Skip to comments.Which NBC producer defamed George Zimmerman?
Posted on 04/07/2012 5:57:07 AM PDT by tobyhill
Were a little bit closer to knowing. Reuters:
An internal NBC News probe has determined a seasoned producer was to blame for a misleading clip of a 911 call that the network broadcast during its coverage of the Trayvon Martin shooting, according to two sources at the network.
NBC News brass interviewed more than half a dozen staffers during its investigation of the misleadingly edited 911 call placed by George Zimmerman just before he shot the unarmed Florida teenager, said the sources, one of whom is an executive at the network.
The clip aired on the networks flagship Today morning show last week.
The edit made it appear that Zimmerman immediately told police that Martin was black, when, in fact, the full tape reveals that the neighborhood watch captain only did so when responding to a question posed by a dispatcher.
There was no clear indication on Thursday of what, if any, disciplinary actions would be taken against the producer or other staff involved in the incident.
The sources at the network, who declined to identify the producer, said NBC News executives did not know the 911 call was misleadingly edited until news reports surfaced days later on right-leaning blogs including Newsbusters.org and Breitbart.com.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
he name Jim Bell has been thrown around on a couple of blogs, also mentioned here. Is there any way you can confirm he has been fired?
Whether charges are filed in these cases or not, the purposefully altered tapes have to be like chum in the water for lawsuit lawyers sharking for deep pockets.
Since the Zimmerman’s are the only ones with legal status, they should sue the shit out of nbc and abc..
They are NOT going to tell.
This was no “mistake”. No one with a brain believes that. NBC thinks this is a good idea, after all, it helps Obama, to upset blacks and get the racism meme going. His poll numbers ARE up aren’t they? There was huge back thumping going on at NBC over this, wasn’t there.
So they got caught. They are doing just like Political thugs do, in chicago, in arkansas. Find a fall guy, come out mouthing apologies, and then later reward the guy for his faithfulness by a better job or a payoff.
Believe me, as soon as this all cools down, this guy is going to get some handsome compensation somewhere, if not at NBC, somewhere else. Perhaps even in some nice political position with the Dems. After all, he’s experienced, and the Dems own the MSM.
18 USC § 1959 - Violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity
This preliminary release may be subject to further revision before it is released again as a final version. Nevertheless, the preliminary release should be useful to those seeking a more current version of the law. As with other online versions of the Code, the U.S. Code Classification Tables should be consulted for the latest laws affecting the Code.
Those using the USCPrelim should verify the text against the printed slip laws available from GPO (Government Printing Office), the laws as shown on THOMAS (a legislative service of the Library of Congress), and the final version of the Code when it becomes available.
Current as of Tuesday, February 21, 2012 - up to Pub L 112-90
(a)Whoever, as consideration for the receipt of, or as consideration for a promise or agreement to pay, anything of pecuniary value from an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity, or for the purpose of gaining entrance to or maintaining or increasing position in an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity, murders, kidnaps, maims, assaults with a dangerous weapon, commits assault resulting in serious bodily injury upon, or threatens to commit a crime of violence against any individual in violation of the laws of any State or the United States, or attempts or conspires so to do, shall be punished
(1)for murder, by death or life imprisonment, or a fine under this title, or both; and for kidnapping, by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or a fine under this title, or both;
(2)for maiming, by imprisonment for not more than thirty years or a fine under this title, or both;
(3)for assault with a dangerous weapon or assault resulting in serious bodily injury, by imprisonment for not more than twenty years or a fine under this title, or both;
(4)for threatening to commit a crime of violence, by imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine under this title, or both;
(5)for attempting or conspiring to commit murder or kidnapping, by imprisonment for not more than ten years or a fine under this title, or both; and
(6)for attempting or conspiring to commit a crime involving maiming, assault with a dangerous weapon, or assault resulting in serious bodily injury, by imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine of  under this title, or both.
(b)As used in this section
(1)racketeering activity has the meaning set forth in section 1961 of this title; and
(2)enterprise includes any partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity, which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.
“When we get the name, will we tweet the address too?”
Seems fair to me.
Does Microsoft still have ties to MSNBC?
Oops. Sharpton, Jackson, Jackson Lee, members of Congress, state and local affiliate news stations....
