After the fanfare given to the start of the George Zimmerman trial the BBC has gone a bit quiet on the topic. And I don’t just mean a lack of updated reports, I mean no tweets from its journalists or anything. The testimony of the prosecution’s surprise “star witness” Rachel Jeantel has been very poor to say the least. She told the court Trayvon Martin had referred to Zimmerman as a “creepy-ass cracker” and “nigger”, she used the word “retarded” (another big no-no in PC America), admitted she didn’t know who threw the first punch, and was unable to read a letter she had supposedly written to Martin’s mother. One black blogger said Jeantel’s performance was “cringe-inducing, embarrassing, and mortifying to watch.” The testimony, especially the “cracker” comment, has been so damaging, it seems, that the Martin family attorney suddenly declared last night that the trial was not about race after all, even though that is the line the prosecution has been pushing.
No doubt the BBC will pick up the tale again when things start going better for the prosecution.
In a similar vein, here are a couple of other stories about violent attacks with a strong racial element that have been in the news in the US this past week. Neither has been covered by the BBC.
Ex-Camp Pendleton Marines who killed husband-wife should get death penalty, jury finds
Two ex-Camp Pendleton Marines should be executed for the brutal torture-slaying of Brooklyn-raised Marine Sgt. Jan Pietrzak and his young bride, a California jury has decided.
Convicted shooter Emrys John, 23, and fellow ex-Marine Tyrone Miller, 25, were part of a robbery gang that stormed the victims’ southern California house in October 2008, beat and hog-tied Pietrzak and forced him to watch as Quiana Jenkins-Pietrzak was sexually assaulted with a pink vibrator and then shot the newlyweds in their heads, using couch cushions as silencers.
A third ex-Marine, Kevin Cox, 25, should get life in prison without parole for his role in the shocking crime… A fourth man charged with the murders, Kesaun Sykes, is being tried separately…
Riverside County Deputy District Attorney Daniel DeLimon apologized to jurors for showing the graphic crime scene photos during his opening statement in April.
“I did it because you need to know,” he said, describing the double slaying as a “sadistic” game played by four cold-blooded killers.
Some photos showed racial slurs spray-painted inside the mixed race couple’s house.
It has all the elements of a perfect BBC US story, but it wasn’t covered. Why? Perhaps the pictures of the victims and the convicted thugs hold the answer:
And here’s video of a young mother being savagely attacked in her home by an intruder as her young child watched on. Again, I can’t help thinking that if the colours of the attacker and victims were reversed we’d have seen an edited version of this video on the BBC website by now (I say edited because the attack is so brutal – not an easy watch):
Some stories fit the preferred narrative. Others do not.
I said the BBC will start reporting again when things get better for the prosecution. Perhaps I should’ve said “if”. The latest prosecution witness has just said Trayvon Martin was on top beating Zimmerman and thinks it was Zimmerman who cried for help. Potentially devastating, one would think.
I have a feeling that the BBC will keep the Zimmerman story on the back burner until the verdict. If guilty the white attacks on black theme will be hammered, but providing little coverage of the trial followed by a not guilty verdict will enable the leftist in the BBC and the far left blogs to run with the story of a US legal system which protects white supremacists. Cue a few quotes from Jesse Jackson and a spokesperson from the Panthers.
Exactly. When the incident first broke and the police initially declined to arrest Zimmerman, the BBC had a World Have Your Say segment about how the US is essentially run by white supremacists. Since we know from their reporting that at least the majority of BBC staff working in the US believe it’s a racist country at heart (meaning the whites are racist, not groups like La Raza, of course), you can bet the coverage of this trial will reflect that when the time comes.
I know we don’t pay for the Metro, but I have noticed how slanted (and getting worse) their coverage is – this article was pretty much the worst I have seen – quoting the prosecution summary case as ‘news’.
Metro makes the Daily Mirror look right wing.
The Metro and the Evening Standard are both from the same stable, run much of the same text. So millions of Londoners get a daily or twice-daily free shot of leftie propaganda to supplement the endless leftie slant of the BBC.
where its not evangelising multiculturalism it does very little real journalism, but is stuffed full of celebrity trivia .
