I’m a video guy and that was the first thing I noticed. The needless graphic was way higher than normal, there was nothing in the space below (which is reserved for text), and the graphic covered Zimmerman’s head for the majority of the time.
They want to use this as an excuse so they can say “Hey, we showed the graphic and you can’t see the wound.”
They think everyone is stupid. Sadly, they are right in some cases. All they want is their riot.
All they want is their riot.
I have a question for our Legal Beagles, If a organization like a media conglomerate, pushes a story that they know is false yet seems plausible on the surface for a political agenda ends up getting the person or organization the story is about hurt or killed, can they be sued under civil law?
I wonder about that because the Martin/Zimmerman incident to me seems to now come under the same premise of yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. And as the Supreme Court has already ruled that type of speech is not protected under the first amendment.
I say that after carefully looking the story over and seeing the willful blindness toward all of the facts. And with the knowledge now that the story was pushed out of D.C. after a Civil Rights lawyer/activist got involved in the first place. My take: The goal here is to inflame, (Literally), portions of the United States populace into violent activity.
Why? On the Media’s side, that sort of activity means Money and lots of it from advertisers trying to sell everything from pain Meds to Insurance to feminine hygiene products. And on the Political side? Chaos is a wonderful thing to “get things done” especially since rapid action is demanded and stealth agenda’s can be instituted more easily.
In conclusion we are all being railroaded to a destination that we really will not be happy to arrive at. And to counter that we need, no... MUST show that words and actions when willfully taken to incite such behaviors have major and lasting consequences to the ones who pushed for them.