zimmerman was already out of the car when the dispatcher said "no, you don't need to do that". It's not hard to get this basic fact right. Three weeks later. The police confiscated Zimmerman's gun - it's not hard to get this basic fact right. Three weeks later.
How come millionaire pundits can't get the easy stuff right?
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 04/30/2012 - 9:44am
Zimmerman said that he was out of the car and turned to return when he was attacked. Trayvon's girlfriend said that someone was following Trayvon and harrassing the teen. Zimmerman's father said that things would have been OK if Trayvon had obediently responded to a stranger's (Zimmerman) request to prove a right to be in the housing complex. Zimmerman was obviously out of the car. Those were the facts.
I could see why Trayvon would be terrified because he was being approached by a stranger. It's unclear if Zimmerman displayed his weapon. I could see Trayvon fighting for his life against an armed assailant. We will see what happens at trial.
Personally, hearing coon/goon etc are side issues in the Zimmerman case. A great deal of things will not make it into the courtroom. The bottom line remains is that if killing Martin is legal, what killing of a Black teen in a hoodie carrying Skittles and ice tea would be illegal?
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 04/30/2012 - 10:35am
I am discussing known facts and media reporting, not "the case".
From recordings, you can hear Zimmerman leave the car and out of breath before the dispatcher says "you don't need to do that". Yet talk shows and news reporters still get this wrong.
If they can't get basic facts right, they won't get anything else right.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 04/30/2012 - 10:42am
Apparently, we have been reading different things. My understanding of the dispatcher transcript notes that Zimmerman was out of the car. Initially Zimmerman said that Trayvon was coming towards him. He later said that Trayvon ran. Zimmerman admitted that he was following Martin and that he lost sight of the teenager. End result Trayvon Martin was murdered.
Whether the media is alleging that a culture approves of necrophilia or that Zimmerman is a local hero, you have to take media factoids with a level of suspicion.
Hillary Rosen becomes a Democratic strategist overnight because it's an easy descriptor, not a fact. Allen West calls the Progressive Caucus "Socialists". Robert Reich is called a "Socialist" by Lou Dobbs and Bill O'Reilly. Media does not stop to define terms. The best defense as a citizen is to realize the weaknesses of the media and to be on guard for false statements repeated by the media.
The media will not get better in the short term. Politicians know they can lie without fear. Corrections of false statements occur only after several days. The corrections are buried below the fold or on the pages inside the paper. The lying politician wins.
When caught in an error, media engages in the non-apology apology. "I may have said or suggested X.", or "I'm sorry if I offended anyone". They also rely on the classic, "We stand by our story"
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 04/30/2012 - 11:19am
News media (talk shows, et al) often says the dispatcher warned Zimmerman not to get out of the car, yet he did anyway. Factually incorrect.
I'm not talking about "approval" or labels, I'm talking about basic facts - did the police confiscate a gun, did someone submit a necrophilia law to the Egyptian Parliament.
These are not debatable issues - you ask the proper authority whether it happened or not, and you report it. Or at least news professionals should, and well-paid announcers should know the basic facts, not just guess and speculate through every show.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 04/30/2012 - 11:37am
As I said, the discussions I heard were that Zimmerman was on foot following Trayvon Martin when he called the dispatcher. The discussion over what words were used by Zimmerman was a sideshow. However,, the circus was exasperated by Joe Oliver, who was presented as a representative for Zimmerman. Oliver suggested that a slur had been used and added fuel to the fire.
The closest that we will get to "truth" will be at trial.
Media bias and inaccuracies will persist. Even when armed with LiveScribe pens and the ability to re-listen to the actual statements that people made during an interview, bias and inaccuracies will persist. Questions will be biased and it is likely that comments will be excerpted reflecting what the reporter feels is important.
FoxNews reports will differ from CNN and MSNBC reports. The only thing that a citizen can do is be aware that not everything that media reports represents "the facts".
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 04/30/2012 - 12:22pm
If you have certain facts - what kind of gun, the height and weight of victim and perpetrator, the time of day, etc. - they should be reported the same on Fox and CNN and MSNBC and NY TImes. But wait...
Never mind that the 911 call makes obvious he was out of the car, and police reports back that assertion. The NY Times and MSNBC can't get it right.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 04/30/2012 - 1:30pm
Once the transcript was available, I went with the transcript. Thus, I really don't stress over misinformation from Fox, NYT, CNN, MSNBC.
I have found it helpful to glance at blogs posted on Melissa Harris-Perry's website. When discussing the issue of abuse of women in the Middle East, she had two women who took opposite points of view. In addition she linked to the original article that focused on the abuse, and articles responding to the abuse charge por and con.
I have less stress because I expect media to get things wrong. On issues close to my heart, I try to get to an original source. I saw what Zimmerman had posted on his website (no apology). I saw Zimmerman's father accusing Obama of spreading hatred.
During Arab Spring, I heard people concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Democracy does not come easily.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 04/30/2012 - 2:21pm
For the 100th time, I'm talking about facts, not opinions.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 04/30/2012 - 3:36pm
It hasn't been 100 times, but I am saying that I expect the media to get facts wrong. Personal bias and human error create the situation. Obviously, editors do not catch all errors.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 04/30/2012 - 4:09pm
The 1 example was the NY Times' Editor's column - of course the editor should catch an error he made, in the supposedly best, most authoritative American newspaper.
Or could at least correct the error when discovered.