The way it is distributed from railway stations ensures that it is seen by nearly all commuters before anything else and squeezes out any competition
In fact it is very like the BBC in many way
except you aren’t forced ,by law, to pay for it.
Metro and London ES are owned by father run by son Lebedev – ex Russian KGB, owners of the Independent, who seem to supply most of the Politics. It was uniquely rabidly pro Occupy and spouts left wing adolescent journalism at every opportunity As a freesheet it boasts 2m “readers” – a rival to the paid for Daily Mail. I use it as fitness training – see if you can tear it up in one go.
When Martin referred to Zimmerman as “nigga”, it was just the vernacular for “guy”. Non-whites – Hispanic, black, blacks who speak Spanish and come from Hispanic countries, whatever – refer to each other and everyone as “nigga”, in the same way that white youths call each other “dude”. Anyone living in an urban neighborhood similar to mine will know what I’m talking about. It no longer has any racial meaning – when they use it, that is.
“Cracker”, on the other hand, is not a neutral term. Martin noticed that Zimmerman wasn’t black. The only way this might be relevant is if it added to his anger at being followed. “He must be following me cos I is black” sort of thing, possibly inspiring him to physically confront Zimmerman instead of hurrying to his supposed destination.
The problem with Jeantel’s testimony is that her speech patterns and demeanor are dog whistles for racialists on both sides. It’s not easy being on the witness stand no matter who you are or how erudite you can be at Islington dinner parties, so I really feel sorry for her. She’s trying to do the right thing and is going to get villified no matter what.
Race-hustlers are already declaring that whites can’t relate, don’t understand how black people really talk (remember how we got fed that excuse for Rev. Wright?), meaning the all-white jury will be prejudiced against her.
The defense lawyer’s job is to try and discredit prosecution witnesses (and vice versa). In this case, the Narrative will be that only racial prejudice will cause someone to doubt her testimony. Trial is unfair, etc. The stage is being set for race war again, which is what this case was always going to be about. But it’s being stoked by the Left, not by the allegedly racist Right.
When the Beeboids see something they think can be used to promote the Narrative that the trial is rigged in favor of the “white Hispanic”, and what they see as the cold-blooded, racist murder of an innocent child will go unpunished, they’ll rush to report it.
Re cracker/nigger. I took it as given that readers understood how nigger/nigga is used today but thought it was worth mentioning in passing. The “cracker” comment was the significant one, as I point out in the blogpost.
What does “cracker” denote in the USA? I’ve never heard it before. There is/was here a performing group called “Niggaz with Attitude” but I don’t know how accepted the term has become, even if it has lost some of it’s power in the UK.
As in whip cracker.
So, I presume that “whip cracker” means something like ‘(former) slave owner’ or ‘plantation slave driver’ and thus ‘white supremacist/racist’.
AIUI it just means ‘white’.
Yes, an old derogatory term for a white person. I don’t know the provenance of it, though.
See here for an example.
“Cracker,” in the context of Florida, where the trial is taking place, is a white equivalent of saying “nigga”; i.e., it’s the sort of name you’d call yourself or the members of your own in-group, but would resent if used by outsiders. In the Florida context, it refers to white Floridians whose ancestors arrived long before the era of air-conditioning made living in Florida in the summertime livable, as opposed to Northern “snowbirds” and their descendants (take as the watershed date roughly 1925 or so, the time of the land booms in South Florida– anyone whose ancestors lived in Florida before that date, and would be called a “bubba” or “good ol’ boy” elsewhere would certainly be called a “Cracker” in Florida; descendants of later arrivals, maybe, if they live that sort of lifestyle)
Anyone who has ever seen the film The Yearling has seen a depiction of the type of “original settler” I’m referring to. A different sort of settler originally settled the southernmost part of the state, closer to the Margaritaville Idea of Floridians, and they’re called “Conchs” (the irony being that Jimmy Buffett is originally from the Alabama/Mississippi Gulf Coast).
Just to be a smart ass:
Shakespeare’s King John (1595): “What cracker is this same that deafs our ears with this abundance of superfluous breath?
So you and your friends casually call each other crackers? I don’t think so.
