Skip to comments.Did ABC News Purposely Use Unnecessary Chyron to Cover Up Zimmerman's Head Bruise?
Posted on 03/30/2012 6:17:19 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
Get that totally unnecessary chyron out of there, ABC News!
Why is your "ABC NEWS EXCLUSIVE" chyron covering up the back of George Zimmerman's head in the police surveillance video of him arriving at the police station soon after Trayvon Martin was killed in Sanford, Florida? There is a big controversy out there as to whether Zimmerman actually did suffer certain injuries including a bruise to the back of his head during the fight with Martin. You would think ABC news would allow an unobstructed view of the back of Zimmerman's head. Instead the head was covered for much of the time by a completely redundant chyron since there was already an unobtrusive ABC News label in the lower right of the screen.
A suspicious mind might even think that ABC News was trying to cover something up with that annoying chyron. And one such person is Bob Owens, a Pajamas Media contributor, who makes just such an accusation in his personal blog:
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
“incite to riot”
I had a similar reaction. The whole point of the video is “Oh, let’s see if this video shows any injuries to the back of Zimmerman’s head.”
Then I watch as they superimpose a bar across most of the screen, “coincidentally” blocking the man’s head thru most of the video.
What the hell is going on here!
I didn’t beleive it was on purpose until watching it. The bottom part of it is semi-transparent and is there for no purpose of all.
I remember watching the video and actually saying to myself, “why is that label so tall”. It is blocking the very thing I want to see in this video. I did get a nice view of the motorcycles though...
It had to be intentional. Ether that or they are incompetents over there at ABC.
Imagine them doing that during a live football game. The center and quarterback hidden by the station label. :-)
Instead of blocking Zimmerman’s head with that “ABCNews” banner, they should’ve used the “0bama” logo.
Kill 2 birds with one stone.
They may not intend to incite a riot,
but the do intend to “incite to vote for 0bama”.
I’d watch the video, but those stupid commercials they run are a real turn-off. Sorry. I’ll take your word for it.
It's not just this video, it's the entire approach.
BTW, it's the Duke lacrosse deal all over again.
I’m a video guy and that was the first thing I noticed. The needless graphic was way higher than normal, there was nothing in the space below (which is reserved for text), and the graphic covered Zimmerman’s head for the majority of the time.
They want to use this as an excuse so they can say “Hey, we showed the graphic and you can’t see the wound.”
They think everyone is stupid. Sadly, they are right in some cases. All they want is their riot.
There’s clearly something there on the top back of his head, though. You can see that near the end of the video.
Thanks, but the video doesn’t run.
Some gal on Hannity was really insisting that that video was conclusive proof that Martin didn’t attack Zimmerman,
despite the eyewitness account.
It wasn’t a mistake.
And the video didn’t matter, at that time, because the headline was the point they wanted to get out to the masses...
Not unlike MSNBC showing only the back of a guy carrying a gun at an Obama event in Arizona. Then the news people implied that this showed some racial concerns when you have (implied) white people showing up at an even of a black President with guns. Turns out the guy with the gun was black. MSNBC knew that, but intentionally hid this fact from their reporting. I put nothing past the state-run media in this country.
You have to click that green download bar .. it saves on your pc and plays in whatever media app you normally use.
I have two other questions:
1. Watch the video from about :30. For a few seconds, you can see that there is a “trailer” “crawl” (I don’t know the technical term) at the bottom of the screen that appears to be the typical day,date and time label that usually appears on security camera footage. Why don’t we see this the whole time? Why does it wobble into view for a few seconds? My theory is that ABC didn’t want that shown because the time lapse since the shooting would give viewers a context for the video that was inconsistent with their agenda. If the video is presented as taken right after the alleged fight and shooting, the viewer is much more likely to conclude that there should be blood and other obvious signs of injury if Zimmerman (and the cops) are telling the truth. If the viewer knows the video is a number of hours later, he is a lot less likely to form the same skeptical view, because it is a lot less likely that the blood would just be left sitting there for hours.
Which leads to my second question: Why is the video so wobbly? From the angle, it appears to me that these are fixed/mounted cameras, positioned to get a wide angle capture of the secure areas. If so, the video should be very steady. The collateral question is, how was the tape that ABC showed made and/or how did they get their particular copy? It almost appears as if someone was given access to view, but not copy the recording. Using some form of hand-held video recorder (maybe even an I-phone or I-pad), the person took the video holding the equipment in his hand. When he got it back to the studio, they could crop the view to eliminate the crawl with the time and date, but they couldn’t edit out the wobble.
All they want is their riot.
I have a question for our Legal Beagles, If a organization like a media conglomerate, pushes a story that they know is false yet seems plausible on the surface for a political agenda ends up getting the person or organization the story is about hurt or killed, can they be sued under civil law?
I wonder about that because the Martin/Zimmerman incident to me seems to now come under the same premise of yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. And as the Supreme Court has already ruled that type of speech is not protected under the first amendment.
I say that after carefully looking the story over and seeing the willful blindness toward all of the facts. And with the knowledge now that the story was pushed out of D.C. after a Civil Rights lawyer/activist got involved in the first place. My take: The goal here is to inflame, (Literally), portions of the United States populace into violent activity.
