Truth in the Media?

I have this radical idea. I know most people will call me an extremist for saying this,but here it goes. I think a news agency should report the news as honestly as they can, allow people to make their own decisions and let the political chips fall where they may.


When this Trayvon Martin story hit, NBC News released the 911 call from that night. The text that was originally released was

"This guy looks like he's up to no good … he looks black."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/03/nbc-issues-apology-edited-zimmerman-11-call/#ixzz1r2QPkr2Y

A transcript of the complete 911 call shows that Zimmerman said, "This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."

The 911 officer responded saying, "OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?"

"He looks black," Zimmerman said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/03/nbc-issues-apology-edited-zimmerman-11-call/#ixzz1r2Qv7HgS


I don't really want to pass judgement on whether or not George Zimmerman is guilty or if Treyvon Martin was up to no good or just innocently walk along in the rain. What I would like to pass judgement on is the media that covered this story.


I believe that NBC news and all those that followed behind them are guilty of media mal-practice. Why would they edit this transcript in such a way so that it inspired so much racial anger? Was it for ratings? Are they unwilling to let facts get in the way of a good story? Or is this another example of how their bias runs so deep that they cannot even recognize they have done wrong.  They may have apologized but they are only sorry they got caught. How many times have they done this where they have not been caught?


This reminds of the time when CBS News tried to bring down George W. Bush by faking documents and claiming he did not do his service in the National Guard. The ruse was pretty obvious when it was pointed out, but what other times have they faked news stories and got away with it?


Let's look at another case that was tried in the media. Remember the girl, Chandra Levy who was the aide to Congressman Gary Condit? The media told us that it must have been the congressman who murdered her because he was having an affair with her. I even thought Congressman Condit was somehow guilty. Turns out it was some guy nobody heard of named Ingmar Guandique. Congressman Condit was even able to sue many news agencies for libel. The news that Congressman Condit possibly killed his aide Chandra Levy and hid her body was a lot more interesting than some unknown criminal named Ingmar Guandique killed her. The truth be damned. Also, let's constantly mention how conservative the congressman is and not mention that he is a Democrat.


What about the Duke Lacrosse case. The whole Duke Lacrosse team was found guilty in the media of raping a poor innocent black girl. When the truth finally came out, we found that Mike Nifong, the former prosecutor, was just trying to advance his political career by stoking racial hatred. The girl was apparently only after fame and money.


The press has a history of bias and sensationalism. They don't want to allow facts to get in the way of a good story. They should not be trusted, particularly when a sensational story is being reported.