Infotainment Unlimited
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Where to Go From Here
Well those of you who have been following this story and have been reading my blog know that the media hype surrounding this story has died down. Though there are still serious issues this trial brought into the spotlight that still need to be addressed, this story is no longer getting the media coverage it did at the height of the trial. Since there are not as many new developments, I will not be posting as often on this blog. However, if a big story does emerge regarding the Trayvon Martin murder (Sybrina Fulton gets Stand Your Ground repealed, New York takes a serious look at Stop and Frisk, serious steps against racial profiling are taken, etc) make sure to return to this blog. If there are any new major developments, I will make sure to update this blog and you the readers. Until then...
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Aftermath of George Zimmerman Trial Dying Down July 31
As the Coverage Winds
Down: Where Do We Go From Here?
As with any news story, eventually the hype winds down and
other newer topics take precedence. We seem to be hitting that point with the
Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman story. Between the royal baby, Edward Snowden’s
father speaking out and now the Bradley Manning verdict and sentencing hearing,
the news outlets have switched their attention and George Zimmerman now resides
in the bottom crawler if he appears at all.
So what does this mean for the larger issues this trial and
story brought into the national spotlight especially with regard to race relations
and gun control? Will these topics cease to be discussed? Luckily there are
other ways to get the public to address important issues, especially broad,
polarizing topics such as race and gun control. One of the main components of
social change and discussion is the entertainment industry. Most people think
television and movies are created to gain a profit and provide entertaining
fanfare to distract ordinary citizens from their lives for a couple of hours.
But just as news programs can broadcast entertaining features to try to boost
ratings, so can entertainment outlets produce products that try to invoke
social change.
Making movies that discuss race and require viewing
audiences to think about their own prejudices are not new in Hollywood. Just recently
Fruitvale Station opened nationwide.
This movie tells the true story of a young black man who was unjustly killed by
a white policeman. This film took top prize at Sundance and is bound to get
some recognition when award season starts early next year. The release of this
film corresponded with the verdict of the George Zimmerman trial when race was
already a hot topic in the media. This movie, however, helped fuel the
discussion by providing an emotional connection to race issues and not just
talking heads discussing the events of a court proceeding. Also since this
movie is receiving such critical acclaim, six months from now during the Golden
Globes and Academy Awards season when the George Zimmerman verdict seems like
ages ago, discussion of this movie and the possible nominations it might
receive will once again bring race relations back into public debate.
This is not the first time that a movie helped fuel the
discussion on race. In 1989 Spike Lee’s movie Do the Right Thing told the story of different races living in the
same Brooklyn neighborhood and how they interacted with another. In 2004, Crash
was released and told the tale of different intertwining characters of different
races and their viewpoints on racism and race relations. This movie would go on
and win the Academy Award for Best Picture.
Movies about gun violence and gun control are not as
prevalent (not surprising since a whole genre of action movies relies upon
them) but can still be seen. In 2003 Runaway Jury came out and told the thrilling tale of a jury consultant, Rankin
Finch, trying to pick the right jury so his gun manufacturing client will win
their case, while a member of the jury, Nick Easter wins the trust of the rest
of the jurors enabling him to manipulate their decisions. Easter then tries to
sell the jury’s verdict to Finch. Interestingly, this movie was based off a
book by John Grissom; however, in the book Finch was employed by a tobacco
company not a firearms manufacturer. Perhaps the decision to change the sinister
company that tries to fix a trial from a tobacco company to a gun manufacturer
was a result of the Columbine shooting happening less than five years earlier.
There are also documentaries that bring gun issues to the
forefront of discussion. The most notable and high profile was the Michael
Moore film, Bowling for Columbine,
which attacks different pro-gun laws. This film also won an Academy Award for
Best Documentary Feature.
So needless to say even if George Zimmerman and Travyon
Martin do not receive the news coverage they did during the height of the
trial, there are still other outlets that will make sure the larger issues this
trial brought into the discussion remain there.
This is not to say that Zimmerman and Martin are permanently
out of the news. Other events might bring them back into the news story at
least for the day. For example, New York mayoral candidate, Bill Thompson recently
gave a speech comparing New York’s Stop and Frisk law to George Zimmerman’s
murder trial. He said, "Here in New York City, we have institutionalized
Mr. Zimmerman's suspicion with a policy that all but requires our police
officers to treat young black and Latino men with suspicion, to stop them and
to frisk them because of the color of their skin.” Thompson was able to use the
tragedy that happened in Florida to address a local issue very much a topic of
debate and concern for New York City residents. Also with Sybrina Fulton,
Trayvon’s mother, actively taking a stand to get Florida’s “Stand Your Ground”
law repealed, her efforts will definitely keep her son’s memory and tragic end
alive in the media.
