George Zimmerman Sues NBC Over Inflammatory Edits of His 911 Call

Yesterday George Zimmerman filed a defamation suit against NBC, accusing the network of deliberately editing the recording of his 911 call on the night he shot and killed Trayvon Martin to make him look like a "racist and predatory villain." I am not a big fan of defamation lawsuits, since I don't think anyone has a right to stop other people from saying nasty things about him, even when they are not true. But NBC's claim that the editing was inadvertent is highly implausible, to say the least. This is how Zimmerman's conversation with the police dispatcher actually went:

Zimmerman: Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. 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.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

Here is the version that NBC broadcast on March 19, three weeks after the shooting, via WTVJ, its affiliate in Miami:

Zimmerman: There is a real suspicious guy. Ah, this guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something. He looks black.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

Dispatcher: OK, we don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman: OK.

In addition to making it seem that Zimmerman volunteered Martin's race, with the implication that it was one reason Zimmerman deemed him suspicious, this version immediately appends an exchange about following Martin that actually came after another minute or so of dialogue, heightening the impression that Zimmerman was stalking Martin because he was black. A report by Lilia Luciano that aired on the Today show the next day included this somewhat different but equally inflammatory cut-and-paste job: 

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good or on drugs or something. He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

Dispatcher: OK, we don't need you to do that.

A March 22 Today report by Luciano featured these snippets:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black.

Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?

Zimmerman: Yeah, a dark hoodie.

Finally, a March 27 Today report by Ron Allen used just those first two sentences, again omitting the intervening 25 words:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black.

Allen was also the correspondent who claimed in a March 20 report that "when Zimmerman was calling the police the night Trayvon Martin was killed, he described the victim using a racial epithet." You can listen to the unexpurgated call here (scroll down); I think it is fair to say that you can hear a racial epithet only if you want to. The Mother Jones transcript renders the part of the recording that Allen apparently had in mind as "fucking [unintelligible]."

Since the racial angle on this story has been prominent from the beginning (whether or not it should have been), it beggars belief to suggest that no one at NBC recognized the implications of presenting the 911 audio the way it was in these four reports. Yet "when the omissions were noticed at the end of March," The New York Times reports, "NBC News conducted an investigation and concluded that the edits were mistakes, not deliberate distortions. Ms. Luciano subsequently left the network, as did a producer who worked with her. Mr. Allen remains at the network." Here is the statement that NBC News made at the time:

During our investigation, it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret. We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to viewers.

Whoops. As a public figure, Zimmerman has to show that NBC knowingly aired something that was not true or did so with reckless disregard as to its truth. Even if the impression left by the editing of his call was not calculated (as Zimmerman charges in his lawsuit), it certainly looks reckless.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Wonder why I've never seen that photo before

  • Rick Santorum||

    Why are you asking questions? Who told you that you could ask questions? Shouldn't you be watching The Daily Show instead of asking questions? That Jon Leibowitz, he's a funny guy, and he doesn't ask questions. Makes you laugh. Watch him be funny. No need to ask questions about that. Why are we still talking about asking questions?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Enough About Palin||

    Dispatcher: Are you following him?

    Zimmerman: Yeah.

    Dispatcher: OK, we don't need you to do that.

    Zimmerman: OK

    ^^THIS^^ is what's both important and pretty much overlooked.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    And that has what to do with him being defamed or not?

  • Enough About Palin||

    He was falsely portrayed as the aggressor.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    But that isn't where he is pointing - and it is not proof he didn't do such (it is evidence however).

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Or maybe it is by omission, where he is pointing - argh. Nevermind!

  • wareagle||

    through selective editing, he was also portrayed as being awfully concerned that Trayvon was black.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Aaaaaaaaaaaaand, they're off!

  • Enough About Palin||

    "Whoops. As a public figure, Zimmerman"

    Bullshit. He was not a public figure and saying we was doesn't make it so.

  • R C Dean||

    I'm pretty sure being charged with a crime doesn't make a public figure for these purposes.

