http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/us/shooter-of-florida-teen-describes-assault.html?_r=1&hp#
Recent news has been released with more background information into the controversial murder of the young black teen, Trayvon Martin. But this news is an excellent example of media bias, framing, and personalization.
George Zimmerman, the man who killed Martin, gave his side of what happened that night to the Sanford Police who then released Zimmerman's account of that night to the State Attorneys Office. Zimmerman said that he had followed Martin but could not find Martin at one point so he headed back to his S.U.V, this is when Zimmerman says that Martin approached him from behind and the two exchanged words. Then Zimmerman says that Martin hit him in the face hard enough to knock him down. Zimmerman stated that after this, Martin repeatedly "slammed" Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk, which lead to Zimmerman shooting Martin.
This particular article is all about background on Trayvon's life and actions from Trayvon's past in a ridiculous effort to give some truth to Zimmerman's side of the story. The journalist may be simply trying to even out the issue and give another prospective than what everyone has been hearing, but the journalist doesn't have a plausible case or point to make. The journalist continuously points out things about Trayvon's past, such as Trayvon being suspended from high school for ten days for having traces of Marijuana found in his backpack. Then more background on Martin was mentioned, in which Martin had been suspended in the past for truancy and graffiti.
But none of these incidents from Martins past suggest nothing close to violence. Martin had no history of violence, he was a normal kid who skipped school every once in a while, so what? The bottom line is that Zimmerman had no right and no cause for following Martin. If you look at the pictures of Zimmerman and Martin; Zimmerman is a fat man in his twenties and Martin is a scrawny teenager. The Journalist framed this story into personal information on Martin that, for the most part, had no relevance to the incident. This journalist focused on providing information to support Zimmerman's point of view. The journalist does give some information that supports Martin's side of the issue, but I think this is because the journalist had to do it in order to escape the risk of appearing 100 percent in favor of Zimmerman and his side of the issue. The bias in this article is in favor of Zimmerman and tries to give support for Zimmerman and his action.
I am not sure what I want to believe exactly on this case, but I saw someone on Facebook say that Zimmerman is as guilty as Casey Anthony. I find that funny considering that Anthony was found not guilty and your article states the Zimmerman is. Anyways, the journalist most definitely framed the article to make it seem as if he was on Martin's side. This can surely cause bias among readers
ReplyDelete