My understanding is that cracker refers to poor whites from the Southern states (as in Confederacy). The were, as a group, most negatively effected by the emancipation of the slaves, both financially as the blacks could then compete for the low status jobs they held and psychologically as suddenly they were on a par with the former slaves and not one small step above them. It is rarely used other than derogatorily. Cracker (pejorative)
Nigger (nigga?) is more complicated. What is acceptable intragroup between two blacks is an unacceptable slur if an outsider uses it. This was sent-up in the Jacky Chan vehicle Rush Hour when Chan innocently copies Chris Tucker. Should racist word be rehabilitated?
It is interesting how many times the BBC will use the ‘N’ word. I don’t think they know themselves. Perhaps they will wimp out as they have with terrorist – now generally given the misleading euphemism militant or Pakistani – generally given the even more misleading BBC euphemism Asian.
The Cracker link doesn’t work. Sorry. Cracker (pejorative)</a?
If Zimmerman is found innocent the One Party Media will be found guilty.
That they will not allow to happen, unless the last vestiges of democratic decency launch a Herculean effort to put it on trial in the Court of Public Opinion.
Oh and, as an aside, great point about how hard it is for someone coming forward to be a witness without being on live-feed and prime time news tv on top of it. I’m glad we dont have that in Britain. Record proceedings for the prosecution and defence by all means, but dont make the solemn business of a trial something akin to prurience.
A trial should be about justice, not public entertainment. It’s hard enough for witnesses to come forward as it is.
I suppose they want Justice to be ‘seen to be done’ rather than the in camera stitch ups we have in, say, family courts.
Either way it ends up, as you say, as entertainment. Some people used to enjoy a front seat at the gallows. Folk is hard to understand its true.
On the other hand, I think in a case like this where there appears to have been a lot of race-hustling, I doer one welcome the chance to be able to see and hear what is going on in court. I simply do not trust the media – especially the BBC – to report fairly on the trial proceedings. From Obama on down, there are a lot of people who wanted Zimmerman fitted up, and this would require a kangaroo court and limited public visibility of the evidence.
The trial is already rigged for failure, either that or for a doomed verdict. Nearly all-white jury (five whites plus one “Latina”, although without a photo we can’t tell if she’s one of them “white Hispanics”), who the media has already told us are prejudiced against the prosecution’s star witness, and will be sympathetic to Zimmerman – a “white Hispanic”. The so-called voice expert testimony which might have said that it was Martin screaming for help on the audio tape has been disallowed.
There are a lot of people who will not accept an acquittal, regardless of the facts.
So far, nearly all testimony has made the charges against Zimmerman look weaker and weaker by the minute, and the race-hatred is being stirred in all corners of the media and blogosphere. Twitter already has a legion of people ready to kill over an acquittal, which you know the Beeboids are following eagerly, feeling their pain, understanding their grievances. The facts of the case are irrelevant when put up against the bigger emotional picture of the national race debate. It’s a shame, but that’s how it is.
Had the defence wanted blacks on the jury, the process of jury selection would have allowed them. Any ideas why they did not fight for a more mixed jury?
I think you mean if the prosecution wanted them, no? Zimmerman’s team wouldn’t necessarily want it loaded that way.
They don’t have a choice about who ends up in the jury pool. It’s a random selection from people called up that week to be on any jury on any case going. The demographics are based on the makeup of the city or county (they don’t bring in people from across the State or from outside), so it’s highly likely that the majority will be white anyway, and in many communities women are less likely to dodge with work excuses. Retirees often feature prominently as well. So the lawyers on both sides are presented with a limited set to begin with.
They start with whatever group turns up on the day, and work from there. They don’t have to give reasons for dismissing a certain amount of potential jurors, then narrow the pool down with further rounds of questioning. This can get pretty interesting. It seems like not that many black people were available to begin with.
Still, an all-white (or five white plus one Hispanic, depending on how you use the racist political skin hue color wheel) jury is a recipe for race-based outrage at an acquittal. Not only that, but the prosecution witnesses both support Zimmerman’s side of the story. They knew it all along, too, but were forced into doing this show trial by the media and violent protests. So it’s basically screwed no matter how you look at it. I’m sure the Beeboids are grateful that other, bigger ideological issues, plus The Prodigal African Son schtick, are giving them an excuse to ignore this.
