Posted on 04/08/2012 9:08:21 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
NBC News President Insists Zimmerman Edit 'Not a Deliberate Act to Misrepresent' By Matthew Sheffield Created 04/08/2012 - 2:12am
Following a series of anonymous leaks, NBC has released its first on-the-record statements regarding the internal investigation into its misleading audio clip of George Zimmerman's 9-1-1 call.
According to NBC, the controversial clip, which appeared during its "Today" morning news show, was edited deliberately by the producer to fit within time constraints and not for some other reason. Speaking to Reuters, NBC News president Steve Capus asserted that the individual, who has been fired but whose name has not been disclosed, had made "a mistake and not a deliberate act to misrepresent the phone call."
The misleading cut removed crucial seconds of Zimmerman's call during which the 9-1-1 operator inquired about the race of the man he was pursuing. In response to the question, Zimmerman stated that he believed the individual was of African extraction. The initial question was removed by NBC News while Zimmerman's answer was included.
To listen to the edited clip and the original, see video below from NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell who first broke the story on the March 29 edition of Fox News's "Hannity" program.
An excerpt from the Reuters story which gives more details into NBC's internal investigation and also credits NewsBusters and Breitbart.com as being instrumental in exposing the network's selective editing:
NBC News's decision to air an edited call from George Zimmerman to police in the moments before he shot Trayvon Martin was "a mistake and not a deliberate act to misrepresent the phone call," according the president of network's news division. [...]
Under growing public pressure to explain the incident, NBC News President Steve Capus provided Reuters with the fullest explanation to date of how the edited call made it on air and what the network is doing to prevent such a consequential error from happening again.
Capus confirmed a previous Reuters report that an internal network investigation had determined that a producer made the editing error, and that the network's editorial controls - including senior broadcast producer oversight, script editors and often legal and standards department reviews of sensitive material to be broadcast - simply missed the selective editing of the phone call.
He said the producer has been fired and "several people" involved were disciplined, though he declined to specify the nature of the disciplinary actions, saying they were internal personnel matters.
Sources at the network told Reuters on Thursday that NBC News executives did not know the emergency call was misleadingly edited until news reports surfaced days later on blogs including newsbusters.org and Breitbart.com. [...]
As part of the investigation, the producer who edited the call was questioned extensively about motivation, and it was determined that the person had cut the video clip down to meet a maximum time requirement for the length of the segment - a common pressure in morning television - and inadvertently edited the call in a way that proved misleading.
NBC News has apologized for the incident, saying in a statement to Reuters earlier this week that there was "an editing error in the production process," but insisting the results of the internal investigation would not be announced publicly.
Capus said that the network "takes its responsibility seriously" and has undertaken rigorous efforts to formalize the editorial safeguards in place at the network.
In a separate incident showing media "synergy" at its worst, NBC's online news arm, MSNBC.com, perpetuated the same false edit in text form which was first exposed by Breitbart.com blogger Dan Riehl. After Riehl pointed out the misinformation, MSNBC.com corrected its story but did not inform readers of the article that a correction had been made until NewsBusters pointed this out March 30.
The repurposing of the misleading clip to an online story suggests the problem is more widespread than what Capus and what NBC have let on, however. What hasn't been revealed to the public is when the truncated call transcript was inserted into the MSNBC.com story which was dated March 21.
The public has also not been informed about the process by which the false Zimmerman transcript was inserted. Clearly there were no time constraints at work in the construction of the web version. Why then was the edited transcript used?
Unfortunately for NBC, despite its best attempts to delay releasing any sort of news until Easter Sunday, the story about this fiasco is going to go on and won't dissipate, due in part to the network's strategy of releasing as little information as possible.
Kind of hard to get used to the fact that you no longer have a monopoly on information. Back in the “old days” their mendacity would have never seen the light of day.
We’ll see if that holds up in court.
What?...
No deep-pockets conservatives have the technological and monetary resources to challenge the leftwing media - for example with something like Beck’s GBTV, writ bigger, larger and appealing to a broader audience?
Why are we not counter-attacking in the PR war? Are we simply victims?
Must we always decide there’s nothing to be done?
(that question above about why are we not counter-attacking in this contest, was not intentionally rhetorical)
Beck has the right idea.
Television is an Oligopoly, with liberals holding the controls.
So go around them.
Someone like a Rush Limbaugh, working with say - a Free Republic, could move PR mountains.
Technology. Money. Determination. Audience.
So why isn’t it happening yet?
What exactly is our side waiting for? Permission??
Reminds me of the old kids saying..liar liar pants on fire...edited for time? what to save 5 seconds? I call BS.Lets see the whole segment and let us decide. Then let us see who did it and other programs they produced, you know like a track record of liberalism or race baiting, sensationalism, etc...
While you are at it how about reporting black on white crime Obamas forged documents and fake background, the real unemployment numbers, unconstitutional acts, czars, etc ad infinitum..NO CREDIBILITY they are in the bag for Obie and his agenda. IMO of course.
“Just fired the unnamed producer for the hell of it.”
My thoughts exactly. If it were TRULY an innocent mistake, why would anyone be fired (vs. receiving the appropriate training so the “mistake” didn’t happen again)?
He makes an honest mistake and they fire him for it?
And fastened bottle-rockets to Chevy truck gas tanks to enhance the explosions. Stone Phillips & Dateline
“We’re shocked, shocked. Round up the usual suspects.” NBC
In the spy game they call it "plausible denyability", in the newsroom it's called "business as usual".
Of course it was. You see, for a mistake, you get fired. For a deliberate act of misrepresentation, you get promoted.
If someone was fired, their ID will eventually be revealed. Even if the person happens to be black.
In fact, if the person had no pattern or record of disciplinary actions, and it's alleged this was an innocent mistake, that would be grounds for a possible wrongful termination law suit.
In fact, if there was no person fired, that too will likely eventually come out by a whistle blower, as there will be big money to be had, and could possibly damage the network severely.
There is money to be had here, regardless if this is a concocted story regarding allegedly firing someone, or if someone was fired. Big money here either way.
Other employes, disgruntled or otherwise with knowledge, could use this as blackmail against the network etc.
I’d bet the rent, more than a few at NBC know exactly what happened, and who, if anyone was involved.
Do I believe the guy ? HELL NO !!! Just from watching the coverage for the rest of the past week the bozo is lying thru his teeth.
That works two ways. If someone else offers more money, people have a tendency to break their word, and toss any hush money agreement in the trash.
But I am confident, others within NBC will eventually reveal who was involved, or if the story of firing someone, was a concocted cover. Too much money involved for people to remain quiet.
Do I believe the guy ? HELL NO !!! Just from watching the coverage for the rest of the past week the bozo is lying thru his teeth.
Well we have seen now, the top guy at NBC publicly state they know who did this.
Should be a simple matter for Zimmerman’s lawyer to find out who it is.
Just saying.
BTW, generally, when someone is fired, they are not offered money, or rewarded with hush money to keep their mouth shut. If revealed, that in itself would bring this network to it's knees, revealing it to be an evil manipulating propaganda machine.
That presumes they’ve left the company.
Perhaps it all depends on the meaning of the word “fired”, in a Bill Clinton sort of parsing.
Could be they’ve been “fired” from that position, and quietly moved laterally to keep them from becoming disgruntled, and away from a wrongful termination lawyer.
I’m guessing the latter.
In fact I’d almost bet money on it. That is, if anyone was fired at all.
He may have nothing to lose by doing so, who knows!
Wow, I can't wait for more fallout.
Cosi fan tutti, let all the tutti hit the fan....LOL.
Leni
I hope you’re right, because if no one was fired, I am confident that will be revealed, as there are too many people who would know too many details.
Again, there is big money to be made for anyone coming forward, regardless if the firing was concocted cover story, or not. Not to mention other networks, others in the industry with contacts, connections, knowledge, etc. Making your competitor/former employer look real bad is always a great motive.
Yeah. The more explanation required, the more true/believable it is.
Every parent who has listened to a teenagers long winded explanation knows 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.