I expect the media to get some facts wrong. I don't expect them to call a redhead a "brunette", or identify Brad Pitt as a girl.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 04/30/2012 - 11:21pm
We are in an era where it is possible for the public to be able to click to original sources of information and rapidly fact check journalists. Current reporters may not be worst than past reporters, it is just easier to detect errors.
The Tuskeegee Airmen did lose bombers, they were still heroic. Jessica Lynch was not the Amazon warrior initially depicted by the media, she still was heroic in surviving a hostile environment. Ronald Reagan's mental lapses were ignored by the media. JFK's affairs were overlooked by media. There are likely hundreds of stories that were reported incorrectly that we have accepted as truth.
Getting to the truth is not easy. Memories are unreliable. Eyewitness accounts are faulty. Facts are dynamic. The facts that were obtained by asking "Just the facts" on Monday may have changed by Friday. Some of the guest pundits who comment on stories of the day may not have followed that particular case in details. The guest may be talking in generalities.
I expect facts to get mangled by the media. 'Twas ever thus.
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 12:32am
This is an "everything is everything" argument. Of course we know reasons why Presidents' personal foibles might be hushed.
Jessica Lynch was used as a Pentagon PR tool, just as Pat Tillman's death was re-written and covered up. These are scandalous acts - not just facts mangled.
But the facts I'm talking about are simply published details, not "memory" - an officer's report says gun was confiscated - why are well-paid journalists and commentators reporting different weeks later?
"Some of the guest pundits who comment on stories of the day may not have followed that particular case in details. " Well get them the fuck off the air, or complain enough so they have "Bozo the Chimp" put under their picture when they speak. If they're listed as an "expert" and haven't followed the story in detail, or are just making shit up, shame them, the assholes. Shame the stations, the networks.
Of course Fox's methodology is to have guests say the outrageous stuff while moderators look on and smile and ignore known inaccuracies and falsehoods - but the other networks follow this as well. Or some millionaire hosts may just find that they get paid the same whether they follow the details or not, and are really just numbingly ignorant for their professional position.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 1:05am
The ill-informed guest pundits will remain an on air staple. I don't believe that any major media reforms will occur in the short term. I expect misinformation, and therefore try to go to multiple sources on stories that are important to me. You apparently do the same. I think that verifying facts to the best of one's ability is the best that can be done. I think it is easier to fact check pundits today because of the Internet.
On the specifics of the Martin case, the wish of the parents was to have Zimmerman tried before a jury. That may or may not happen. A Florida judge could decide that Zimmerman was protected by the "Stand your ground" and cannot be prosecuted. We may never get to truth. The bottom line in the situation has always been if Martin can be murdered than any "suspicious" black teen can be murdered by a "concerned" citizen.
In the case of Egypt, the Fundamentalists were always a concern. The necrophilia legislation was like a very sick Onion article. Whatever the media reports, the underlying issues of whether Zimmerman will be tried in a court of law or how much influence Muslim Fundamentalists will have in Egypt remain the focus.
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 8:49am
I would add that there is an assault on facts by the punditry. Here is a link to an article describing Rachel Maddow'sappearance on "Meet The Press" this past Sunday. A GOP strategist and a GOP legislator tell Rachel that women do not make $0.77 on the dollar versus men doing the same job. Note that David Gregory the show's host makes no correction of the facts.If you want facts, you had better sort them out on your own.
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 9:27am
If we're not sure of the facts in the Martin-Zimmerman case, then we can't conclude 1) whether Martin was "murdered", and 2) whether it sets a precedent for any black being killed with impunity.
The investigation itself is strange, with long delays to interview key witnesses, when memory will fade. But is that unusual for police investigations, or sadly typical whoever the victim?
Nevertheless, the media has contributed to the hysteria - with bad editing, mangling facts, declaring a racist term used when apparently not, bad use of police videos, etc.
The jurors will hear a quite different case. I believe Martin's girlfriend was interviewed by prosecutors only about 4 April, 6 weeks after his death.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 3:45pm
The hysteria was because the Sanford police said that they had no basis to arrest a murderer. Zimmerman was armed. Trayvon had Skittles and iced tea. Trayvon died of a gunshot. A murder occurred. Given Florida laws, we may be left with the fact that Zimmerman got away with murder.
The case will be decided in a Florida court. If the case is dismissed on the basis of "Stand your Ground" or Zimmerman is not convicted, I will be able to say that Zimmerman got away with murder. (Google response to OJ Simpson trial, or the Robert Blake trial, both were considered to have gotten away with murder despite acquittals).
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 4:46pm
A murder, or more likely some type of manslaughter, is suspected. As we don't know many facts, and even the girlfriend's call/story has been under wraps, we're waving in the dark.
Florida laws actually just support the right to stand ground, not attack, so again, we're moving away from facts. If Martin attacked Zimmerman, Z would have right to defend himself. If Z attacked M, there is no defense under this Florida statute. Z was not defending home or car.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 5:59pm
We are comparing calling Zimmerman a murder with calling Simpson and Blak murderers. The results of a trial will not change the label. Zimmerman may get away with murder
We are just going in circles.
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/01/2012 - 11:34pm
No, what we assume Simpson did was premeditated murder, straight up.
With Zimmerman, most scenarios have him committing manslaughter or self-defense.
Words have meanings.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 05/02/2012 - 2:40am
Zimmerman faces a murder charge. This has become boring. I'm done.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 05/02/2012 - 9:00am
Few think a murder charge can be won - most seem to think the AG chose 2nd degree murder over manslaughter for political reasons. C-Ya.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 05/02/2012 - 9:13am