Thanks had wondered about jury make up my self
The bBBC has stopped reminding us that Obama said ‘If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon’. Although of course the President has a track record of playing the race card when it suits him.
That comment was made even before an inquiry has started, the Messiah was inserted Himself as jury and executioner (likely the latter) into the justice process. This also has unleashed all the O’cultists from media, Hollywood and elsewhere.
As DB says, the BBC has gone mysterious;ly quiet about the case, now in its 5th day, since the earlier race-baiting and wholly biased comments by BBC people
The prosecution’s case so far has been pretty much a train-wreck. Much of testimony under questioning of prosecution witnesses has failed to show that Zimmerman was the aggressor. And “Little Angel” Trayvon’s girlfriend was a real mess – and confirmed that her main evidence to the investigation was given while Trayvon’s mother wasd sitting on the settee next to her – surely highly egregious and tending to show that this was a stitch-up from on high after the local police had decided there was no cause to charge Zimmermann.
Today’s star prosecution witness seems to have blown the whole case apart – he states unequivocally that a guy in a hoddie (=Trayvon) was on top of the other guy (dressed like Zimmerman) and was beating the crap out of him, martial-arts style.
I doubt if the BBC will be in any rush to report this to us. Bias by omission yet again.
I reckon there are half-a-dozen people who contribute to or comment on this site who have a better idea of what is happening than all the BBC staff rolled together.
Here is how bad it is for the prosecution – it could be building up to a motion to dismiss the case for lack of evidence, long before the defence has to mount its case and call Zimmerman to the stand. :
Once again – we have to look to FREE US blogs to get the real news. The BBC is just one steaming pile of rubbish on this as on so many US issues.
some of today’s transcript from that excellent US blogsite – reports from a lawyer who has literally written the book on the subject of self-defence.
Like I keep saying, you could replace the entire US division of the BBC – including all 100+ “journalists” – with a news aggregator, and you’d be better informed.
One of these days, I’m going to do an experiment to that effect.
Another area of current complete bias by the BBC is the reporting of Obama’s new initiatives on “climate change” – aimed especially at the coal industry and coal-fired power stations. The BBC has tried to present all this as a “good thing” that is overdue because progress has been blocked by those pesky flat-earth Republicans.
No mention that all this will be at a very heavy cost to the US economy. A cost that is even bigger than people had been thinking ?
There is a widely held feeling that Obama is the worst President in living memory. A disaster at home and abroad. BBC lefties may not view it that way – but should they not report that this sentiment is widespread in the US electorate ?
John, the BBC has reported many, many times that a lot of people are unhappy with the President. But they ascribe to racism or crypto-racism. Nothing He does will suit them, etc. In the minds of Beeboids, He’s one of the top five greatest Presidents of all time, and could have been greater were it not for an intransigent Congress dedicated to blocking His every move. When His party had complete control of both houses of Congress, and Left-wing legislation was slammed through without a single Republican vote, Mark Mardell referred to that as a “Golden Age”. So if somebody doesn’t like what the President does, they’re wrong, and probably have a sinister motive for feeling that way.
I am perhaps arguing a narrower point. Not just that a lot of people dislike Obama’s policies. It is that a lot of people regard him as totally incompetent at leading the US effectively from the White House – which involves effective negotiations and adjustments with the other interests as part of the tradition of balance-of-power, and failure to project US interests in the world outside.
That is – a wholly incompetent manager of affairs. Even when he concentrates, rather than taking his usual raincheck.
I saw a list the other day of various important policies that Clinton had introduced and Obama has now dumped. Clinton’s changes involved give-and-take, and had stood the test of time. Whereas Obama’s changes are likely to be repealed because they lack any real measure of bipartisan support. And indeed some look to involve illegal use of executive power and could be repealed by the Supreme Court, without any need for Congress to legislate amendments or annulments.
To the BBC, the people who regard the President as being incompetent and an ineffective international figure are mostly white and Right. Therefore, the mostly the same people who dislike Him for all the wrong reasons.
Unless you’re talking about the occasional op-ed in Der Spiegel or something.
