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 ...
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.
Click the link for the full 6+ minutes of the Sanford Police Video which they released. The ABC verison apparently is from a hand held camera, phone maybe, of the police monitor screen. The question becomes was it done by someone and slipped out to ABC or just how did they get the ‘wobbly’ version?
Link to Police verison:
I’ve been wondering if they also degraded the quality of the video.
ABC News hires former dem activists - folks who ran Democrat War Rooms - puts ‘em in front of a camera and calls the ‘journalists’. And we’re surprised they might lie for ‘their side’?
Here’s a flash ABC - people quit watching the NEWS when they don’t trust it. They quit reading newspapers when they feel the news is ‘managed’ for the benefit of one side. It was never the internet - it was always corruption and bias.
Big difference in perspective .. it's showing the event from a cam mounted at and looking at things from the other end of the transporting cop car vs the ABC version, and from a seemingly greater distance, hence less opportunity for seeing Z's head wound/s.
Then, either the SPD shop has a mile of hallways or they were walking Z around in circles awhile .. lol !
I will post a screen shot of the full video and ABC's video. Not only are the top and bottom eliminated but the screen is scaled and moved slightly to the left.
I noticed the wobbling from another broadcast yesterday. A survelence camera should be fixed as it could be called in for evidence or be used if there were any questions about police brutality. ABC definitely doctored the tape. Toward the end, at the 1 minute mark, the "camera" actually moves a lot to the left and down. I suspect it isn't the camera moving but the person editing the tape. Notice, too, in the still that Snowlinen posted at #30, Zimmerman's head is blurred inside the ABC grey area but the policeman's legs in that same grey area are not blurred.
That said, what ABC and the rest can NOT edit are the cops' interactions with Zimmerman. None of the cops appear to fear he is dangerous. They are casual around him and don't feel the need to physically walk him into the station. Notice they walk ahead of him and one even walks around a motorcycle away from him without following closely. Their behavior and interaction with him speaks volumes.
So there are two videos? One that may be doctored and possibly taken from now a cell phone and another from a typical stationary series of security cameras?
Dear Gawd. This whole this whole thing is being purposely ginned up.
Thanks for the non-wobbly REAL video.
The criminals in the old media are always helping out their buddies, the criminals in the Democrat party.
“We didn’t kill those people or steal that money! We just helped the other criminals get away with it.”
Yes. That was Don Imus’ wife. She had bought into the LSM meme that GZ didn’t suffer any injuries and should have been arrested right then and there. She kept saying, “Sean, what if that was your son?” (or child, something like that).
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.