NBC Lies, Investigates Self for Lying

Deacon Greg Kandra on the inflammatory and cynical editing of reality committed by NBC in the interest of selling more beer and shampoo.

The good deacon used to work for CBS News and knows whereof he speaks. Charity believeth all things, and so you want to attribute this to stupidity rather than malice. But come on. Whoever edited that tape *has* to have known the effect the edit would have. And 30 minutes after it was broadcast was the time to have published a retraction and apology for making Zimmerman look like a racist. That they are only getting around to it now suggests that what happened is that some eager beavers like Brent Bozell caught these bomb throwing despicable liars with their pants down last Thursday and now they are trying to save face.

Heads should roll over this. And after the clowns who edited and broadcast this piece of napalm are gone, they should send an interdepartmental memo over to MSNBC and finally ax that vile grifter Al Sharpton.

Meanwhile, this also provides further proof for my brand new theory about using things like “evidence” and “witnesses” in some sort of legal setting so that matters like this can be sorted out dispassionately and not only on the basis of millions of ignorant people who were not there making snap judgments based on edited crap fed them by a media looking to gin up controversy in order to sell beer and shampoo.

"Chile, 1980. Women disappeared. United States, 2018. Children disappeared. And the junta knows where they ..."

All that Happened at the Border ..."
"Evil is evil. Enjoy your word games."

The Umpteenth Iteration of “You Made ..."
"The lib anti-church is already dead, Rob. It was born dead. Better then to let ..."

Fire Raymond Arroyo
"Why is the notion of moral trajectory unCatholic? Do you equate civilization with history?BTW the ..."

The Umpteenth Iteration of “You Made ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Chris M

    Being a complete and utter nerd, I immediately thought of this:


  • Dan C

    What happened to Breitbart after the Sherrod problem?

    • Wow! It only took 2 comments to get a tu quoque.

      Please, Dan, do try to defend what NBC did.

      • Dan C

        Seriously. It is a question. I do not follow everything and have little interest in following this up.

        If you want a harsh ideological war, Father, we can begin.

        If you want me to waste time matching inflammatory rhetoric (against liberals) with deferential consideration (with regards to conservatives), just let me know. Is this what I will find?

        It was a question.

        • Dan:

          I’m sorry for my sarcastic challenge to you to “defend” NBC. I shouldn’t have read that into your remarks.

          Your comment looked to me like a tu quoque. If you meant it as a genuine question, I’m sorry to have read more than that into it.

          It seems to me, though, that what did or did not happen to Breitbart (I don’t recall), is really irrelevant. What NBC did was wrong, period, no matter what supposed “good” motivated it.

          • Dan C

            I think media inflames and warps stories, including bloggers, for viewership.

            For example, it makes absolute sense for a national media to inflame this story about a minor subtext of racism and bereave it of a larger question which is to my opinion an insane policy and culture of fear, phony machismo, and weaponry. Such a simple concept will be attractive to a large population of folks. And the Fox News couldn’t be any happier to attack the racist aspect of this, since this is attractive to its viewership. (It is here that I reveal my lefty project.) I know you enjoy gun ownership, however, I think this discussion goes deeper than just ownership. I think fearfulness and corresponding promotion of phony machismo are deeper failures and sinful vices that are the centerpiece of this tragedy. (The “pry this gun from my cold, dead hands” ideology is also bit excessive and again of questionable Christian origin, but that is even a little peripheral to the deadly vices that created this tragedy.)

            The core deadly vices that promote this deadly confrontation should be the focus of the discussion.

            Why would anyone think it is a wise idea to have this gentleman armed and patrolling the neighborhood, creating situations that result in armed confrontation? Or, even individuals less disciplined and stable?

            I will say the laws in Florida permitting this are also based on media-driven (conservative and liberal) hype that produces fear-to sell beer and shampoo-or one’s books if one is author like Ann Coulter.

            Such a confrontation was unnecessary and deadly because of the laws promoting this death (which fail the “common good” requirements) are unwise, cater to and promote a diabolical culture of fear which is counter to any Christian culture (a culture which is the topic of the long form essay just produced by Chaput).

            Sinfulness is at the core here, independent of the legal concerns. A boy is dead. A man’s life is shattered. Christian virtue was certainly not present in the least and all the elements of tragedy went into play.

            • Tim

              “(It is here that I reveal my lefty project.)”

              Using this incident to advance some kind of cause or “project” doesn’t seem very Christian… but I guess that’s what you were saying.

            • Dan C

              @Tim (I won’t go further into indenting the response)…I used such language to “out” myself with clarity for Fr. Johansen who is on record publicly as conservative.

              I disagree. This tragedy should absolutely be a point of discussion to determine if the culture created by the promotion of fear and phony machismo (my opinion) and the laws (which, again by such luminaries as Dr. Robert George note are “instructive” for a culture) were foundational in this problem.

              At bare minimum, without suggesting legal responsibility on the part of Mr. Zimmerman, he provoked a confrontation. He did not “peace make.” He did not defuse a problem. He may have created a situation or (depending on the narrative) inflamed a situation. And then he shot the boy.

              It is 100% fair to discuss the policy, the culture, and the laws at such a time.

            • Such a confrontation was unnecessary and deadly because of the laws promoting this death (which fail the “common good” requirements) are unwise, cater to and promote a diabolical culture of fear which is counter to any Christian culture

              Excellent paragraph. The conservatives in this country are apparently doing their best to join the liberals in tearing down any rule of law in this country.

        • Tim

          A better question would be “what happened to Dan Rather after ‘Rather-gate'”. It seems more pertinent to this incident to me.

