‘George Zimmerman’s innocent?????’
Say that in the tone of ‘Flash Gordon’s Alive!!?’ and you get the idea of the BBC’s incredulous reaction I just heard on the radio news announcement.
WHAT!!??? An almost whitish sorta man kills a ‘unarmed black boy’….surely he’s got to be guilty?
All the President’s men and all the President’s horses couldn’t jail ‘Whitey’.
Even though they tried to pin a charge of ‘child abuse’ upon him in the dying moments of the case…not bothering to inform the defence.
A charge which the BBC seems to have ignored. Could it be that the charge was so obvoiously ridiculous, drummed up in a last desperate measure to get Zimmerman for something, anything that the BBC knew it would discredit the prosecution’s case and how the public view this.
It could also be why the BBC have ignored the wider perspective of the US government’s determination to find Zimmerman guilty and the lengths they went to to try and ensure that….not least the shameful manipulation and interference by Obama when he said of the victim , Trayvon Martin: if he had a son he’d look like Trayvon.
Mark Steyn elaborates:
Mark Steyn: Zimmerman case’s legal absurdities astound
More here:
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Still
BBC still using the photo as described. They are palpably gutted.
This will be the excuse the BBC uses to escape criticism: everyone else is doing it, so it’s okay for the BBC to do it, too. We’ve heard it a hundred times from defenders of the indefensible as well as actual BBC employees and others who claim to be professional journalists.
Lemming journalism, no integrity, no accountability. At your expense.
You reminded me of something I was surprised to hear on R5L’s Sunday Breakfast this morning. At the 25:40 mark presenter Giles Dilnot said the following:
“Very interestingly on this, one of those ideas of how something small, seemingly small, can blow into something else. In the coverage of this case one of the big pictures of Trayvon Martin was him at around the age of twelve, and of course people played that against the picture of Zimmerman which they used which was an adult almost mugshot. And it actually played very badly in the newspapers in sort of skewing how people saw the whole case. Interesting – just a photograph can change people’s perceptions.”
Clearly this is a known editorial issue within BBC newsrooms, and yet the editors continue to use that photo nonetheless. Shameless.
The BBC affecting a sort of innocent neutrality, as if bystanders to the whole event.
Like you say, shameless – and then some.
Every ‘youth’ that gets stabbed or shot to death in London is an angelic, aspiring Premiere League football player, or future Olympic champion.
Strange how the thugs and rival gangsters never get hurt.
It doesn’t bode well for the future of British sport at international level either.
In this case the coverage in supposedly politically sound organs like the Daily Mail and the Telegraph has been equally as bad as the BBC’s. But of course that’s no excuse for the BBC’s appalling reporting bias – since by charter they’re supposed to be unbiased (ho ho).
I have not seen the Telegraph coverage of the trial – but had posted on other threads 2 recent articles from the Mail. Those articles gave far more information about the trial than all the BBC reporting put together. Yes there might have been some glitches – but there was plenty of stuff in the Mail putting Zimmerman’s side of the story.
It’s clear that the BBC US division can be easily replaced by a news aggregator run by an (unshaven) orangutan.
Oops! Don’t mention an orangutan! That was another of the bBBC’s favourite stories yesterday, on their favourite subject – racism.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23310837
The orang-utan nickname certainly doesn’t seem to worry one of the most unPC presenters on the BBC.
BBC-NUJ describes Martin as “black teen” in its headline in this court case.
Will BBC-NUJ describe girls as ‘white teens’ in Muslim sex gang case headlines?
Zimmerman is also exempt from having his race being used as an adjective.
How ironic that in a story that touches on racial profiling the black guy should get singled out for being… er… black.
Disgraceful headline aimed at those who only skim through the page, it’s as if they are determined to start a race riot. Why not mention Zimmerman’s Hispanic background, or are they hoping we assume the case was about White Vs. Black?
They’re not even trying to hide their bias here
The BBC has to keep suppressing the idea that Zimmerman is half-Hispanic and identifies as Hispanic. That kills their whole sexy racial justice Narrative. They know that there’s no play in a Brown-on-Black violence story. No opportunity to wring their hands over historical grievances, slavery, Jim Crow, racist Southern cops, etc, no chance to preen and prance about as our moral superiors. So they play it down.
This story has been one of the best cases to prove BBC bias and dishonesty. I hope everyone who has followed it has seen what they’ve done here, and will remember.
It seems if Zimmerman can be described as a “white Hispanic”, can the President be a “white African- American”? It’s all sooo confusing.
And lo, and behold, what are those US citizens of dusky skin and no brains doing right now?
I’d offer the answer, but I don’t have to, do I?
