Blackfields & McWhites, Part 1

“FBI may charge George Zimmerman with hate crime”

That was the heading of an online story published at the WFTV Website on Monday, May 14, 2012. WFTV-Channel 9 is the ABC network affiliate located in Orlando. The opening paragraph was very revealing in the sense of what it failed to do. It revealed nothing new or, for that matter, particularly newsworthy.

SANFORD, Fla. —  WFTV has learned charges against George Zimmerman could be getting more serious.

State prosecutors said Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman, profiled and stalked 17-year-old Trayvon Martin before killing him, so the FBI is now looking into charging him with a hate crime.

What’s so strange about this kind of journalism is that it fuels the fire. It’s called baiting. While starting the article with a leading statement, WFTV has learned, it offers nothing new beyond what we didn’t already know. What, exactly, did WFTV learn, and what does the word could mean, as in the charges could be getting more serious? THAT’S NOT NEWS! IT’S GUESSING! The article later adds a revelation:

FBI investigators are actively questioning witnesses in the retreat at the Twin Lakes neighborhood, seeking evidence for a possible federal hate crime charge.

Of course they are! That goes without saying. If the FBI is investigating any crime, agents from the bureau routinely interview everyone in sight of the crime. And everywhere else, for that matter. The remainder of the story is nothing more than superfluous fluff, a term I last used early in the Casey Anthony case — long before the trial and, quite possibly, while critiquing another WFTV piece. You see, soon after I began writing about Caylee and her mother, I was reminded of how biased the news could really be. In college in the 1970s, I wrote an article, An unbiased look at news slants that explained how it’s done every day. I’ve republished it over the years (with improvements) and it’s an easy read. It describes how simple it is to write a news story in a manner that subtly offers an opinion.

While attending most of the Casey Anthony hearings beginning in October, 2009, I got a lot of advice from many of the local journalists covering the case. They were familiar with me and my work. It wasn’t just advice, though. There were rumblings going on in O’do, the unofficial slang word for Orlando. Was WFTV on State Attorney Lawson Lamar’s payroll or something? I mean, it took me no time at all to see how blatant it was that the station got the jump on stories coming out of the State, and nothing at all from the defense. It was apparent that WFTV was pro-prosecution, in my opinion, and I was far from alone in my thinking.

In many of the posts I wrote before covering the trial for Orlando magazine, I made my assertions clear about bias. How I know I was far from alone in this regard was because of the feedback I garnered from other journalists covering the case. What’s up with that station? I was asked. 

Here’s the deal. I’m not about ready to accuse a television news organization of unfair reporting. You are smart enough to figure it out yourself; but doesn’t it seem like the WFTV headline about charging George Zimmerman with a hate crime is a bit premature and racially baiting? The article contains no meat or any legs to stand on and it only serves to provoke the Trayvon Martin camp of supporters.

I don’t know. Perhaps May 15 was a slow news day around Orlando. It’s interesting to note that the story broke at 4:47 pm, just in time for the 5:00 o’clock news hour, and only one station reported it. Huh. Do you think it has anything to do with ratings?

(By the way, other news outlets reporting on the WFTV story don’t count.)

Mere Oversight?

Several days ago, George Zimmerman’s attorney told the media that his client had nothing to do with any Websites bearing his name. That turned out to be untrue, but at the time, Mark O’Mara didn’t know that. He must have found out soon afterward because one site in particular, TheRealGeorgeZimmerman, did, in fact, belong to George. It was just taken down, but not before Ol’ Georgie Boy amassed a small fortune of $204,000. Oh my. At last week’s bond hearing, O’Mara declared him indigent. I understand that, to someone like Donald Trump, $204,000 is not much money, but to you, me and most people, including George, that’s a nice chunk of change. Granted, this is going to be an expensive run, but still…

My problem is two-fold. Did George keep the Website quiet by not disclosing its ownership until it became a bone of contention? In other words, was he deceitful about the site the moment O’Mara came on board? While that’s an issue, there’s something else that concerns me more; one that may shed light on George Zimmerman’s honesty. On CNN last night, O’Mara said he had no idea about the money at the time of the bond hearing, when he declared his client indigent. While it’s true that we, the public, have no idea how much money was in George’s PayPal account at that precise moment, it’s clear that O’Mara had no idea the account existed, let alone how much money was in it. 

If George was harboring information from his attorney, how much can we believe? In my opinion, he’s already changed his story about the fatal incident on February 26. Now this misrepresentation. He sat in court, sitting on a nest egg, while his attorney argued his indigence. I humbly ask you, can we trust anything that George says? Did George even know he had that money while he sat in court?

Trayvon’s parents’ attorney, Benjamin Crump, wants the bond revoked. I don’t think it will be. What do you think?