Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Which NBC producer defamed George Zimmerman?
the daily caller ^ | 4/6/2012 | jim treacher

Posted on 04/07/2012 5:57:07 AM PDT by tobyhill

We’re a little bit closer to knowing. Reuters:

An internal NBC News probe has determined a “seasoned” producer was to blame for a misleading clip of a 911 call that the network broadcast during its coverage of the Trayvon Martin shooting, according to two sources at the network.

NBC News brass interviewed more than half a dozen staffers during its investigation of the misleadingly edited 911 call placed by George Zimmerman just before he shot the unarmed Florida teenager, said the sources, one of whom is an executive at the network.

The clip aired on the network’s flagship “Today” morning show last week.

The edit made it appear that Zimmerman immediately told police that Martin was black, when, in fact, the full tape reveals that the neighborhood watch captain only did so when responding to a question posed by a dispatcher.

There was no clear indication on Thursday of what, if any, disciplinary actions would be taken against the producer or other staff involved in the incident.

The sources at the network, who declined to identify the producer, said NBC News executives did not know the 911 call was misleadingly edited until news reports surfaced days later on right-leaning blogs including and

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 911call; blackkk; editgate; florida; georgezimmerman; lyingmedia; namenames; nbcfraud; nothingbutcrap; trayvonmartin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-83 last
To: Mr Ramsbotham
The discovery process in a nice lawsuit should tell us. Bear in mind, Zimmerman’s father was a judge. They’ll know when and how to proceed.

If Zimmerman can manage to stay alive, he should have a nice little nest egg in which to live out his days. I hope his lawyer is savvy enough to clean the offending media and networks' financial clocks. Do not settle - take these s.o.b.'s to court and expose them for the frauds they are.

51 posted on 04/07/2012 6:56:45 AM PDT by demkicker (My passion for freedom is stronger than that of Democrats whose obsession is to enslave me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

Time for Congressional hearings on the NBC/ABC CEOs.

52 posted on 04/07/2012 6:56:54 AM PDT by wolficatZ ("We are no longer accepting comments on this article")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Common Law

The common law of torts recognizes five discrete rights of privacy. First, the common law affords individuals the right to sue when their seclusion or solitude has been intruded upon in an unreasonable and highly offensive manner. Second, individuals have a common-law right to sue when information concerning their private life is disclosed to the public in a highly objectionable fashion. Third, tort liability may be imposed on individuals or entities that publicize information that places someone in a false light. Fourth, the common law forbids persons from appropriating someone’s name or likeness without his or her consent. Fifth, the common law prevents business competitors from engaging in unfair competition through the theft of trade secrets.

Intrusion upon Seclusion One who intentionally intrudes upon the solitude or seclusion of another is subject to liability for common-law invasion of privacy. An invasion may involve a physical intrusion into a place where a person has secluded herself, such as the nonconsensual entry into someone’s home, office, apartment, or hotel room. Nonphysical intrusions may also give rise to liability when they involve the use of electronic surveillance equipment, including wiretaps, microphones, and video cameras. Alternatively, a person’s seclusion may be impermissibly interrupted by persistent and unwelcome telephone calls, or by the occasional window peeper. By imposing liability in such instances, the law seeks to protect a person’s tranquility and equilibrium.

Not every intrusion is actionable under this common-law tort. The intrusion must be considered highly offensive to a reasonable person. Creditors are allowed to take action to collect delinquent debts but must do so in a reasonable fashion. Landlords are permitted to demand late rental payments but must do so at reasonable times. A judge or jury determines what is reasonable according to the facts of each case. Individuals have no expectation of privacy in matters that are public. Thus, businesses may examine public criminal records of prospective employees without fear of liability, and photographers may take pictures of movie stars in public places.

Publicity that Discloses Private Information The common law protects individuals from publicity that discloses information about their private lives. Unlike libel, slander, and defamation actions, this common-law tort may give rise to liability for truthful publicity, as long as the information is published in a manner that is highly objectionable to a reasonable person and the information is of no legitimate concern to the public. Disclosure of private sexual relations, disgraceful family quarrels, humiliating illnesses, and most other intimate personal matters will normally give rise to liability for invasion of privacy, even if such disclosures are completely accurate. By discouraging the publication of such private and personal matters, the common law places a high value on the right of individuals to control the dissemination of information about themselves, including the right to filter out embarrassing and harmful facts that might influence the opinion of others.

Liability is not usually imposed for alleged injuries relating to matters that are intended for public consumption. A person’s date of birth and military record, for example, are both matters of public record that may be disclosed without invading his or her privacy. Commercial proprietors that regularly deal with the public receive little protection from disclosures that relate to the price of their products, the quality of their services, or the manner in which they conduct business. Under the First Amendment, business proprietors receive less protection of their privacy interests because the U.S. Constitution seeks to promote the free and robust exchange of accurate information to allow consumers to make informed decisions.