Good God, I am genuinely worried about the future of my two children if the western liberals’ brainwashed response to this verdict is anything to go by. The immediate ‘he’s white and the victim was black so he’s guilty’ howls and cries from our media and Left-wing commentators (apart from the DM perhaps) is frightening and similar to the type of mass hysterical brainwashed behaviour we’d associate with the populace of North Korea. If the victim were white, the BBC wouldn’t even comment IN FACT didn’t a black youth gun down two British holiday makers recently and we hardly heard anything? Will hunt out the news report in order to make comparisons.
Here we go. This is the tone of the BBC’s reporting when the victims are both white and British, and the perpetrator is black:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17540508
Can you discern a wee difference here?
I notice, with some distaste, that they attempt to throw some doubt onto the conviction by stating at the end of the piece that the murder weapon has not being found.
And the victims ‘drunkenly’ wandered into the wrong area. Oh, it must have been their fault then.
I don’t see any problems in this report. There’s plenty of tear-jerking stuff from the victims’ families and friends, and unlike in the Zimmerman case, the BBC actually reports the salient facts so nobody gets the wrong idea.
Of course, the Beeboids are probably distraught at such a harsh sentence for a child. They’re probably thinking he should have gotten ten years, maybe paroled sooner. They probably don’t notice the sick parallel between the situation of this criminal teenager being able to commit murder only because he was allowed to go free after previously trying to shoot somebody, and the broken down justice system in the UK where this kind of thing apparently happens a lot.
And you are right to be worried.
Smewhere there HAS to be an answer to your concerns.
The BBC is still pushing BS about the “Stand Your Ground” law. Note to BBC: this is irrelevant, nothing to do with the case. This theme was abandoned months ago, before the trial started.
This will continue to mislead anyone foolish enough to trust the BBC into thinking it was an unjust verdict because – with one exception, which didn’t stay prominent very long – the BBC has censored the fact of the physical altercation between Zimmerman and Martin. Only once have they ever dared mention it, as far as I’ve been able to find. Once physical contact is established, it’s plain old self-defense law, and “Stand Your Ground” becomes irrelevant. Yet the BBC is still pushing this theme.
What’s really aggravating is that the Beeboids who put this up know exactly what they’re doing. They know it’s irrelevant to the case. It’s clear they know because they point out that the police brought it up initially.
Cited by Florida police after they released George Zimmerman without charge on the night of the shooting
It’s not part of the trial, so there’s no reason for this feature. Yet they do it anyway, because their emotions dictate their actions. The Beeboids are so furious, so stunned at this verdict, they’re grasping at every little thing to poison the atmosphere.
Even in this article about the verdict of not guilty, the BBC piles on with accusations against Zimmerman. They give the Florida State Attorney General’s statement that prosecutors “brought out the truth on behalf of Trayvon Martin”. They give one line from the defense, then follow it with telling you that prosecutors said that Zimmerman told a bunch of lies. Then we get the NAACP calling for an investigation into civil rights violations – a future are of prosecution to nail Zimmerman.
The entire report about a not guilty verdict is essentially an attempt to muddy the waters and make you think he’s guilty.
Lying, dishonest, biased, unprofessional journalists.
What really seems to hack off so many ‘reporting’ this case is that, under Western law, a person is INNOCENT until proven guilty. The prosecution could not provide anywhere near enough evidence to convict Mr Zimmerman, and a verdict of NOT GUILTY was found on the charges pressed against him.
So, despite claims to the contrary, which I have seen all over the place, Mr Zimmerman has indeed been found to be INNOCENT of these crimes, since, if this case was the best the prosecution could do, then it is clear that no other charge will be brought against Mr Zimmerman regarding unlawfully killing Mr Martin.
Mr Zimmerman is free to walk from court, a man INNOCENT of unlawfully killing Mr Martin – despite the blood fued that seems to be promised by all the usual shysters like Revs Jackson, Sharpton, et al.
But the BBC is unlikely to report that ‘revenge’ appears to be the motive for actions such as those of Revs Jackson/Sharpton, rather than ‘justice’, despite their fine claims.
To the Left, there is ALWAYS historical racial guilt. Sins Of The Fathers must be passed on in perpetuity.
There will be civil charges of some kind filed against Zimmerman at some point. Count on it. And the BBC will be all over it.
The “historical racial guilt” argument is interesting if you apply it to Britain and the EU. We are told that we are all Europeans now and that we must love our neighbours, but what of the “sins of the forefathers” in the last century? Is it not ok for me to mistrust the Germans, even though they nearly killed my grandfather in WW1? Should Jewish British people ignore the fact that they would have been rounded up and deported if Germany had invaded in 1940? In other words, who decides when / if the slate has been wiped clean? The US has a Black President after all, so old Whitey seems to be losing his touch as regards oppression, unless of course he has moved on like the Germans since 1945.
To be honest, the run up to this verdict over the past week, indicated he may be acquitted, so it can’t have been too much of a shock for the beeboids.