    I'm no expert, but this article seems to lay out more than anyone would want to know. The key point seems to be:

    According to Gertz, a plaintiff may be designated a public figure either “for all purposes” because of “pervasive fame or notoriety,” or a “limited purpose” because of “voluntarily inject[ing] himself [or herself] or [being] drawn into a particular public controversy” concerning “a limited range of issues.” The Gertz Court describes the all-purpose public figures as persons who occupy positions of “persuasive
    power and influence,” and limited-purpose public figures as persons who “thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.”

    http://a.nyls.edu/user_files/1.....50-107.pdf

  • LTC(ret) John||

    See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) it may.

  • R C Dean||

    Sullivan pretty much adopted the Gertz standard, is my impression as a bystander to 1A law. From wiki, the Sullivan standard for limited purpose public figure is someone who "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved."

    And under Gertz/Sullivan, Zimmerman isn't a public for all purposes, and doesn't seem to be one for a limited purpose because he didn't "voluntarily inject himself" or "thrust himself."

    I think this goes forward under the standard for human beings, not public figures.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    I hope you are right, I have read analysis that says that may not be the case - enough "infamy" in the accusation and you lose. I suspect a half sane jury would go for Mr. Zimmerman, and the discovery process would highly embarrassing for the network.

  • ||

    I'd say Zimmerman certainly qualifies under "[being] drawn into a particular public controversy concerning “a limited range of issues.” "

  • Stormy Dragon||

    There's precedent, in Florida at least, that just having people argue about you on the internet enough can make you a public figure:

    http://www.wired.com/politics/.....5/11/69511

  • Ted S.||

    Richard Jewell wasn't a public figure either, as I recall.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    But he did voluntary appearances on TV to be interviewed and take a few bows - before the networks turned on him.

  • robc||

    Didnt they end up settling for a big check too?

  • robc||

    NBC paid Jewell $500k in the settlement.

  • robc||

    New York Post and CNN settled for undisclosed amounts. The NY Post settlement was enough to buy him Mom a house.

    AJC never settled and the case was dismissed 4 months after Jewell's death.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Yes, one of the networks paid at least $500K, IIRC.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Yeargh, too slow.

  • Paul.||

    You know who else was a public figure?

  • Restoras||

    Marilyn Monroe?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Public Enemy?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Janet Jackson's nipple during the Superbowl halftime?

  • db||

    I came here to say this. Zimmerman is a public figure only because of this incident, and would have been far less widely known of had the media refrained from enabling the race-baiting hysteria that followed the event.

  • ||

    As a public figure? Isn't he only a public figure because of NBC's editing? Without the racial aspect of the story, the racial aspect that only exists as news because NBC editorialized it that way, a neighborhood watcher shooting a guy isn't national news. Sad, local news story, sure, but that's about it. He became a public figure because of the editorializing of the organization he's suing. Isn't his burden of proof less if he's not a public figure?

  • Rick Santorum||

    Heh heh heh, it was an "accidental" edit, Mr. Zimmerman. You can't prove otherwise, so why bother trying?

    Ten-to-one they settle out of court.

  • Brutus||

    Son of Rosemary Woods!

  • GILMORE||

    it was an "accidental" edit

    'Editing' by its very nature is a highly accidental process. its not like it is done to create an intended message out of messy and multilayered realities. also - they're just a news organization, not hollywood directors. cut them some slack

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    [cont]

    Dr. Baig became a hafiz at the age of 9, by the way.

    I don't know why you were so disingenuous in your arguments yesterday, when, today, you correctly point out the nature of secondary-sources and how one should be critical of them.

  • ||

    I can't speak for the AIPAC stuff, but I'm pretty sure his comment here is meant to be sarcastic, not serious. What he denies editing is about is EXACTLY what it is about. I doubt he was being serious.

  • GILMORE||

    darius404| 12.7.12 @ 3:18PM |#

    I can't speak for the AIPAC stuff, but I'm pretty sure his comment here is meant to be sarcastic, not serious.