So just because whole news programs are no longer devoted to
the George Zimmerman trial and Trayvon Martin’s murder does not mean that the
large issues brought into the public debate are forgotten. There are still
other ways to jump start a discussion on race and gun control. These are
important issues that affect millions of Americans, and they will never be
completely out of the public’s mind.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Aftermath of George Zimmerman Trial: July 29
And the Drama
Continues
Even though the George Zimmerman verdict hype seems to be
dying down thanks to Anthony Weiner and the birth of Prince George, some new
developments have still kept this story in the news. The first came at the end
of last week, when another juror decided to break her silence and talk to ABC about
serving on the jury in the George Zimmerman trial. Juror B29 did show her face
but only allowed herself to be called Maddy out of fear for her safety. Maddy
spoke to Robin Roberts and basically expressed comments that I think a lot of
watchers of this trial were thinking. She said that she felt “George Zimmerman
got away with murder.” Maddy also remarked that in her heart she knew George
Zimmerman was guilty, but she could not convict him because the evidence did
not support her gut instinct. She eventually relied on the letter of the law
when she made her decision to find Zimmerman not guilty stating that there was
just not enough evidence to prove that Zimmerman committed second degree murder
or even manslaughter.
This is a shocking admission from a juror. The only other
juror making public statements was juror B37 (who remained anonymous). She said
she believed that Zimmerman’s actions were correct through and through and she
had no doubts that Zimmerman was innocent. Maddy’s opinion offers a totally
different reading of the case and once again brings the prosecution’s efforts
under scrutiny. Here is a juror who did not need to be convinced of Zimmerman’s
guilt but just needed the evidence to justify her “guilty” vote, and the
prosecution could not deliver it. As more and more details about the trial come
out, I am even more convinced that the prosecution threw the case away. Is
there any way the State Attorney can be investigated for intentionally losing a
case? In fact since the State Attorney is a political position voted on by
Florida citizens, if the majority of these citizens were pro Zimmerman it seems
like the State Attorney solidified her re-election by presenting a weak case. If
anyone should be blamed for the Zimmerman acquittal it should be the
prosecution not the jurors.
Though Juror B29’s admission of wanting to convict George
Zimmerman might have added to the drama of the verdict (and helped Good Morning America once again beat NBC’s
Today Show), it really just added
entertainment to the trial aftermath and did not really address any of the
national issues this verdict now brings to light. Fortunately, Trayvon’s
mother, Sybrina Fulton, is not letting her son die in vain and is trying to
enact some change in local Florida laws to prevent other deaths like her son’s.
Fulton made an appearance at the National Bar Association convention being held
in Miami this year. She made a plea to the lawyers of the nation to fight back
against “Stand Your Ground” laws claiming that this law helped Zimmerman get
away with murder. In fact the National Bar Association supports Fulton’s fight against
“Stand Your Ground” and has asked Florida’s governor and legislature to repeal
the law. Right now the legislature has refused this request claiming that since
the law was instated in 2005, the violent crime rate has declined; however, the
legislature fails to point out that since the law the number of justifiable homicides
has risen.
I will say I am impressed with Sybrina Fulton. This has to
be a very difficult time for her, especially since her son’s killer is free.
But instead of bitching about how the trial was unfair and that her son did not
receive justice, she is trying to enact some positive change for all Florida
citizens by working towards getting this law repealed. It seems like her
crusade is even taking precedence over the civil suit against Zimmerman (nothing
has been reported yet of Trayvon’s family filing suit but you know one is
coming). She seems dedicated to her cause and wants to make sure another person’s
child does not suffer the same fate as Trayvon.