Yet they seem to be in a state of mourning.
The BBC are in a state of ‘undeclared’ war against their ideological enemies……and using OUR money to fund it.
Yet they seem to be in a state of mourning
No! No! NO!
They are not at all. They know precisely what was happening during he trial which was why they took the decision not to report it. If they had reported it then you, me and Uncle Tom Cobbly would have guessed that Zimmerman would walk. Why? Because we would have found info elsewhere that told us what was going on. We would have learned the facts of the case.
So NO! The BBC did not report it so that the massed pack of incurious Cobblies would not know UNTIL TOLD BY THE BBC that the trial was over that Zimmerman had ‘got off.’ Now they can howl racism and wind up the dumb into a frenzy.
The BBC had deliberately misreported this case. They have lied and they have done this for political ends. They need to be outted on this. If I thought my MP had half a brain I’d badger him into doing something, the BBC Trust will do nothing (except fill it’s collectivised pockets) and CECUTT is a sham.
So what course of action is left? A stiff letter to the News of the World?
More chance of getting a reply from the News of The World than from the BBC.
More chance of getting an honest reply from the News of the World.
Fair point! The BBC ensconced in their brand new, tax payer funded, palace, may claim impartiality, but in reality they’re as devious & manipulative as ever.
The trouble is, they’re untouchable. How do you fight them? Their funds are endless. Their preferred tactic is the slow, insidious drip-drip erosion our values.
They have money & time, and there’s no real way of counter attack.
But have no illusions…..we ARE at war!
At the bottom of the pathetic report I’ve linked to above, the BBC is seeking people’s reactions to the verdict. I wrote the following. I hope at least one Beeboid reads it and rolls their eyes before dismissing me with a vulgarity.
Martin’s death was a tragedy, and an avoidable one. Both Zimmerman and Martin made mistakes. But this was basic self-defense. They were fighting, and Martin reached for Zimmerman’s gun. Once that occurred, Florida self-defense law dictates that Zimmerman had a right to defend himself in the heat of the moment. It’s a tragedy, there are no winners here, really. But Zimmerman is not guilty of murder, and the jury knew it. Unfortunately, you people at the BBC disagree, and it shows.
My reaction to the verdict is that BBC audiences must be shocked because you have deliberately misled everyone from start to finish on this story. You use the young, angelic photo of Martin, and rarely any more contemporary and relevant photos of him in the hoodie or with the thuggish golden grill. You’ve made it seem as if Zimmerman is a racist who “stalked” Martin and shot him in cold blood. With one exception, you have refused to inform your audience of the actual physical fight, and are still pushing the Stand Your Ground theme, which became irrelevant once the fact about the fight became known. You refused to report how NBC and ABC deliberately doctored audio and video tape, respectively, to make Zimmerman appear racist or a liar about the fight. This helped fan the flames of race hatred, and the BBC ignored it, even though all pretend to care about social cohesion. You have deliberately refused to inform your audience about the facts brought out as the case went along, and instead pushed the race-war narrative. BBC journalists have made this about the larger picture of Race In America, manipulating emotions in order to create the impression that Zimmerman must be punished for historical grievances, obscuring the rule of law on which any civilized country must be based. My reaction is that the BBC has failed in its duty to inform accurately and impartially. The BBC has a very large presence in the US, with BBC World News America and World News and the BBC News website, so not only have you misled and misinformed the license fee payers who pay your wages, but also your US audience and international audience as well. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Good stuff, David! Good on yer.
I second that….fantastic stuff David…If I could give a million likes to your post, I would, but alas, your just gonna have to get by on the one I gave 🙂
Excellent.
And as you know, David – this is not an error or some bias on an incidental story as it passes through. It has been a major story in the US for nearly 18 months, and the BBC has mostly maintained a sustained campaign of misinformation. And is still doing so even after 1 long trial where the jury had all the facts the crooked prosecution would allow to be released.
Great stuff, but as you acknowledge, completely futile.
Guardian columnist (and occasional BBC R4 From Our Own Correspondent contributor) Gary Younge has written a typically overwrought piece of race-hustling rubbish under the headline “Open season on black boys after a verdict like this“. I’ve already stumbled upon a few BBC hacks who have tweeted or re-tweeted approving links (Hugh Sykes, Elletra #impartialityatalltimes Neysmith, Julia Macfarlane, Shaimaa Khalil). I’m sure there will be more.
Scum. It’s only open season on black boys if they reach for my holstered gun while they’re beating the shit out of me.
I’d like to see those RTs, actually. A nice collection to prove the bias and groupthink about Race In America and all that crap of which we’ve been accusing them all along.
Sorry, should’ve embedded/screencapped but I’ve closed the tabs now and can’t be arsed to go looking for them again. There’s only so much fun I can take in one day.
