Posted on 07/01/2013 1:05:35 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Via Twitchy and Mediaite, the excuse will be that it was an accident, that they were caught by surprise when unredacted personal information was shown in court. Maybe. They know not to air images of the jurors, they know not to air grisly photos of the crime scene, but apparently they don’t know that sometimes police reports with people’s vital info are shown onscreen in court during trials.
Here’s the thing: Even if this shot is accidental, the only reason the proceedings are on TV to begin with is because the media’s obsessed with the idea that Zimmerman committed a racial atrocity and must be punished for it. Trials typically don’t get saturation coverage because the facts are interesting and tragic and there’s a legit dispute as to whether the prosecution’s or defense’s story of what happened is true. They get saturation coverage because there’s an obvious innocent victim/diabolical defendant dynamic that the media’s interested in. From the beginning, with the Times pushing its “white Hispanic” description of Zimmerman, the press has strained hard to make the Trayvon Martin shooting a passion play about whites treating black life cheaply in modern, post-civil rights America. As terrible as the prosecution’s witnesses have been thus far, there is no scenario — zero — in which most of the press concludes that acquittal on the murder charge is just rather than unjust. Zimmerman must be guilty, morally if not legally. Progress demands it. Against that backdrop, why be surprised that CNN would show his social security number onscreen? The cameras are there because the press has issued its verdict. Intentional or not, this is part of the sentencing phase.
I guess they have forgotten a slighted person like Richard Jewell...
Too bad that not a lot of real people saw that intentional information release...CNN’s ratings suck...
This may actually be good. Mr. Zimmerman can sue CNN for multiple millions of dollars after he his found not guilty, and he’ll have enough money to get himself, and his family away from the animals in central FL who have threatened to kill him.
;-\
When it comes to innocent media mistakes, some figures who aren’t in favor with the media seem to attract them by the truckloads.
What is that term they use when talking about cancers and contaminants? Clusters?
Some great hacker should leak the names, phone numbers addresses and social security numbers of ALL cnn employees.
See how they like having scum sign up for credit cards and such under their credit.
Courtroom cameras are usually operated on a pool basis, either by court employees or one of the networks on a rotating basis. Same with still photographers. If each network had its own cameras and crews in the courtroom all the time, there wouldn’t be room for anyone else. Try flipping between CNN, HLN, MSNBC and FNC when they’re carrying live coverage; they have exactly the same shot.
Even if the image hadn’t gone out on television, it would have been visible to the spectators inside the courtroom. It should have been redacted before being released in open court, and the failure is probably the court clerk’s fault.
Suing is one thing; actually collecting is quite another. Remember the court-ordered $ settlement for the NY cop against Tawanna Brawley? There still hasn’t been one.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/time_to_pay_up_tawana_VNfKyp8kwALfSZZE4DdAQI
Zimmerman should start using Obama’s STOLEN SSN #042-xx-xxxx.
It was issued to a Connecticut resident. Obama never lived there.
What could they do, sue/prosecute Zimmerman for using it? His lawyers would show up in court to document “The history of Obama’s SSN.”
That wouldn’t go well for Soetoro.
Thing is, even though Sharpton should be forced to pay it, I’m sure Ms Brawley’s bank account isn’t as deep as CNN’s. Not that it should matter, but a fact of life.
Does CNN get a cut of the reward money from the Black Panthers? They do need it to keep the boat floating.
Can a person get a new Social Security number when something like this has happened?
The defense and the judge saw this info before it was introduced into evidence. Many folks screwed up on this one. The defense should have objected, and it would have been sustained. The prosecution can’t be excused for not redacting the document though.
The full, unaltered, original document has to be entered into evidence. Allowing a doctored copy poses obvious problems. It should have been redacted before it was shown on screen, but the unredacted original should have been entered into the record. My money is on the court clerk dropping the ball.
“The full, unaltered, original document has to be entered into evidence. Allowing a doctored copy poses obvious problems. It should have been redacted before it was shown on screen, but the unredacted original should have been entered into the record. My money is on the court clerk dropping the ball.”
That may differ by state, I’m not a lawyer. I did however just finish six weeks of jury duty in TN and served on three juries. Every document introduced as evidence was reviewed by defense, prosecution and the judge. Redactions were made in the documents as far as irrelevant information
Mr. Zimmerman should be owning himself some CNN fairly soon.
No offense intended, but I see Twitchy and Mediaite as two faced, left wing blogs.
National Review is faggot central...
It’s entirely possible that’s the only redaction that goes on, in which case both parties and the judge should have caught this. I’m assuming that there is a difference between what goes into the record and the jury is allowed to see, and what is made public. I would expect — and I’m not a lawyer, either — the attorneys to focus on the former, and the court to see to the latter.
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.