To also help convince Florida lawmakers to repeal the “Stand
Your Ground” law, other activists, most notably Stevie Wonder are requesting a
boycott of Florida. This would mean not
traveling there for vacation, not buying Florida products, basically refusing
to buy or do anything that would support the Florida economy. This boycott
would be similar to the boycott against Arizona when it passed anti-immigration
legislation. Though this sounds like a good idea in theory to force Florida lawmakers
to take another look at “Stand Your Ground,” boycotting Florida is not an easy
answer to success. An article posted on CNN.com lays out the challenges a
boycott faces. First of all, Florida is not the only state with “Stand Your
Ground” laws. In fact 20 states have this law on the books which signifies that
a significant number of Americans support this law. Also people are not going
to immediately cancel their Disney World trips or their visit to their
relatives just because someone is asking them to boycott the state. If the
boycott does become successful and Florida does suffer an economic loss, this
boycott could end up hurting the African American population of the state more
than it is trying to help them by repealing the “Stand Your Ground” law. Florida’s
tourism is one of the leading employers for the state and employs many African
American people. Even Sybrina Fulton thinks boycotting Florida might not be the
right step to solicit change in the legislature.
Well just as with every news story, the George Zimmerman
trial is losing steam, but thanks to Trayvon’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, she is
trying to keep the bigger issues alive and present in the public’s mind. Keep
following this blog for further updates regarding the aftermath of the trial.
Until next time….
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Zimmerman Helps a Family from a Car Crash
Human Interest Story
or PR Move?
Another development in the George Zimmerman verdict
aftermath came out yesterday. According to news sources, George Zimmerman came
to the rescue of a family who was involved in a car crash. The family’s vehicle
overturned and suddenly Zimmerman appeared and helped the family out of the
car. He waited around to give the police his statement and then left. The
police said that Zimmerman was not a witness to the accident but just a Good Samaritan
who stopped and helped a family in need.
This story brings up several interesting issues, none of
which really deal with the sequence of events. The first thing that struck my
attention about this story was that when I researched it, one of the first
sources I saw reporting on the story was TMZ. TMZ is not so much a news source
but a celebrity gossip column which is why I found this story in that
publication amazing. Zimmerman has now reached the level of celebrity that is
usually reserved for Hollywood movie stars such as Brad Pitt or George Clooney.
It seems like America has now reached a new low with its “celebrity”
obsessions. America has been fascinated with Hollywood actors for the longest time
treating them like royalty. In semi recent developments, we have now been
fascinated with those who have seemingly no skills and only are known because
their parents have money. Now we seem to treat acquitted suspects like
celebrities and even cover them on a tabloid program.
Another issue involving the Zimmerman car crash case
involves the timing of the story. This event happened shortly after the not
guilty verdict. According to sources, Zimmerman has been in hiding, because he
has been receiving death threats. Now not long after that controversial verdict,
Zimmerman is back in the news, this time not as a suspect but as a hero. This
has led some to believe that possibly the event was staged or that Zimmerma
hired a PR team. I tried to do some investigating to see if I could get both
sides of the stories or see if any reputable news sources uncovered if this was
in fact a staged event or at least a PR ploy. I couldn’t find anything
definitive on either side of the argument. I did, however, find a transcript of
a Rush Limbaugh rant saying that he knew the “liberals” would try to come out
and say that this was a conspiracy or a ploy to make Zimmerman look good.
This part of the story brings two issues to mind for me:
First, I do not know why this story is such a big deal (I mean I do but I don’t
think it should be). I believe Zimmerman was wrong to shoot and kill Trayvon. I
believe that he made some bad decisions and that some prejudices (even if they
were subconscious) helped motivate his actions that night. I think he should be
punished for his poor judgment, because an innocent boy is dead. But I do not
think Zimmerman is an inherently evil man. We all make decisions that go
against our better judgment, but unfortunately for Zimmerman his choices were
worse than the ones most people make and someone ended up dead. That being said
I don’t know why it is such a big deal he helped a family. His whole defense
was being an avid neighborhood watch participant and wanted to protect his
neighbors so of course it would be in his character to help someone involved in
a car accident. That being said, just because he helped someone doesn’t mean I
will forget his poor judgment that night and completely wipe his slate clean.
The second thing that came to mind after reading the Limbaugh
article was, “How did this story become a liberal vs. conservative case?” Can
this case really be politicized? I mean of course it can and it has but is it
really a liberal issue to want to see a person punished who acted in poor judgment which
led to a young man losing his life? Actually what I find interesting,
if the roles were reversed and an African American man who was in the
neighborhood watch, stalked a young white teenager because he thought he looked
suspicious, and then the young teenager ended up dead would the conservatives
still say the verdict was just and the liberals still be outraged? Or would the
roles be reversed and the liberals say the verdict was just and the
conservatives thinking the justice system did not live up to its job? Or would
the race reversal actually unite the two sides and either have them agreeing
that the verdict was wrong or the justice system worked the way it should? It
is crazy how much race changes things in this country. We like to think that
things are getting better with regard to race relations and in some ways they
have, but still in other ways we still have some of the same ideas and
viewpoints that have plagued this nation for many years.