Washington, DC Beeboid Claudia Milne feels has RTed a piece in The Atlantic which she found “insightful” about the Zimmerman case. Nobody here will be surprised that it’s exactly the Race In America Narrative garbage that I’ve said the Beeboids are fixated on, and refuse to let go. The most revealing bit is this:
What the verdict says, to the astonishment of tens of millions of us, is that you can go looking for trouble in Florida, with a gun and a great deal of racial bias, and you can find that trouble, and you can act upon that trouble in a way that leaves a young man dead, and none of it guarantees that you will be convicted of a crime.
The prejudice and bias of the writer and of Milne are clear for all to see. Zimmerman was guilty of everything – being a racist, cold-blooded killer – and they’re all stunned that he’s not going to prison for it. This is the kind of mindset which informs BBC News reporting in the US.
This was the first reaction to the verdict by Claudia’s beloved James Fallows:
He also linked to the above article in The Atlantic. What are the odds that we’ll see an opinion piece by one “James Fallows” on the BBC website in the next couple of days?
You can bet that if there is one of those patented “Viewpoint” articles, it will be from this perspective.
John A linked to a Legal Insurrection post on the the open thread which says the Guardian removed the unflattering photos and texts which might have lead to some unapproved thoughts. I’m sure the Beeboids approve.
Another BBC hack impressed by the Gary Younge article – Katie Townsend (“Producer for BBC news. Living between UK and US”):
She sent this one before the verdict. #JusticeForTrayvon? WTF?
This is unbelievable. I cannot believe what I’m reading. How on Earth can these ideologically charged individuals earn money as ‘journalists’? The garbage they write on twitter is beyond belief and puerile in the extreme.
Nice work, DB. More for the list. I guess this means defenders of the indefensible will have to remain silent when we say the Beeboids feel this way.
Explains a lot…Katie Townsend…BBC news producer….good find DB…..deserves a full post….as well as her retweeting pro abortion tweets….explains BBC anti-Bush…at least one small part of it.
Re-writing of BBC-NUJ headlines, post Zimmerman case should start now, with e.g.-
from:-
“Shawn Tyson guilty of murdering two Britons in Florida”
to:-
‘Black Shawn Tyson guilty of murdering two white Britons in Florida.’
zimmerman is not white,he is a brown skinned hispanic,why the race baiters and race stirrers like rentagob al sharpton want to turn this in to a race issue says more about his racist attitudes towards white people than the facts around this case,i think the bbc journalists and the race obssesed left wing media should get down specsavers and invest in a decent pair of glasses to correct there colour blindness.
Lets not forget also the behaviour of the judge in this trial. Quite apart from her rulings on the inadmissability of evidence damning to the prosecution’s case (in particular the texts stored on Martin’s phone), what is to be made of her instructions to the jury?
Based purely on the evidence given at the trial, the only possible summary was to direct the jury to find not guilty on the basis that the state had simply failed to make its case. Instead, she threw fuel onto the fire by allowing and implicitly supporting the idea of manslaughter as a ‘compromise’ to the jury at the last minute, and over the strenuous objections of the defence.
For those who think this is an irrelevant point, bear in mind that the jury during its deliberations yesterday requested clarification on the manslaughter instructions; this shows that it was a consideration for them at the time, despite the evidence presented not supporting any outcome beyond justified self-defence. In the end, their question came to nothing as they apparently returned their verdict without waiting for the requested clarification.
Judges hold an immensely privileged position in the legal system, and if they lack integrity then the system as a whole cannot be trusted. Where are the questions from the BBC or other media about the conduct from the judge? If this case was based on republican ideology rather than a liberal one, and if the judge was so obviously in the tank for the state prosecutors, you can bet that the media would be lining up to provide exposes on who had conspired with whom.
‘Lets not forget also the behaviour of the judge in this trial.’
‘Interesting’ judicial influence not of course restricted to the USA, as Tony Newbury found when facing Helen ‘Trust me’ Boaden and her six lawyers on 28gate.
Where’s Dez?
Dez does the nightshift, you’ll have to wait for him to come and tell you where you went wrong.
Robert Spencer’s speeches are abhorrent to Dez.
George Zimmerman has quite a multi-racial blackground, with black ancestors among them.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425
More about Zimmerman’s black roots.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2143303/Is-photo-proves-George-Zimmermans-great-grandfather-black.html
His grandmother was half black.
http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/05/11/cnn-legal-analyst-obamas-grandparents-would-have-looked-lot-george-zi
Yet, we are told Zimmerman is a “white Hispanic.”
Shouldn’t that be “black Hispanic?”
But I guess that spoils the leftist media narrative!
George Zimmerman is a modern version of Menahem Mendel Beilis, and the BBC is one of the propaganda tools used to persecute him and incite public opinion.