False-Light Publicity The common-law tort of false-light publicity protects individuals from the public disclosure of false information about their reputation, beliefs, or activities. The information need not be of a private nature nor must it be defamatory, as must libelous and slanderous statements, before liability will be imposed. Instead, a misleading publication will give rise to liability for false-light publicity when it is placed before a large segment of the public in such a way that a reasonable person would find it highly offensive. However, publication of an inaccurate story to a single person, or a small group of people, is not considered sufficiently public to constitute publicity.

A newspaper photograph printed in close proximity to a caption suggesting criminal activity on the part of the person photographed is a classic example of false-light publicity. On the other hand, a misleading photograph, such as one that has been retouched, may not give rise to liability for false-light publicity if the photograph is accompanied by a caption that clearly explains how it has been distorted. An esteemed poet may successfully sue for false-light publicity when an inferior poem is published under the poet’s name. A war hero may assert a cognizable claim for false-light publicity if a story is aired that inaccurately portrays the soldier as a coward.

Public officials, such as politicians, and public figures, such as professional athletes, rarely recover for false-light publicity. Before a public official or public figure can recover for false-light publicity, the First Amendment requires proof that a story or caption was published with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its truth, a principle that has become known as the actual malice standard (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 [1964]). In most instances, public officials and public figures have thrust themselves into the public spotlight. As a condition to accepting the benefits that accompany public recognition, the law requires that such persons accept a diminished level of protection of their privacy interests. Because the First Amendment confers less protection on public persons than it does on private individuals, the Constitution encourages the media to freely disseminate information about candidates for office, government officials, and other figures who influence or shape the course of events.

I would like to see suits against news corporations for their influence and use of false information to produce results desired by this Administration.

These people understand law and are lawyered up. So, they should be fought with law.

53 posted on 04/07/2012 6:59:12 AM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

“The theory of the complaint is that defendant negligently published false and misleading statements. New York has long recognized such a cause of action. Liability exists “only where there is a duty, if one speaks at all, to give the correct information.” (International Prods. Co. v Erie R. R. Co., 244 NY 331, 338 [1927]; see, Ultramares Corp. v Touche, 255 NY 170, 180-185 [1931] [an accountant may be liable for a negligent audit opinion but only to a circumscribed class of potential plaintiffs].) In addition to knowledge of the possibility of detrimental reliance, “the relationship of the parties . . . must be such that in morals and good conscience the one has the right to rely upon the other for information, and the other giving the information owes a duty to give it with care.” (International Prods. Co. v Erie R. R. Co., supra, at 338.) The cause of action has been severely limited over the years to avoid impinging on basic rights. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552 (2) also supports limiting the class of plaintiffs who may sue for negligent misstatements; liability “is limited to loss suffered [a] by the person or one of a limited group of persons for whose benefit and guidance” the speaker acts (emphasis added). That is, as a matter of public policy, the class of potential plaintiffs must be carefully circumscribed to avoid the potential of unlimited liability.”

When applied against news in particular, this could bring suit in little used areas of federal and state code to reinforce the press’ responsibility to uphold 1A issues as an ethic. The press ‘should have known’ what it/they were doing. If they acted on advice or words of the POTUS ‘secretary,’ or of others, that man in Toledo could band together with any number of others to suit for remedy and relief.

Sounds like a pre-paid legal movement to me.

54 posted on 04/07/2012 7:05:21 AM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

I’ll be quiet now, as I see I have made too many posts. Pretty riled up this am and am on a tear.

Apologies to the forum.

55 posted on 04/07/2012 7:06:58 AM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

Excellent post, cb. I sent it on to the Today show comments section.

56 posted on 04/07/2012 7:09:06 AM PDT by Humble Servant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: maggief
Don't let the news media play you for a fool.

Sharpton spearheaded Hillary's dirty tricks campaign in 2007.

What we have right now is an exact repeat of Hillary's dirty tricks campaign.

In 2007 they went after Don Imas for his “attack” against women. This go round it's Rush.

In 2007 Sharpton was stirring the racial pot with the Jenna 6 and the phony ‘noose” campaign implying the KKK was hunting down blacks.

This time it Trayvon and and “Blacks are being hunted” and the stand your ground and castle doctrine laws are a licensee to hunt blacks.