No prosecutor will bring cause per direction of Holder, I imagine. But civil is another matter. Slander. Libel
Breaking: NBC Fires Producer Who Created False Zimmerman Audio
And then some...
If Zimmerman can manage to stay alive, he should have a nice little nest egg in which to live out his days. I hope his lawyer is savvy enough to clean the offending media and networks' financial clocks. Do not settle - take these s.o.b.'s to court and expose them for the frauds they are.
Time for Congressional hearings on the NBC/ABC CEOs.
The common law of torts recognizes five discrete rights of privacy. First, the common law affords individuals the right to sue when their seclusion or solitude has been intruded upon in an unreasonable and highly offensive manner. Second, individuals have a common-law right to sue when information concerning their private life is disclosed to the public in a highly objectionable fashion. Third, tort liability may be imposed on individuals or entities that publicize information that places someone in a false light. Fourth, the common law forbids persons from appropriating someone’s name or likeness without his or her consent. Fifth, the common law prevents business competitors from engaging in unfair competition through the theft of trade secrets.
Intrusion upon Seclusion One who intentionally intrudes upon the solitude or seclusion of another is subject to liability for common-law invasion of privacy. An invasion may involve a physical intrusion into a place where a person has secluded herself, such as the nonconsensual entry into someone’s home, office, apartment, or hotel room. Nonphysical intrusions may also give rise to liability when they involve the use of electronic surveillance equipment, including wiretaps, microphones, and video cameras. Alternatively, a person’s seclusion may be impermissibly interrupted by persistent and unwelcome telephone calls, or by the occasional window peeper. By imposing liability in such instances, the law seeks to protect a person’s tranquility and equilibrium.
Not every intrusion is actionable under this common-law tort. The intrusion must be considered highly offensive to a reasonable person. Creditors are allowed to take action to collect delinquent debts but must do so in a reasonable fashion. Landlords are permitted to demand late rental payments but must do so at reasonable times. A judge or jury determines what is reasonable according to the facts of each case. Individuals have no expectation of privacy in matters that are public. Thus, businesses may examine public criminal records of prospective employees without fear of liability, and photographers may take pictures of movie stars in public places.
Publicity that Discloses Private Information The common law protects individuals from publicity that discloses information about their private lives. Unlike libel, slander, and defamation actions, this common-law tort may give rise to liability for truthful publicity, as long as the information is published in a manner that is highly objectionable to a reasonable person and the information is of no legitimate concern to the public. Disclosure of private sexual relations, disgraceful family quarrels, humiliating illnesses, and most other intimate personal matters will normally give rise to liability for invasion of privacy, even if such disclosures are completely accurate. By discouraging the publication of such private and personal matters, the common law places a high value on the right of individuals to control the dissemination of information about themselves, including the right to filter out embarrassing and harmful facts that might influence the opinion of others.
Liability is not usually imposed for alleged injuries relating to matters that are intended for public consumption. A person’s date of birth and military record, for example, are both matters of public record that may be disclosed without invading his or her privacy. Commercial proprietors that regularly deal with the public receive little protection from disclosures that relate to the price of their products, the quality of their services, or the manner in which they conduct business. Under the First Amendment, business proprietors receive less protection of their privacy interests because the U.S. Constitution seeks to promote the free and robust exchange of accurate information to allow consumers to make informed decisions.
False-Light Publicity The common-law tort of false-light publicity protects individuals from the public disclosure of false information about their reputation, beliefs, or activities. The information need not be of a private nature nor must it be defamatory, as must libelous and slanderous statements, before liability will be imposed. Instead, a misleading publication will give rise to liability for false-light publicity when it is placed before a large segment of the public in such a way that a reasonable person would find it highly offensive. However, publication of an inaccurate story to a single person, or a small group of people, is not considered sufficiently public to constitute publicity.
A newspaper photograph printed in close proximity to a caption suggesting criminal activity on the part of the person photographed is a classic example of false-light publicity. On the other hand, a misleading photograph, such as one that has been retouched, may not give rise to liability for false-light publicity if the photograph is accompanied by a caption that clearly explains how it has been distorted. An esteemed poet may successfully sue for false-light publicity when an inferior poem is published under the poet’s name. A war hero may assert a cognizable claim for false-light publicity if a story is aired that inaccurately portrays the soldier as a coward.
Public officials, such as politicians, and public figures, such as professional athletes, rarely recover for false-light publicity. Before a public official or public figure can recover for false-light publicity, the First Amendment requires proof that a story or caption was published with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its truth, a principle that has become known as the actual malice standard (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 ). In most instances, public officials and public figures have thrust themselves into the public spotlight. As a condition to accepting the benefits that accompany public recognition, the law requires that such persons accept a diminished level of protection of their privacy interests. Because the First Amendment confers less protection on public persons than it does on private individuals, the Constitution encourages the media to freely disseminate information about candidates for office, government officials, and other figures who influence or shape the course of events.
I would like to see suits against news corporations for their influence and use of false information to produce results desired by this Administration.
These people understand law and are lawyered up. So, they should be fought with law.
“The theory of the complaint is that defendant negligently published false and misleading statements. New York has long recognized such a cause of action. Liability exists “only where there is a duty, if one speaks at all, to give the correct information.” (International Prods. Co. v Erie R. R. Co., 244 NY 331, 338 ; see, Ultramares Corp. v Touche, 255 NY 170, 180-185  [an accountant may be liable for a negligent audit opinion but only to a circumscribed class of potential plaintiffs].) In addition to knowledge of the possibility of detrimental reliance, “the relationship of the parties . . . must be such that in morals and good conscience the one has the right to rely upon the other for information, and the other giving the information owes a duty to give it with care.” (International Prods. Co. v Erie R. R. Co., supra, at 338.) The cause of action has been severely limited over the years to avoid impinging on basic rights. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552 (2) also supports limiting the class of plaintiffs who may sue for negligent misstatements; liability “is limited to loss suffered [a] by the person or one of a limited group of persons for whose benefit and guidance” the speaker acts (emphasis added). That is, as a matter of public policy, the class of potential plaintiffs must be carefully circumscribed to avoid the potential of unlimited liability.”
When applied against news in particular, this could bring suit in little used areas of federal and state code to reinforce the press’ responsibility to uphold 1A issues as an ethic. The press ‘should have known’ what it/they were doing. If they acted on advice or words of the POTUS ‘secretary,’ or of others, that man in Toledo could band together with any number of others to suit for remedy and relief.
Sounds like a pre-paid legal movement to me.
I’ll be quiet now, as I see I have made too many posts. Pretty riled up this am and am on a tear.
Apologies to the forum.
Excellent post, cb. I sent it on to the Today show comments section.
Sharpton spearheaded Hillary's dirty tricks campaign in 2007.
What we have right now is an exact repeat of Hillary's dirty tricks campaign.
In 2007 they went after Don Imas for his “attack” against women. This go round it's Rush.
In 2007 Sharpton was stirring the racial pot with the Jenna 6 and the phony ‘noose” campaign implying the KKK was hunting down blacks.
This time it Trayvon and and “Blacks are being hunted” and the stand your ground and castle doctrine laws are a licensee to hunt blacks.
Beginning in Nov of 2006 the dems started the phony BS of Bush firing the US Attorneys and it was somehow connected to covering up police misconduct. Janet Reno fired all the US Attorney's in 1993 in part to cover up that Bill Clinton had ordered his state troopers to racial profile. He had been sued by the Reagan/Bush DoJ for ordering racial profiling and had agreed to stop as part of the settlement. He didn't. Hillary's been on a vendetta to pin racial profiling on the repubs ever since.
Notice how the DoJ has started all the probes into racial profiling, most notable is with Sheriff Joe.
Everything points to Hillary.
All of this is just priming the pump. Zippo is going to be forced out and that's when the real civil unrest starts.
BTW Fast and Furious has been arming up the drug gangs. In the 1996 election Bill Clinton's buddies the Chinese military got caught arming up the gangs in LA with full auto weapons.
What's sad is that they've somewhat succeeded. I have a lower view of the black community than I did before this happened. The black community obviously feels likewise.
I'd thought I'd seen everything from our scum media pulled this.
“Which NBC producers defamed George Zimmerman?”
Doesn’t matter. The shareholders should be demanding the immediate resignation of the CEO.
NBC News executives did not know the 911 call was misleadingly edited
Why all the fuss? All the words in the NBC piece were accurate./s