So I heard a few days ago that NBC had selectively edited Zimmerman’s call to 911 in order to make it seem more racially driven. I originally blew this off as conspiracy trash because I got it from a dubious source. Today, there is an article over at the Huffington Post about how NBC is launching an “internal investigation” into their editing process over that particular piece of audio in question.
So, I guess it really happened, or, happened insofar as my suspension of disbelief will allow, considering it came from news sources that are becoming less and less trustworthy…
Apparently, Zimmerman’s original call to 911 went more or less like this:
Z: “There is a suspicious person wandering around out here, what should I do?”
911: “What does this person look like? White, black, hispanic?”
Z: “He looks black.”
Here is what NBC’s “editing process” did:
Z: “There is a suspicious person wandering around out here, what should I do? He looks black.”
There is an obvious and colossal difference between the two. This is further evidence to push my personal agenda of trusting absolutely nothing you ever see or hear. Like I state in one of my quotes, the accuracy of a news story is inversely proportional to the political charge it carries. It is clear in this instance, that either NBC is lying or the Huffington Post is lying and what this means is, is that those who rely on either of these two news sources for information run the risk of wandering around completely misinformed.
Now, I personally don’t give three squirts about the story itself — people are shooting each other in this country all the time, but one has to wonder why exactly, from out of nowhere, this particular story got the attention it did, when people of differing race are out there doing this sort of thing already every day.
News companies are corporations, and just like any corporation, their primary concern is the bottom line. They only care about ratings. Ratings, ratings, ratings. Ratings equals viewership, and viewership equals sponsors, and sponsors equals money, and money is why they are there in the first place. It should be obvious by now that what with all the other news competitors and the advent of the 24/7 news cycle, these companies will go to great lengths to increase viewership — even lie.
Attention grabbing, controversial headlines that contradict their stories, weasel words, active/passive language, and insidiously injecting subtle, yet virtually undetectable methods to sway opinion are all facets of the New Journalism. This should be self evident by simply noticing how much fact has been replaced with babbling talking heads and their “expert” opinions. News used to be 90% fact, 10% op-ed. Now, it is 90% op-ed and 10% fact. Throw in political agendas into the profit model, and you’re better off getting your news from the daily horoscopes.