Replies

Because it’s actually useful stuff to keep in mind. It's useful if you want these people to be seen through a jaundiced eye. There’s a lot of folks saying the jury must be idiots to acquit, but those folks saying that have a whole different pile of information to work with. That is not completely factual, and there's the rub. It's true in some instances. It's not true in others. And still others having seen additional information, have none the less only considered what was presented at the trial, in their determinations. Where are these people described here? Oh, that's right, they aren't. It frames the situation, it points out the probable source of the large difference in opinion of the TV audience and the jury. It unfairly frames all dissenters as being in one group. You honestly can't grasp that concept? It’s actually a valid and informative sentence. If it's valid, it's only valid in that it is a form of propaganda. It frames anyone who dissents with the jury's verdict as being too stupid to comprehend complex issues, and do an honest evaluation. "Dissenters are those people who used flawed logic to come to a conclusion. They don't know you can only use information presented to the jury. They don't know that talking head and discussion shows on television shouldn't be taken into consideration." This is NOT a correct portrayal. That charge is baseless. Not everyone who disagrees is some moron from Hooterville Junction, that can't think their way out of a paper bag. I know we’re not used to the media doing that, but it happens sometimes. Yep, unfortunately it didn't happen here.

Didn’t take Baez long to find an agent....BUT it flatlined....interesting tidbit.

Jose Baez, Casey Anthony’s attorney, had a Hollywood agent for a few hours Thursday.

Now he doesn’t.

Jim Griffin of Paradigm would represent Baez and explore opportunities in publishing, motion pictures and television, according to several reports Thursday afternoon.

Paradigm later stressed in an internal message that:

“We have not and have NO INTENTION of signing Casey Anthony,”

Later Thursday, Deadline.com reported that Baez was no longer signed with Paradigm. An internal Paradigm memo said: ”Important Paradigm Update – We have informed Jose Baez tonight that we will not be representing him.” A Paradigm insider .... ”In the end it’s just not who we are.”

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2011/07/jose-baez-loses-hollywood-agent-john-morgan-to-question-casey-anthony.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+entertainment%2Ftv%2Ftvguy+(TV+Guy)

It’s not seeing anybody through a jaundiced eye. The people complaining about this case always drop a sentence like “I don’t see how anybody could acquit knowing X” and if you dig into all you’ll find out X is a tidbit that came from a talking head on TV and never was presented as evidence to the jury. So as it turns out the jury doesn’t know X (or at least didn’t when they voted). But the people don’t think about that. So by putting that sentence in there is quite fairly frames the situation.

Nobody is saying the talking heads shouldn’t be taken into consideration, it’s a reminder that the talking heads presented information the jury never even GOT. And it’s a valid thing to remind people of, people tend to forget that we aren’t all operating from the same pool of information. They’ve been watching the trial on TV, reading about it on the web, discussing it with co-workers, making their own decisions based on a certain pile of information, then the jury comes back with a verdict completely at odds with that opinion of the general populace and the country yells “WTF”. Well that sentence accurately points to one of the primary reasons the jury and the general populace have two vastly different opinions: two vastly different pools of information. It doesn’t call anybody’s intelligence to question at all in any way, that’s junk YOU added based on not a single word in the sentence. You’re reading INTO it, I’m reading IT. IT doesn’t say what you’re reading IN.