This is a new low for irresponsible journalism. To me, the Tampa Bay Times is intentionally trying to smear the image of this DEAD young man. They quote other newspapers and news organizations of what they SUPPOSEDLY said, and frame them in a way as to make them sound like facts. There is not one report in there from a first hand source. There is not one disclaimer that the information they are spewing hasn't been vetted or validated by the Tampa Bay TImes.
Perhaps the most disturbing part of this article is when they are recounting a supposed Zimmerman account, which is quoted from the Sentinel newspaper: "Zimmerman told them he had lost sight of Martin and was walking back to his SUV when Martin approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words. Martin asked Zimmerman whether he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Martin then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose." Or something similar? There is no mincing words when you are telling readers that Martin provoked Zimmerman deliberately - the difference between "Well you do now" and "something similar" is the difference between casting blame on Zimmerman or casting blame on Martin, which it is quite clear where this paper is trying to lead readers to. For all of their reporting on Zimmerman's account and the problems Martin had in school (which, by the way, show absolutely NO connection with him being violent or committing random violent acts), they don't include a word on what Martin's family or their lawyers think happened during the incident. Instead of lending a voice for a dead boy, they validate a brutal murder by a gentleman who quite obviously has had prior problems with vigilante-ism.
This is a new low for irresponsible journalism. To me, the Tampa Bay Times is intentionally trying to smear the image of this DEAD young man. They quote other newspapers and news organizations of what they SUPPOSEDLY said, and frame them in a way as to make them sound like facts. There is not one report in there from a first hand source. There is not one disclaimer that the information they are spewing hasn't been vetted or validated by the Tampa Bay TImes.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the most disturbing part of this article is when they are recounting a supposed Zimmerman account, which is quoted from the Sentinel newspaper:
"Zimmerman told them he had lost sight of Martin and was walking back to his SUV when Martin approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words. Martin asked Zimmerman whether he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Martin then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose."
Or something similar? There is no mincing words when you are telling readers that Martin provoked Zimmerman deliberately - the difference between "Well you do now" and "something similar" is the difference between casting blame on Zimmerman or casting blame on Martin, which it is quite clear where this paper is trying to lead readers to.
For all of their reporting on Zimmerman's account and the problems Martin had in school (which, by the way, show absolutely NO connection with him being violent or committing random violent acts), they don't include a word on what Martin's family or their lawyers think happened during the incident. Instead of lending a voice for a dead boy, they validate a brutal murder by a gentleman who quite obviously has had prior problems with vigilante-ism.