There is an element of this trial, and the coverage of it, which must be spoken of, and that is the fact that the whole thing is “kayfabe.” This is an old carnival term which found its way into professional wrestling (how odd?)– it refers to everything, no matter how incredible, being treated as if completely in earnest and on-the-level, with a certain level of archness and tongue-in-cheek for the more discerning. For those who don’t realise it’s a put-up-job, the illusion is maintained by never breaking character. Sacha Baron Cohen employs this bit of theatricality.
Because, in a previous era, there were black people who were murdered by whites and whose cases were never pursued, the modern-day prosecutors bend over backwards to avoid even the appearance that such a thing could happen in our time, mostly to appease the race hustlers and the media types who love to hector the authorities at any opportunity, deserved or not. Thus, we are exposed to the situation of a prosecutor deciding to bring a man to book in such a weak case that anyone could beat the rap were there no racial component, without the media complaining either that the case is weak or that in a non-racial context it may never have been brought. Likewise, we have a media who deep in their hearts know Trayvon Martin was no damned good and just as liable to kill as well as to be killed in some later incident had this one not happened, but who need to be seen to be advocating for “justice” in treating the “murder” of a young black man as seriously as that of anyone else, even more so, as he was simply in virtue of being what he was more deserving of their heightened attention and their dudgeon towards the legal system.
So, the prosecutors, and the media, each for their own reasons, and each well aware of the other’s posturing, and the more discerning members of the public, all know what sort of Kayfabe is going on. Those who don’t will simply chalk up any acquittal of Zimmerman to “ain’t no justice for the brutha” confirmation bias, not realising a rather large piss is being taken, and taken outta them, by the mere bringing of the trial. Everyone will profess to see a larger story in this for their own point of view, and what can be put down to an incident of two young silverback gorillas pounding their chest (OOOHHH he’s racist, he said “gorilla”), neither wanting to be punked by the other (and not much more than that), will allow the beard strokers to spout the usual bollocks– when it was all a sad case of bringing fists to a gunfight, ‘coz you wanted to prove you’re a man, innit?
i have noticed that the race stirrers like rentagob rev al sharpton and jesse jackson have gone all quiet of a sudden over this case,this is a strange case because zimmerman is in fact is from a ethnic minority group himself and that seems to have taken the sting out of the liberal media obssesion with race,of course if zimmerman was a good old white boy from alabama shit would of hit the fan outside the courthouse.this case has nothing to do with race and more to do with straight old self defence,the bbc are even ignoring this story because there is no white face in the dock.
I see that Sky has a big story on its main page on the Zimmerman case today and the evidence favourable to Zimmerman :
On the BBC main news page – ? Zilch. Worse than zilch – nothing on the main page, that may be fair enough, but there is nothing at 11pm among the 30 stories on the US and Canada page. Even though the key evidence was given by 3pm UK time.
Suppression of news it does not like – par for the course at the BBC.
… and Sky has a real likeness of Trayvon Martin, not the Little Angel younger picture
Sub-judice though you see, so the BBC will (of course) be loath to incur the wrath of the Florida panpals of Hutton or Leveson.
In fact, only whitey cases- Tony Martin, Tommy Robinson-seem to bring out the pre-empting vox pops crap from the Guardian beehive( and therefore suitable slurry for the aural translation by the Beeb).
Whitey guilty in advance…send him down( and if it`s an old lady or a ranting woman on the Tube, then stuff the “ladies must never see the inside of Holloway” guidelines”( the Pryce rule).
No black, Muslim or British men of…er Asian origin…err…can be tried in advance-and indeed probably need secret trials.
But they`re not happy with Guantanamo either…so “votizpoint” eh?
The BBC have gone quiet ?
It would appear the media may be as much on trial as anyone here, or there…
‘key witness in the trial of George Zimmerman made a lot more sense than you think’
It’s now pretty much down to what sense the jury makes of it all I’d have thought, but the notion of a medium telling folk what they need to think seems oddly familiar.
Especially when, in word (Some cracking uses of English from the author too), image and video edit, they are in control of what their audience sees, hears, or does not.
Or quietly edging off stage left, as some seem to be.
From British Home Secretaries to hip-shootin’, sound-bitin’ Presidents, ‘justice’ seems to be in the hands of some very odd folk either side of the pond now.
Especially when run through the media filters that dominate.