    Sssssssshhhhh!!!!! Always let people run free with a bout of totally misconstrued indignation when you get the chance. Its *fun to watch*

    (*note to Mulatto: I never intended to actually claim MEMRI was actually "part of AIPAC" - although I do think they're indeed constantly referenced & used by them as the 'look how crazy the mooslims are!'-thing.

    The point is if anyone is already familiar with that institution, they know its the largest video archive of 100% batshit crazy jihadist shit in the world.

    - my personal favorite being the Farfour material = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrieBhaGgHM

    Its not exactly where one goes to get a 'Fair and Balanced perspective' on the complete range of Middle Eastern political insight...

    secondly = the whole schtick was this =

    "Claims that Arab uprisings will necessarily result in the ascendence of radical jihadist muslim leadership across the region are *perhaps exaggerated*

    I really don't think this is the most controversial point. I noted instances this year where the Free Syrian Army rebels themselves executed jihadist elements who behaved poorly. It doesn't exactly support the whole 'oh noes, the sunnis is all muslim brothers!'-interpretation being offered by some

    Anyway. For the future, assume 90% of what I say may likely be completely facetious.

  • ||

    Sssssssshhhhh!!!!! Always let people run free with a bout of totally misconstrued indignation when you get the chance. Its *fun to watch*

    I generally do if I don't like them. If I don't know them, it's borderline. I like HM though.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Public figure? Becoming one by virtue of being reported upon by the people that have defamed him? If one dives into the relevant SCT decisions to see that definition (NYT v. Sullivan) it is possible.

    Thanks SCT, you miserable bastards!

  • LTC(ret) John||

    New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) for those who want to read and get angry, or not.

  • SugarFree||

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Is that a celebratory picture?

  • ||

    Jesus, dude, save your personal pics for yourself, alright?

  • Brutus||

    I thought he was the other end of the horse?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Once you go horse....

  • LTC(ret) John||

    You show no remorse?

  • Restoras||

    You have no recourse?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I was going to say, "it ends in divorce" but those work too.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    That actually works altogether;

    "Once you go horse and show no remorse, you have no recourse because it ends in divorce".

  • Tim||

    Of course.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    +1 Mr. Ed

  • Enough About Palin||

    "Hello, Operator?"

  • Loki||

    I am not a big fan of defamation lawsuits, since I don't think anyone has a right to stop other people from saying nasty things about him, even when they are not true.

    Well, in that case I have it on good authority that Jacob Sullom fucks sheep. When he's not trading handjobs for meth in the alleyway behind the convenience store down the street from his house.

    I keed, I keed. *Please don't sue me, please don't sue me, please don't sue me...*

  • ||

    Jacob doesn't sue. He gets sued by humorless scumbag lawyers who Warty defames who shall remain nameless. Why is Warty allowed to still post here anyway? Come to think of it, why am I still allowed to post here?

  • SugarFree||

    They don't even know how to pronounce your handle, dude.

  • ||

    It's pronounced "Fist of Episiarch", you idiot.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Eeee-piss-i-ark, right?

  • SugarFree||

    Everyone knows it's pronounced: (e-pee-zee-otto-mee)

  • ||

    Fuck, you're stupid. It's "Eye-piss-my-pants".

  • Restoras||

    Pants or Dockers?

  • ||

    Eye-jayk-awf-gewts, I thought.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Damn, I am going to have to go find a Episiarch/English dictionary.

  • SugarFree||

    Look in the large print tard section of your local library.

    EHMERGERD! DIKSHUNAIRY!

  • Hyperion||

    I thought it was Eh-pees-ee-ark, no?

  • ||

    WAY TO FUCK UP THE JOKE HYPERION

  • Hyperion||

    WTF? You mean I was right! Damnit!, sorry, dude!

  • ||

    I didn't defame anyone, not even that guy. I was trying to stop the rampant speculation about that one guy by squashing the rumors that that one guy does that stuff that he hates when people say he does. And he pays me back by suing us. Fuck that guy.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    As counsel for some guy, I am sending this cease and desist for whatever wrong it is you are doing. So stop whatever it is/was and retract something and no suit will be filed for some cause or another.

  • Loki||

    Jacob doesn't sue. He gets sued by humorless scumbag lawyers who Warty defames who shall remain nameless.

    Clearly I've missed some major event in H&R-land. God damned real life getting in the way.

  • Randian||

    There's a reason there is a disclaimer at the top of every thread now.

  • Loki||

    Huh. I've always assumed that was just a standard boilerplate CYA disclaimer like virtually every other site on the internet with (fairly) open commenting has. I never realized someone actually sued.

    Anyway, I think that disclaimer has been there since I started commenting here (or maybe I'm just not very observant), so I'm guessing this is something that predates me.

  • Randian||

    Here's a summary: Arthur Alan Wolk sues 40 of the Reason Commentariat.

    IIRC, it's the reason "protefeed" changed his name to that...it used to be "prolefeed" (for the 1984 reference).

  • Loki||

    Wow, that's just batshit crazy stuff.

    Uh-oh, I better just stop now before I get sued.

  • PapayaSF||

    I remember all that. I had commented using my desktop, though I usually use my laptop. So some days later I went back to see if there had been any replies, and all of the comments were gone! I said as much on another thread, maybe being the first commenter who noticed it, and then H+R had to 'fess up.

  • R C Dean||

    I don't think anyone has a right to stop other people from saying nasty things about him, even when they are not true.

  • R C Dean||

    Fucking HTML.

    Even when those falsehoods cause actual damage?

    Why would a libertarian be opposed to personal responsibility and restitution for harm done?

  • Tim||

    Them white Hispanics are all racists.

  • Hyperion||

    He's not a real Hispanic, real Hispanics is brown. He's just an Uncle Juan!

  • Tim||

    I think they coined that phrase just for him. It hasn't been used before or since.

  • Hyperion||

    Yes, it was during the Epoch that was the height of the Democratic parties race card playin days. But some things just die off very slowly.

  • SugarFree||

    It's an inversion of the census category "Non-Hispanic Whites." The NHW designation which means that Hispanics That Are White are considered to exist.

  • Calidissident||

    There's a pretty big Wikipedia article on it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Hispanic

    I don't really know why people laugh at the term itself. Hispanic is not a racial classification. You can be of any race and be hispanic. Most Cuban Americans are white, as are Spaniards obviously, as well as most Argentinians and Uruguayans, and virtually all Latin American countries have a significant white minority. Zimmerman, IIRC, is half-white and half-Peruvian. I don't know why they didn't just say he was mixed race.

  • Hyperion||

    Actually, I believe that Hispanic means having heredity from peoples living in the Iberian Peninsula region, that would be most of Spain and maybe Portugal.

    Peruvian? He's one of those potato eatin, Lama f**in brown bmidgets? Then off with his head!

    Oh, and BTW, doesn't the new PC demand that we call everyone an American-Something? So he is either a Latin American American, or a Peruvian American.

  • Calidissident||

    The most common definition is basically a cultural connection to Spain, either from direct ancestry, or via a Spanish-speaking country in Latin America. Most Latin Americans are partially of Spanish descent anyways. Sometimes Portuguese and Brazilians are included in the definition, as the Roman word "Hispania" referred to the entire Iberian Peninsula, but generally I don't think they are (and I believe they aren't considered Hispanic by the Census). Brazilians are, however, Latin American

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "Most Latin Americans are partially of Spanish descent anyways."

    because, as P.J. O'Rourke said - the Spanish fucked their Indians before killing them.

  • Calidissident||

    It would be more accurate to say that most died of disease, some were killed, and the rest (of the women) got fucked

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    So what about Gibraltar, or Andorra?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    White Gibraltic-American? Andorro-Hispanic-American?

  • Enough About Palin||

    "is half-white and half-Afro-Peruvian

    FIFY

  • Calidissident||

    I think he had a great grandfather that was Afro-Peruvian. I don't think his mother was mostly black (and most people of African descent in Latin America, or even the US, are mixed to some extent already)

  • LTC(ret) John||

    We do have an expert in this field who can tell us what he should be considered... I SUMMON THE HEROIC MULATTO!

  • Randian||

    Archer: What? You're black... ish.

    Lana: Ish?

    Archer: Well, what's the word for it, Lana? You freaked out when I said 'quadroon.'
  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, considering he thought it was a good idea to play Batman, I think he should be considered a schmuck.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Full schmuck? Quadschmuck? Octoschmuck?

  • Randian||

    schmuckbo.

  • SIV||

    So Zimmerman likes fried guinea pig?

  • Zeb||

    In Peru, there are also a lot of Japanese Hispanics.

    What I don't know is why they have to bring race into everything. That's the problem. This case is just a shitty situation for everyone. Making it (apparently falsely) about race really doesn't help.

  • Loki||

    I don't know why they didn't just say he was mixed race.

    Because they had to get the "white" qualifier in there so that they could play up the race angle. "Black teenager who looks like Obama's son if he had one gets shot by mixed race dude" doesn't have the same infammatory tone as "Black teenager who looks like Obama's son if he had one gets shot by WHITE hispanic dude". Although I'm not sure why they didn't just say "white" other than the fact that he looks hispanic.

  • Calidissident||

    Considering his mom most likely has some Spanish ancestry (very few Peruvians would have zero) and his dad his white, he's almost certainly more than 50% white ancestrally, it is surprising they didn't say that. I do find it odd that if someone is mixed race, but more than 50% of any other race besides white, people have no problem calling them "black" or "Asian" or "Native American" or whatever, even if they are still noticeably mixed, but if the person's more than 50% white they pretty much have to have no signs of admixture before people are comfortable calling them white

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    In olde Spanish terms, he would be a Castizo. (Number 2 in this chart)

  • LTC(ret) John||

    See, I knew our expert would come through! Thanks, HM.

  • AZ||

    Personally, I think the "white hispanic" thing was a bit of ad hoc cover when they realized that despite carrying the last name "Zimmerman," George was not the average racist white guy they were all hoping for when they read the police dispatch and began feverishly writing up something that appeared to fit the narrative they desperately wished for.

  • Seamus||

    As I recall, Miami typically breaks out in riots when black teenagers who look like Obama's son would if Obama had a son get shot by white Hispanic cops.

  • Zeb||

    No, actually it is a real thing. Hispanic is not a racial designation, so race is often specified.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "You can listen to the unexpurgated call here (scroll down); I think it is fair to say that you can hear a racial epithet only if you want to. The Mother Jones transcript renders the part of the recording that Allen apparently had in mind as "fucking [unintelligible].""

    You can start listening for the [unintelligible] at around 2:15. I couldn't even hear the "fucking" comment.

  • buybuydandavis||

    It helps to open the transcript to see where you are.

    http://www.motherjones.com/pol.....transcript

  • Hyperion||

    One time in the middle of the night, long ago, this really drunk woman called my house and started recording a voice message, and my x-wife thought that she heard her say my name. Just shows you how things like that can get imagined.

  • OldMexican||

    Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. 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.


    Compared to: "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black."

    NBC: "During our investigation, it became evident that there was an error made in the production process [...]

    THAT'S NO MOON! IT'S A SPACE STATION!

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Say, anyone feel something like a tractor beam?!

  • Loki||

    "Chewie, lock in the auxillary power!"

  • Nick Schweitzer||

    Why is Zimmerman a public figure? He's not elected, he's not a mogul of any type. In fact, one could easily argue that he's only a "public figure" because of the very edits to the tape he's suing over.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) and despair.