Why? On the Medias side, that sort of activity means Money and lots of it from advertisers trying to sell everything from pain Meds to Insurance to feminine hygiene products. And on the Political side? Chaos is a wonderful thing to get things done especially since rapid action is demanded and stealth agendas can be instituted more easily.
In conclusion we are all being railroaded to a destination that we really will not be happy to arrive at. And to counter that we need, no... MUST show that words and actions when willfully taken to incite such behaviors have major and lasting consequences to the ones who pushed for them.
This is quickly reaching a stage where the media malfeasance/coverup is worse than the initial incident.
After he gets out of the car one of the cops looks at the back of his head as if he were checking out the injury.
>>>Was this an on purpose “mistake?”
It’s part of the propaganda campaign to reelect Dear Leader. No accident.
how was the tape that ABC showed made and/or how did they get their particular copy?
Why does this make the difference?....What is in the police report is what really should be the concern. This, if it goes to court??? will be the basic’s for Mr. Zimmerman defense.
how was the tape that ABC showed made and/or how did they get their particular copy?
Why does this make the difference?....What is in the police report is what really should be the concern. This, if it goes to court??? will be the basic’s for Mr. Zimmerman defense. Pizz on ABC and all the other left wing MSM !!!!
Am suspecting we’ll begin to see lamestreet media pull back from nobama as it gets closer to election because of his very poor showing in the polls (the polls we don’t get to see). Of course they may double down if Romney is replaying sucker mclame 2008.
Those on the left seeking to stir up the racial manure pile
intentionally will ignore eyewitness reports, won’t wait for the medics’ or police reports,
but instead latch onto a grainy surveillance vid showing “no injuries” on Zimmerman.
RE #22 Post:
Wow. I’m impressed. I had several of your same questions. Somebody was video taping this from above or is that a stationary camera in gale force winds? WTF is with the ABC banner in the middle...no lower third off center just to the left of middle... on the screen for? When was this taken?
I looked at it a couple times and decided that it had certainly been doctored at least to explain the bouncy “wind driven” video appearance. Cropping would also explain why all the video is in the lower third of the picture.
Wow, I’ve never seen a chyron so “high” in the frame.
Indeed, this was intentional.
Anyone who thinks ABC “News” presents any unbiased information is an idiot. After all, one of their prominent reporters is Georgie Stephanopoulos, chief apologist for an impeached rapist and rabid dimcratic operative.
It is of enormous significance on several levels: the obvious one is the issue in this thread: Did ABC News manipulate information it presented to the public. If, for example, they had an original copy, with the crawl, with clearer resolution, the “edited” copy they showed the public is all the more damning.
Another level relates to Zimmerman’s criminal case: what does the original tape show? If it clearly does show the injuries documented in the police report, it eliminate any attack on the veracity of the police report concerning the single most critical issue for Zimmerman’s defense: was he attacked by Martin? Was the attack severe enough to put him in fear for his life sufficient to justify the use of deadly force in self-defense?
Yet another level is the effect on Zimmerman’s potential gigantic civil action against ABC and other news agency for defamation. If it is shown that they treacherously altered images and information to fit an agenda, Mr. Zimmerman may be a very rich man someday.
can’t find it now, but there was an article yesterday that mentioned that the video was recorded on a cell phone pointed at a monitor (which would explain the wobble and the low res)
At 1:04 of the video at the link, Zimmermann turns his back, lowers his head and one can easily see the spot of the wound that had been tended to and cleaned up.
Nice try ABC.
Thanks, T1. I was going to go with your “wind” theory to explain the wobbling, but the second camera shot is also wobbling and that camera is definitely indoors, out of the wind.
Why would ABC be the only one with access to the video?
Sooner or later we’ll see close-ups of his wounds don’t you think? If there are wounds certainly his family or friends would be taking pictures.
If it is shown that they treacherously altered images and information to fit an agenda, Mr. Zimmerman may be a very rich man someday.
Good point, and well taken. Thanks for the re.
Excellent reporting, A0. I am still left with the question of how they managed to shoot the video without getting the time clearly into the frame. If this was done by any kind of journalist, they would have to know that that was absolutely vital information to capture for the story. Unless.....
Better “official” video here.
I am sure it was nothing biased, like when MSNBC edited the call tapes to make Zimmerman look racist. These things are just pure coincidence.
Yes, but it can be very, very difficult to win if George Zimmerman is considered a public figure. He could be a "limited public figure" based on this case. There's also false light torts in some states, which is for misleading, but that's even tougher to prove.
If the figure is a public figure suing the media, "Actual malice" must be shown. It's defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." It's a higher standard than negligence. What makes it tough is burden of proof.
Tort defamation (civil) and Criminal defamation are different matters altogether.
T1: take a look at the original police video clips that are linked at post 43. No wobble.
One of the bogus charges was that Zimmerman was never detained or anything.
The video proves that is another lie, they didn’t put their logo over that.
It was quite deliberate.
Like I said on another thread, they don't want a trial. They want this guy dead.
Man, you are good! And right on! Excellent!
There also seems to be some blood, or at least something wet, on the collar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.