The commie fascist propaganda machine posing as our media did the same with the Rodney King case. They deliberately incited a riot by only showing the edited tape of career criminal King justly getting his ass kicked by the cops. They purposely did not show King charging the cops time and time again, even after being tased twice, and even pulling his pants down and telling the cops to kiss his ass. And was anybody in the commie fascist propaganda machine prosecuted for the multi-millions in damages for the riot THEY caused? No, just as I will predict they will get away with it this time as well.
Since you obviously know about the history of media games in Los Angeles, may I suggest Randall Sullivan’s LAbyrinth, which examines racial politics in LAPD, the Tupac Shakur murder, and the “Rampart Scandal”. Thoroughly documented and highly enlightening. Available, among other sources, on Amazon Kindle.
The suit Zimmerman has filed against NBC shows the way, but it is insufficient. The way to suppress this sort of thing - the crying need of the Republic - is to sue journalism as a whole. Otherwise, you get what you always got in the past - each journalist sloughs off responsibility and says, “I relied on someone else.”You will say, “Yes, but the problem is, How do you sue ‘journalism as a whole?’” And isn’t that unconstitutional? First, the way to sue journalism as a whole is to sue the Associated Press, and its membership. That covers the waterfront quite well, and is very appropriate, because the AP has always been aggressively dominant and monopolistic. But actually, any and all wire services merit the same treatment.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Book I, Ch 10)”Liberals” love that Smith quote, but if it applies to any one trade, it applies to wire service journalism. The AP newswire is nothing but a continuous virtual meeting of all the major journalism outlets in America. And it started before the Civil War, and has been running continually for over a century and a half. And it didn’t take long at all before the AP was putting out its “style guides.” Guides that rule out expressions like “illegal alien.”Is it, or should it be, unconstitutional to sue monopoly journalism? No. They do not promote free discussion of issues, they participate in the suppression of it. Consider their coverage of the “settled science” of “man-made global warming.” The press cooperates with the Democratic Party in calling anyone who debates the issue “climate deniers.” The ancient Greeks had the same problem; people (who must have some sort of edge like our journalists do today) were able to call themselves Sophists (wise), and short-circuit debate. The answer to the Sophists was not to do a “he said, she said” argument over who was wise and who wasn’t; the answer was to eschew claims of wisdom but to claim only to love wisdom - that is, to demand that the argument be over the facts and logic of the issue at hand, not over who has the prettiest college degree. The Greek term for “a lover of wisdom” is Philosopher, and the Greek “Sophist” is the origin of the English word “sophistry.”The point is that journalism is not objective; instead, journalism uses the term “objective” in precisely the same sense as the ancient Sophists used the term “wisdom.” Just as when the Sophists claimed to actually have wisdom the result was sophistry, journalists claim to actually be wise (instead of limiting their claim to trying to be objective) - with the result that they engage in dishonest argumentation themselves. It is often said that journalists are “int the pocket of the Democrats,” but that is IMHO not the way to look at it. The same situation can be understood as the “liberals" going along to get along with journalism. And being awarded positive labels - “liberalism” was indeed a positive label before the socialists misappropriated it in the 1920s - while their opponents were given negative labels such as “right wing”, or even “conservative.” Conservative is a negative label in any country where the people believe in progress, which America emphatically does - at least until the “liberals” muck things up.