Beginning in Nov of 2006 the dems started the phony BS of Bush firing the US Attorneys and it was somehow connected to covering up police misconduct. Janet Reno fired all the US Attorney's in 1993 in part to cover up that Bill Clinton had ordered his state troopers to racial profile. He had been sued by the Reagan/Bush DoJ for ordering racial profiling and had agreed to stop as part of the settlement. He didn't. Hillary's been on a vendetta to pin racial profiling on the repubs ever since.

Notice how the DoJ has started all the probes into racial profiling, most notable is with Sheriff Joe.

Everything points to Hillary.

All of this is just priming the pump. Zippo is going to be forced out and that's when the real civil unrest starts.

BTW Fast and Furious has been arming up the drug gangs. In the 1996 election Bill Clinton's buddies the Chinese military got caught arming up the gangs in LA with full auto weapons.

57 posted on 04/07/2012 7:22:29 AM PDT by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Good post. I don't usually like to see the word "evil" thrown around, but there is no other way to describe the way they've so underhandedly attempted to sow racial hatred.

What's sad is that they've somewhat succeeded. I have a lower view of the black community than I did before this happened. The black community obviously feels likewise.

I'd thought I'd seen everything from our scum media pulled this.

58 posted on 04/07/2012 7:30:08 AM PDT by AAABEST (Et lux in tenebris lucet: et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

“Which NBC producers defamed George Zimmerman?”

Doesn’t matter. The shareholders should be demanding the immediate resignation of the CEO.

59 posted on 04/07/2012 7:38:44 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Solyent Pink is Sheeple!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

NBC News executives did not know the 911 call was misleadingly edited

Why all the fuss? All the words in the NBC piece were accurate./s

60 posted on 04/07/2012 7:48:35 AM PDT by Joan Kerrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

I believe the whole Trayvon Martin outrage was orchestrated by the White House to bolster Black voter turnout for Obama. Usually the race hustlers Shapton and Jackson have their radar tuned and show up at any possible “race” incident quicker than flies land on fresh dog turds. In this case it was some weeks later. Could it be that WH staff were trolling for an incident that could be exploited?

61 posted on 04/07/2012 8:00:18 AM PDT by The Great RJ ("The problem with socialism is that pretty soon you run out of other people's money" M. Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
David Burge ‏ @iowahawkblog Reply Retweeted Favorite · Open When NBC News says they fired someone, and won't say who it was, it's safe to assume they didn't fire someone.
62 posted on 04/07/2012 8:04:11 AM PDT by Walmartian (An update is available for this tagline. Click here to download.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ptsal

Everybody knows the name “Zimmerman,” but we’re not permitted to know the name of the person who slandered/libeled Zimmerman as racist.

Zimmerman is hunted with a bounty on his head, while this race propagandist is quietly transfered to another wing of the Democrat-Media Complex to continue his work.

63 posted on 04/07/2012 8:12:13 AM PDT by LyinLibs (If victims of islam were more "islamophobic," maybe they'd still be alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Zimmerman has a wonderful case to sue.

64 posted on 04/07/2012 8:19:18 AM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill; BIGLOOK

If we don’t know, who did this vle anti act of faux journalism, we shouldn’t believe that he/she/it was fired.

When we know the identity of the fixer, Zimmerman and his family can sue he/she/it, NBC and GE and never have to worry about working or money again.

Brian Williams is a race agitator and should never be watched by anyone who is not a race card agitator.

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill; BIGLOOK

If we don’t know, who did this vle anti act of faux journalism, we shouldn’t believe that he/she/it was fired.

When we know the identity of the fixer, Zimmerman and his family can sue he/she/it, NBC and GE and never have to worry about working or money again.

Brian Williams is a race agitator and should never be watched by anyone who is not a race card agitator.

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

Jim Bell is the executive producer of the Today show, essentially, the senior exec in charge of the entire program. He didn’t edit the 9-11 call, but Mr. Bell certainly knows who edited the call. No wonder he won’t talk to the media; of course, the MSM has no interest in identifying the culprit.

67 posted on 04/07/2012 8:31:32 AM PDT by ExNewsExSpook (uoted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy


How do we know this person wasn’t PROMOTED?

68 posted on 04/07/2012 8:33:28 AM PDT by wendell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


69 posted on 04/07/2012 8:34:09 AM PDT by Matchett-PI ("Andrew loved the battle and he knew the stakes." ~ Mark Levin 3/2/12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Cajun

If the fired producer is indeed Jim Bell, it should be noted that’s he’s been producing the Today show since 2006. He’s 44, graduated from Harvard in 1989 with a BA in government. His wife is Angelique Bell, who is a real piece of work lefty. She’s an ex-producer for TV, graduating from NYU (I believe) in 1990 or so. They live in a $2,000,000 house in Greenwich with their 4 boys.

When Cheney made the rounds of talk shows with his memoirs a few years ago, he stopped by the Today show. At the end of his interview with Laurer, as the camera faded out, it panned the crowd standing outside looking into the studio....and lo and behold, the shot ended on a poster being held aloft that said Cheney was a war criminal. What are the odds, hmmm?

If they really did can him, then good riddance! Next is that smarmy condescending Brian Williams.

Mrs. Prince of Space

70 posted on 04/07/2012 8:37:37 AM PDT by Prince of Space (Be Breitbart, baby!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

Isn’t it interesting that they won’t tell this producer’s name, but saw no problem in identifying the 10-year old witness by name.

71 posted on 04/07/2012 8:44:25 AM PDT by Ektelon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IMR 4350

“Don’t let the news media play you for a fool.”

Not likely.

Al Sharpton: Obama’s Go-To Black Leader
Apr 12, 2011 6:37 PM EDT

The president’s extraordinary embrace of Al Sharpton last week has as much to do with his rejection of Jesse Jackson, Cornel West and Tavis Smiley as it does with the once-embattled reverend.


Obama stayed so far away from Sharpton during the 2008 campaign that Sharpton, with Obama’s blessing, never even endorsed him. Yet not only did Obama just become the first president ever to appear at the annual conference of Sharpton’s National Action Network, ten top Obama aides, including six cabinet members, Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod, spoke at various sessions of the four-day event. It was a “Yes Al Can” celebration.

This “enemy-of-my-enemy” alliance moved to the front burner more than a year ago, when Sharpton declared, in an interview with the New York Times, that Obama was smart “not to ballyhoo a black agenda.” Smiley fired back, saying it was “difficult” for Sharpton “to be the water carrier for the White House and, at the same time, trying to be the titular head, as it were, for Black America.” He argued that Sharpton was “inside the White House trying to help the president push his agenda out” rather than pressuring Obama to adopt an agenda for blacks disproportionately hurt by the great recession.


72 posted on 04/07/2012 8:48:57 AM PDT by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Walmartian

excellent post. we’re supposed to believe this because....

73 posted on 04/07/2012 8:57:11 AM PDT by conservativesister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill


74 posted on 04/07/2012 9:00:22 AM PDT by CitizenM (Obama studied our Constution out of hate for America, not out of love for our laws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham
Does anyone know if the Zimmerman family has filed in court against NBC for this? My understanding is that the electronic media is considered in the same realm as printed material, so I would think libel laws would apply. Seems to me it would be a slam-dunk case. George Zimmerman is not a public figure so the “absence of malice” test would not apply. The case seems to meet the definition of libel, false information (falsely portrayed as a racist) that caused demonstrable harm (ruined reputation in the community). I know if it were me, I'd sue them for everything they had, and make it the Zimmerman Broadcasting Company (for a short time, then liquidate the whole corrupt mess).
75 posted on 04/07/2012 9:10:57 AM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: All

Jim Bell has locked down his Twitter Account.

76 posted on 04/07/2012 9:17:04 AM PDT by tobyhill (Fight Fire With Fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Walmartian

NbC 51% owned by Comcast 49% by GE

The buck stops at the CEO’s Demand a public apology to Zimmerman and release of the name of the person responsible...

They won’t stop the race baiting and covering for Obama and not reporting his fraudulent documents until it hits their pocketbook or themselves personally. I hope they realize if they start a race war/civil war they are not exempt the consequences. This story of their deceptive editing is now news, but they are not covering it...

77 posted on 04/07/2012 9:37:06 AM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone


78 posted on 04/07/2012 9:58:13 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
"People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or some contrivance to raise prices." - Adam Smith
Look no further than membership in the Associated Press for the reason why all of journalism colludes against the public interest.
79 posted on 04/07/2012 10:49:25 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which “liberalism" coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

AP = Death Knell of American Newspapers.......

80 posted on 04/07/2012 10:54:25 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: maggief; tomdavidd; Freeper; Gvl_M3; Flotsam_Jetsome; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; ..
Image and video hosting by TinyPic


. . . . Check out # 72.

81 posted on 04/07/2012 11:37:00 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

82 posted on 04/08/2012 6:35:58 AM PDT by null and void (Day 1174 of America's ObamaVacation from reality [Heroes aren't made, Frank, they're cornered...])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: freeangel

If the producer in question is in fact Jim Bell, his address is easily obtained. He lives in Greenwich, Connecticut with his wife Angelique, another fervent lefty, and their 4 sons in a $2,000,000 house they bought in 2001. It sure would suck for him and his family if people showed up on HIS doorstep looking for answers.

Mrs. Prince of Space

83 posted on 04/08/2012 3:44:06 PM PDT by Prince of Space (Be Breitbart, baby!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-83 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson