manufacturing monsters

this has always been a tragic, difficult case involving big issues:  race, guns, self-defense, and people differ on which of these three most affected the outcome in Sanford that night. 

sadly, of the two people involved, we only have one side of the story and that complicates things…

this case was never simple, but simple stories seemed to solidify in the media immediately following the incident…  skittles, hoodies, un-armed teens, oh my!

in essence, the media promoted a simplified version of the state’s case -- including flogging that 911 transcript as proof of Z’s evil intent -- months before the trial.

is it possible that they poisoned the well?

could a simple, group narrative have emerged in the media that supplanted Z’s presumption of innocence?

now that the trial is over, why isn’t Z’s version of events getting more play?

could it be that the scripts have been written and the characters’ roles assigned?

don’t the good people, too busy to keep up with the trial, deserve to hear the full state of the evidence?

at this point in time, what’s more egregious, leaving out a much ballyhooed transcript that “sets the tone for the situation” or leaving out Z’s side of the story (thus eliminating what produced the reasonable doubt for the jury) as many in media continue to do?

obviously, reasonable people may disagree about the “tone” the call sets… it’s quite subjective, isn’t it?  to me Z comes across as a well-intentioned, if not weary citizen, tired of a recent spate of break-ins, trying to keep his community safe…  others see it differently...

but when bowdlerized versions of the events are broadcast in the media for months leading up to the trial (charles blow, 3/16/12: “Zimmerman apparently pursued him anyway, at some point getting out of his car and confronting the boy.”), then echoed across the internet AFTER the verdict (conveniently omitting the testimony that produced the reasonable doubt), I blame our news media, not you.

they suck.  you don’t.

:)