  • R C Dean||

    Just for the scrollers, under Sullivan, Zimmerman would be a public figure if he "thrust [himself] to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved."

    I don't think he qualifies, although there may be some squish in Sullivan that would give NBC a better shot on this issue.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Since it's in the 11th Circuit, how about we look at some cases from there describing how they apply the public figure standard?

    In Little v. Breland, (1996), they discuss application of the public figure for limited purposes standard. Evidently it's a three part test from Silvester v. American Broadcasting Companies, 839 F.2d 1491 (1988). From Little, the three part test looks to:

    "(1) isolate the public controversy, (2) examine the plaintiff's involvement in the controversy, and (3) determine whether the alleged defamation [was] germane to the plaintiff's participation in the controversy."

    The 'purposefully injected himself into the controversy' question is addressed by the second prong of the 11th's test, which from Little:

    The second prong of the analysis "addresses the extent to which the plaintiffs are involved in the public controversy." Silvester, 839 F.2d at 1496. Little either "(1) must purposely [try] to influence the outcome of the public controversy, or (2)could realistically have been expected, because of his position in the controversy, to have an impact on its resolution."

    [Cont.]

  • Gray Ghost||

    The opinion's really short, and I've quoted seemingly most of it. If Z tried to influence the outcome of his public controversy, via press conference, public fundraising, etc...then I'd argue he's attempted to, after the onset of the public controversy, attempted to alter the outcome of it, or have voluntarily interjected himself within it, and thereby become a limited purpose public figure for defamation analysis. Whether the facts of the Z case say that is another question. I don't remember him trying to stay in the public eye at all, just doing the things a criminal defendant needs to do in order to assure his own defense.

  • ||

    Inadvertant editing of media is akin to unintentionally pasting letters to a piece of paper to make a ransom note.

  • Randian||

    Welcome back Jeff!

  • NoVAHockey||

    It's public official, public figure, limited-purpose public figure, and private. Zimmerman wasn't seeking attention, but had it thrust on him.

    i'd argue he's a private figure.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Even under the fairly forgiving "public figure" standard, NBC will have trouble denying that it was showing reckless disregard for the truth. It isn't as if they're relying in good faith on a source who turns out later to be unreliable. They had an actual transcript of the call in front of them, and then they chose to creatively "edit" the call to make it look as if Zimmerman was volunteering the racial information.

    Even a Kardashian sister would have a good chance of winning under these circumstances.

  • Enough About Palin||

    But they like the blacks.

  • Randian||

    Like, a lot.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    If he's a public figure, you have to show it was malicious, e.g. that they were deliberately doing it to cause trouble for him. NBC can just say they were deceptively editing the tapes to sensationalize the story and drive up ratings.

  • Robert||

    Whoa, did Jacob Sullum just write this?:

    "Yesterday...I...was...highly implausible, to say the least. This is...the best address I can give you...fucking unintelligible. We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future.... Whoops. As a public figure, it certainly looks reckless."

  • PapayaSF||

    Mad magazine used to have a feature in which bad reviews were turned into good reviews via creative use of ellipses. "I've never read another novel so... amazing. You should... read this book."

  • GILMORE||

    Jeff P.| 12.7.12 @ 1:41PM |#

    Inadvertant editing of media is akin to unintentionally pasting letters to a piece of paper to make a ransom note

    I believe that was the basis for a William S Burroughs novel

  • شات عراقنا||

    thanks

  • MissMalevolent||

    I hope he sues the pants off of them (and wins), and I hope others start doing the same.

    Do I think the man was wrong? Yes. He should've listened to the officer and driven off, not get out of of his car.

    But does that make him racist? No. And NBC did it's level best to play up this racism angle. Hell yeah they did. And they did it for sensationalism and to drive the narrative.

    Sue the shit out of them, cause I'm tired of the media creating the news versus disseminating it.

  • Brutus||

    Zimmerman was already out of his car and had lost Martin when he was told "we don't need you to do that" by the dispatcher.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement