There are two sides to every story. So, why do the media sometimes run whole hogged with the most sensational version of events and why do we eat it up like candy?
It is time for some critical thinking about a widely reported crime story currently in the news.
More than a month ago a tragic incident occurred in a gated community in Sanford, Florida when a Neighborhood-Watch volunteer shot and killed a 17 year old young man. The teen was black, the man with the gun was mixed race Hispanic. The teen was walking back from the store, the adult was in his car going to the store.
When I read the first accounts of how young Trayvon Martin died I was outraged! Seemed as though a 28 year old, gun-toting man named George Zimmerman -- a guy who had called 9-1-1 dozens of times over the last year -- was one of those modern day gunslinger types who went around his neighborhood hunting for suspects to bully. Several news accounts called him a, "cop wanna-be" who likely targeted the hoodie-wearing teen because of his race.
TV news played a 9-11 tape on which Zimmerman was heard reporting the suspicious activity of young Trayvon and even though the operator clearly told the older man not to leave his car to follow the suspect, Zimmerman did so anyway. The media reported Martin was on his cell phone telling his girlfriend that a man in an SUV was following him and she told him to run away. Within minutes the defenseless teenager was inexplicably dead with a bullet in his chest.
Zimmerman was not arrested and there was much speculation that it was because Florida's controversial Stand Your Ground law (which allows threatened people to defend themselves with their guns) was the reason why.
I was left with so many questions! Common sense told me Zimmerman didn't stand his ground anywhere. He had obviously gotten out of his vehicle and followed the kid, so, was there another reason he wasn't arrested for the shooting? And, if the Stand Your Ground law was the reason there had been no arrest, why was Sanford's Police Chief Bill Lee forced to step aside? He didn't pass the law -- the state legislature did. Shouldn't the anger have been focused on lawmakers, not police?
Finally, five weeks after the February 26 shooting I opened the paper to learn that there was more to this story than an overzealous adult stalking and killing a black kid.
The new perspective came from the original police report which noted Zimmerman had a bloody nose, gashes on the back of his head and grass stains on his back. Obviously there had been some sort of fight. Zimmerman had told police that as he moved to go back to his vehicle the teenager asked him if he "had a problem." When he answered, "No" and reached for his phone to make another 9-1-1 call, Zimmerman said Martin declared, "Well, you do now," and knocked him to the ground. The young man then bashed his head into the concrete several times and in the scuffle, Zimmerman claimed, he shot Martin in self-defense. An eyewitness backs up this account saying the person in the red shirt (Zimmerman) was being beaten by the person in the dark hoodie (Martin). ABC News then broadcast grainy video of Zimmerman arriving at the police station in handcuffs and none of the injuries listed on the report were visible. Days later, ABC enhanced the footage and apparent head wounds were suddenly visible.
Seems like new facts about this case emerge nearly every day.
Look, I don't know the complete truth of what happened that awful night when Trayvon Martin died. And neither do the loud mouths that have descended on the scene to demand "justice." Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton led a protest in Sanford, they had their picture taken with Trayvon's grief stricken parents and demanded that the city arrest Zimmerman or risk "... going down as the Birmingham and Selma of the 21st century," as Sharpton put it.
The New Black Panther Party said it was mobilizing 10,000 black men to capture Zimmerman who has been in hiding since the shooting and is reported to be extremely distraught after several death threats. The Panther Party's Hashim Nzinga announced on CNN there was a 10 thousand dollar bounty on Zimmerman's head. Another party member, Mikhail Muhammad, said of the shooter, "He should be fearful for his life. You can't keep killing black children."
Ironic, isn't it, that the groups so eager to brand Zimmerman as a vigilante are engaging in similar activity.
Reverend C.L. Bryant, a onetime NAACP official from Texas said what I was thinking about these self-aggrandizing vigilantes. He called Jackson and Sharpton "race hustlers" and said they are "acting as though they are buzzards circling the carcass of this young boy." The facts show there is no epidemic of whites killing black children in America. As the conservative Rev. Bryant put it, "The greatest danger to the lives of young black men are (other) young black men."
The bottom line to this case and the media's coverage of it is this: None of it feels like it is leading us down the path to true justice. It feels like a mob of uninformed, hot-headed people playing to the cameras is leading the way.
A young man is dead and his pitiable parents, instead of being allowed to grieve, are being paraded around by opportunists demanding unattainable instant "justice." This is not the way our justice system works. It should be slow, deliberate and fair to everyone involved.
There are always two sides to every story.
Diane Dimond may be reached through her web site: www.dianedimond.com Her latest book, "Cirque Du Salahi" - the inside and untold story of the so-called White House Gate Crashers - is available through Amazon.com - http://dianedimond.net/cirque-du-salahi/
Follow Diane Dimond on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dianedimond
re: Anton and Daniel (aka Gavin and Star) - “I don’t like to call people’s kids bad, but Gavin and Star really needed attention, I felt like. They really needed attention. You know, they would do little things, very mischievous. But Gavin, I saw him look at the glass and I saw him just kind of do his foot and kick it over and then act like it was an accident, you know, just to get that reaction out of us. Like, “Gavin,” you know, “what happened?” I think at the time they were maybe 11 or 12.”
re: Davellin -
Q. If you can estimate, how many times did Davellin ask you for a car?
A. I don’t remember. I know Davellin would leave me messages, because I wouldn’t always answer the phone. So there were numerous messages.
Q. Okay. And in those numerous messages, was Davellin requesting the car?
A. Yes.
Q. And all this was in the year 2003?
A. This was all in February.
Q. February of 2003?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Okay. Now, did Janet tell you in February of 2003 that they had no car?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Davellin tell you in February of 2003 that they had no car?
A. Yes
Q. Do you remember Star pulling a knife on you in the kitchen.
A. Yes.
Q. Approximately when did Star pull a knife on you in the kitchen.
A. Do you mean about what month it was.
Q. Month or year, if you remember.
A. Well, it was during that time period between -- I want to say it’s, like, February. I think.
Q. And when Star pulled a knife on you in the kitchen, were you preparing food.
A. I was doing the dishes
Q. And during those last two weeks that the Arvizos were at Neverland, what specifically did you notice about Gavin and Star’s room.
A. That it was just torn apart.
Q. They really trashed it.
A. Yeah.
Q. Please tell the jury how they trashed it, if you know.
A. I can’t say for sure what had happened, but there was things spilled. There was glasses broken. The refrigerator was a mess, too. Every unit has its own refrigerator, and it was -- it just looked like somebody had just gone in there like a tornado and -- like a whirlwind.
Q. Did you ever talk to Gavin or Star about that.
A. No, I don’t think I did.
Q. Okay.
A. Because it wasn’t my place to.
Q. Was it your responsibility simply to clean it.
A. Yes.
Q. And you made a complaint to somebody?
A. Yes.
Q. Who did you make a complaint to.
A. The house
re: Anton (aka Gavin) - “He just swore at me and -- asking for some Cheetos or saying -- “Give me the fuc*ing Cheetos.” That’s what he said.”
re: Daniel (aka Star) - “I was serving a plate to one of the guests, and he had a knife like two -- one inch on my neck. It was nine inches. Or -- a foot long. It was a foot. He just had it holding up onto my neck. And I didn’t realize it until one of the guests yelled at Star, saying, “What are you doing?” It made me nervous.”
Testimony exposing the Arviso's for what they really are:-
Rijo Jackson, the then 10 year old...
re: Anton and Daniel (aka Gavin and Star) - “I saw them go to the T.V. and turn to a channel that had, like, naked girls on there, and doing other stuff, like nasty stuff. They were, like, jacking off and everything. They said, “Why don’t you do that with me?” I said I didn’t want to because it was nasty, and it’s wrong.”
Dr. Seamount, orthodontist...
re: Anton (aka Gavin) - “He was undisciplined, and he started to go through my drawers with my disposables.”
I am surprised but disappointed that Ms Dimond's article has appeared in this previously upmarket and classy online newspaper that have featured articles by both Charles Thomson and Matt Semino in the past to be frank!
Given that I’m more than familiar with this author’s background, her title question is, in itself, a study in parodoxy. I need not elaborate since many commentors obviously get it.
People really want to be informed but just how much information should be put out there before solidly investigated and verified facts are available? Sadly, the public thrives on sensationalism and the media is often too easily tempted to feed that need.
Journalists should be diligent in fact-checking and courageous enough to delay breaking a story if ANY part of it is questionable. Peoples' lives are at stake and this tragic event in particular holds the potential to literally divide our nation.
Furthermore, let’s not allow personal prejudice to have undue influence, let’s ensure information is vetted and verified before being presented to the public, let’s not continue to defame the accused when he has been acquitted and let’s have the integrity to admit we may have misjudged someone and misled others because of it.
Ring any alarm bells? It’s a shame these tenets were not employed in 2005 when a media circus, with yourself as ringmaster, ensued before, during and after the trial of a high-profile celebrity for whom you had a personal dislike . Although acquitted, the gentleman in question was forever scarred by the malign influence of a media hate campaign which had been incited by you, amongst others, in your profession.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html
Sadly, your attempt at wisdom is totally overshadowed by your hypocrisy.
Ahhhh, just like your role, Ms. Dimond, in the Michael Jackson accusations. While it does not have to be included in her bio, Dimond was sued by Mr. Jackson for malicious slander. Her old buddy, prosecuting attorney Tom Sneddon, who is widely suspected to have participated in prosecutorial misconduct in the 2005 witchhunt trial against Mr. Jackson, backed up her fabricated lies. So true justice is not something she sought at the time. Better to boost her own ratings for money and try and make a name for herself, than worry about the actual facts of the case!
Indeed! Yet we might expect answers rather than a question like this from Diane Dimond.
After all, she herself once went on the air to say she had film showing Michael Jackson molesting a boy. (It never materialized.) Her source for slander, Victor Gutierrez, was subsequently convicted for it while Ms. D hid behind her credentials as a reporter and he skipped the country to avoid his sentence.
Dimond has gotten serious egg on her face at least twice more: by reporting about nonexistent love letters from Jackson, and about a Canadian boy claiming Jackson molested him, who later admitted that he had been paid to make that claim. Dimond rather breathlessly reported these stories without a bit of proof.
She said at the time: "‘It was either gonna be a superstar being falsely accused, or it was gonna be a superstar perhaps guilty of one of the most heinous crimes we know. Either way, I couldn't lose."
So much for getting the facts straight before running "whole-hogged." So much for the damage caused.
The opportunism of Ms. Dimond's comments on the Martin case, combined with her history, is nothing if not hypocritical.
I must also comment that this writer's question, "...why does the media sometimes run whole hogged with the most sensational version of events..." would probably be best answered by that same writer. I do recall a trial in Santa Barbara a short 6 years ago when she exhibited the same
behavior of 'running whole hogged' with every sensational tidbit, true or not, vetted or not, substantiated or not, reliable sources or not, without consideration to 'slow, deliberate or fair' reporting. Seems to me to be the epitome of hypocrisy.