These are just some of the thoughts I had concerning this
little news story. I guess the news sources are running out of things to cover
with the case if they are now covering car accidents. It will be interesting to
see how long this story stays front and center in the news. Maybe the royal
baby will knock it out of the news cycle for good.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Aftermath of Zimmerman Trial, July 22, 2013
Obama Speaks Out in
Response to Zimmerman Verdict
Well it has finally happened. The day we all have been
waiting for. The Duchess of Cambridge went into labor and the next heir to the
throne will be born. Oh wait a second, we are in America not England. This
story does not affect us at all. You would not be able to deduce that from the
amount of coverage the story is receiving on the news channels. Well since the
cable news stations won’t be covering the outcome of the Zimmerman trial today,
it gives us time to look back at some developments that happened over the
weekend.
The big story happened this past Friday, July 19, 2013.
President Obama hijacked a regularly scheduled press briefing and used the time
to give his thoughts on the Zimmerman verdict and race relations in this
country. His appearance shocked everyone, even the reporters, who could be heard
saying, “Whoa,” when he entered the briefing room. It was an impromptu meeting
that allowed Obama to say his thoughts without making such a big deal (as opposed
to preempting primetime programming for a special press conference). President Obama said several things during his talk with the
press that I want to touch on and I think are relevant. The first major thing
that really struck those reporting on this address was Obama stating, “Trayvon Martin
could have been me 35 years ago.” This statement, I feel, was the most
compelling because it really put everything in perspective. We see Obama as an
accomplished man. He is well educated, became a U.S. Senator and then went on
to achieve the highest office in the country some say the world. We never stop
to think about what he was like as a teenager growing up. He probably was a lot
like Trayvon. In fact I think a lot of teenage boys no matter what their skin
color were a lot like Trayvon. Thinking back on my own teenage experience, I definitely
went through phases. I dressed a certain way because that was how my friends
dressed and I wanted to fit in. Really examining how I was when I was teenager,
I realize that people who knew me then who don’t know me now would never
recognize me. I feel like that is the same message that Obama was trying to
articulate when he compared himself to Trayvon. A lot has been made about
Trayvon’s attire that night, wearing a hoodie, so he looked “dangerous.” You
cannot deduce how a person will turn out in life by the way they dress as a
teenager. I think the comparison Obama made did a good job giving the public a
concrete example of how you never can know who a person is or what they will
become by just looking at their clothes.
Another important thing, Obama did was reference his own
struggles growing up as an African American man. An article in The Washington Post after the press
conference talked about Obama’s upbringing and also made note that Obama rarely
talked specifically about race relations during his presidency. I understand that.
Even though Obama made history by becoming the first African American president,
he wants to be known for other things than just his skin color. He wants to
enact other changes in the country besides just race relations. However, with a
high profile story like this one, not saying anything about it would be like
ignoring the elephant in the room. The way he addressed the topic was well
thought out. He did not condemn anyone in the trial. He praised how
professional and by the book it proceeded. He also brought personal experiences
of growing up as a minority illustrating that even he was not raised above the
stereotypes and biases that exist in the country. He also offered the African
American perspective on certain racial issues, saying that the community is not
naïve to the statistics about the African American race and violence but those
numbers should not be the defining criteria for the entire community.
Finally, Obama laid out some of the things he would like to
address in the aftermath of this trial. He remarked that law enforcement is
controlled at the state and local levels of government, but he would like to
work in conjunction with state governors to develop training programs to stop
the racial profiling done by law enforcement. He also brought up the “Stand
Your Ground” law and tried to appeal to America that a law that has that much
ambiguous interpretation (he made a case that if Trayvon was of age and armed,
under the law he could have stood his ground) needs to perhaps be revisited. He
also called for all Americans to do a little introspection and examine what
prejudices and biases they hold and try to overcome them.
Once again, I think Obama did a good job covering these different
topic areas. It did not come across that he was politicizing the Zimmerman
trial. He also seemed well aware of his power being that he runs the federal
government and cannot make states change their laws or law enforcement
policies. Also I think Obama coming out and talking to America about this issue
was a sign to those participating in vigils and protests that he heard their
pleas, is aware of the situation, and will do what is in his power to help
enact change so Trayvon did not die in vain.
What happened on Friday was an unexpected occurrence that I
think a lot of Americans needed to hear. I will be back Wednesday with another
post. Hopefully the topic of conversation on the news will go back to American
issues (or at least World issues that carry a little more importance) so I will
have something fresh to talk about. Till then…
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Aftermath of Zimmerman Trial
Fallout from George
Zimmerman Not Guilty Verdict
Even though the trial has ended, the news media cannot stop
talking about the George Zimmerman trial. Though in the first couple of posts I
exhibited disdain for the media circus surrounding the trial, I am actually
delighted the news is still covering the case, because now they have gotten to what
this trial really symbolized: race relations and gun control. The big topic
after the “Not Guilty” verdict surrounded Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law.
According to the Washington Post, the “Stand Your Ground” law allows a person
to “prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to
prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” It basically means that a person
is allowed to use deadly force (even if they could run away), even outside of
their home, if they believe someone is trying to kill them or seriously harm
them. Though Zimmerman’s defense did not argue his innocence based on this law,
it is easy to make the connection between Martin’s murder and this piece of
legislation. Bill Baxley, the Florida state representative who co-sponsored
this law, defended “Stand Your Ground” on CNN this morning saying that this law
should stay on the books because the Zimmerman trial was not about this law.
I personally do not know how anyone can say there is no
connection between Zimmerman’s trial and this law. Even though the defense did
not bring it up in the courtroom, it is clear that if Zimmerman wanted to, he
could have used this law as his defense. Zimmerman pursued a man who was not
trying to invade his home or anyone else’s and killed him in “self-defense”
after instigating the confrontation. Actually in thinking about it, it seems
that because of “Stand Your Ground,” Zimmerman should have definitely been
guilty. According to this law, a person has a right to stand their ground and
not run away if they feel threatened even outside their home. Under this law,
it seems like Martin would have had the right to confront Zimmerman if he felt
threatened that Zimmerman was following him. It also appears that he would he
been justified to be on top of Zimmerman and knock him against the concrete if
he in fact implemented “Stand Your Ground.”
At least the Attorney General, Eric Holder, understands the
excessive amount of violence this law could cause especially now that Zimmerman
got acquitted of the charges. Even though Governor Scott of Florida convened a
special session and deemed the “Stand Your Ground” law to be a just and good law,
maybe the attorney general will do a better job of alerting the public to the
idea that this law could cause more harm than good.
The other big development in the aftermath of the George
Zimmerman trial involved one of the jurors. Anderson Cooper was able to secure
an exclusive interview with one of the jurors (looks like Jeff Zucker will be
able to get the ratings he could never obtain as head of NBC). During this
interview, the juror, who did remain anonymous by sitting in the dark, spoke
about some mundane things that happened during her time as a juror such as her
relationship with the other jurors and how there was almost a hung jury because
one of the jurors wanted to leave for personal reasons. The juror did make one
interesting comment regarding the case. She told Cooper that she 100% believes
that she and the other jurors made the right decision and that Zimmerman was
not guilty. When Cooper tried to get her to elaborate, the juror further
explained that though she did not think Zimmerman was right in his actions
leading up to him killing Martin, she does believe that he was justified in
pulling the trigger once the confrontation occurred.
Ok I need to take a step back from this for a moment. I
agree that based on the lame ass case the prosecution put on, I do not fault
any of the jurors for acquitting Zimmerman; however, if the anonymous juror’s
true reasoning for acquitting Zimmerman was her explanation above, then I am
flabbergasted. That reason makes no sense to me (and I think to any sane person
that reasoning would seem counterintuitive as well). If that is her reasoning,
how is that different from a stalker/victim relationship. Let me explain....under
this juror’s explanation, a stalker would be able to follow another individual.
If that person felt threatened and decided to confront the stalker (which is
legal under “Stand Your Ground”), the stalker would then be justified to kill
the person he stalked because he felt in danger by the confrontation. I feel
like I have fallen down the rabbit hole.
At least the other jurors seemed to have better reasons to
acquit Zimmerman. After this interview, four out of the five other jurors
released a statement saying that the juror on Anderson Cooper 360 did not speak for the group.
It has been five days since the verdict and already so much
has happen. It will be interesting to see where this goes next. Until next time…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)