          Dan Rather “retired” after that.

          • Mark Shea

            I think you mean Ratherquiddick.

            • Tim

              Right. That was “Rather” careless of me.

  • If NBC is serious about “investigating” what happened and making it right, they will give the results of their investigation as much play as they did the airing of the doctored recording.

    That means names, dates, and a full accounting of what happened, along with details of who was fired.

    Anything less than that, and NBC is still trying to whitewash it.

    Anyone want to lay bets that NBC will actually try to make this right?

  • Michael

    Sell beer and shampoo? This is all about racism as an election year narrative to help Obama hold onto the presidency.

    • S. Murphy

      Maybe an added advantage; but they would have done this if Hillary Clinton were president. Racist murder sells gets readers and viewers. Tragic case of poor judgment (probably on both sides, but more excusable in the teenager) leading to something that might be legal self defense, or manslaughter, as likely as murder, doesn’t sell anything, much less draw the president to apparently take sides.

      • Mike in KC, MO

        Did anyone else besides me hear that massive groan of disappointment from the mainstream media when they realized that Zimmerman wasn’t 100% white.

        • Richard Johnson

          Yep. It was almost drowned out, however, by many conservative bloggers’ cheers of joy at the news.

  • Scott W.

    An explanation I’ve heard that is as good is any is that the media are targeting Florida and its “Shall Issue” laws regarding concealed permits in particular and Castle doctrine in general.

  • Mike in KC, MO

    Evidence? “Dispassionately”?

    Ah Mark, you are so well-meaning and so naive…

    Evidence doesn’t matter at this point.

    Look, if the authorities determine that Zimmerman committed murder, then he should be arrested and tried to the fullest extent of the law.

    However, even if an orgy of evidence comes to light that he is innocent of murder, it doesn’t matter. His life is basically over at this point. He has been ‘tried’ by the media as a racist murderer and found to be double-plus guilty.

    Truth doesn’t matter. The carefully managed script has already been repeated and accepted as Gospel around the world. Whatever the truth ends up being, it hasn’t even crawled out of bed, let alone put its pants on.

    • Dan C

      Initially, in the conservative vales of this area of Florida, Zimmerman did not even get a second look. There are two particular narratives at play, neither which is likely to generate anything close to the truth.

      At present, weeks after killing a man, Zimmerman has actually been protected by Florida and Florida law enforcement. The victim was identified as the problem, and also, did not get much attention.

      For those who think somehow that a murder victim “needs” prosecution of his or her murderer (something promoted on both liberal and Bellisarius produced crime method shows), the victim may have been shortchanged due to an abbreviated investigation, the limits of which will become painfully obvious.

      I actually do not believe the insane notion that the victim “deserves” his murderer to have “justice” in any such tragedy. Those reasons have been oft-stupidly discussed over centuries (such as criminal punishment is good and “just” for the criminal). I think better theology on crime and punishment needs to be done, otherwise logical insanities result (like proposing that the criminal condemned to death is lucky to be so condemned).

      Truth is the first prevailing conservative narrative is likely to be very deficient too. The current media-indulged narrative is the second narrative.

  • Scott W.

    The carefully managed script has already been repeated and accepted as Gospel around the world.

    Indeed. And it I thought it curious the protests in England. At least until I remembered that they don’t have Castle laws. You have to flee your house and can only resort to self-defense if there is absolutely nowhere to run. Of course if it is demonstrated that Trayvor was on top of Zimmerman and beating him, then obviously he couldn’t retreat; making it a moot point; but it reminds us that progressives want America to be like England and other European countries–where only the police can use force and then, as the riots demonstrated, they really shouldn’t have it either. Sheesh. If I were a proponent of social contract theory, I’d call that an utter breach. But it goes to that nagging sensation I have that England et al *IS* America–just in a more advanced state of capitulation to the liberal agnostic Establishment.

  • Ted Seeber

    I’m pretty much for the Castle doctrine, it’s hard to make a case for distributive justice without the concept that a man has a right to protect his family; and without the castle doctrine the entire idea of private property is incredibly hard to defend.

    I don’t find this to be a case of Castle Doctrine however- as neither Zimmerman nor Martin were at home, and prior to the confrontation, neither was engaging in illegal behavior.

    BTW, Castle doctrine actually originated in England- in the 1628 English Common Law concept that a Man’s Home is his Castle, and that within it’s walls he is the Lord.

  • Elaine S.

    The Florida law in question isn’t a “castle doctrine” law but a “stand your ground” law. Castle doctrine is the legal principle that says you have the right to use deadly force against an invasion of your home (castle); some states extend this to include any property or vehicle that you own. Castle doctrine exists in some form in every state — some spell it out in statutes while other states have it only in case law.

    “Stand your ground” laws, however, go a step further and authorize the use of deadly force against attack in ANY place or situation where you have a legal right to be present. In other words, if you are attacked, you are permitted to “stand your ground” and are not obligated to flee or call for help before resorting to deadly force. The law in Florida is one of the broadest applications of this principle in the country and from what I understand, significantly limits the power of police and prosecutors to file charges against people who claim self-defense.

    • Scott W.

      Thanks, Ted and Elaine. I realize I was conflating Castle doctrine with “duty to retreat” and “stand your ground” and while I think they are related closely, are not the same thing. I think I did that because before this Zimmerman case, there was an NPR segment that talked about Florida’s law and intertwined SYG and Castle Doctrine and NPR being NPR talked about how awful it was. If I were a paranoid, I’d be inclined to say that the Academic-Media Complex was on the prowl for a test case to exploit and distort, and ta da, it seems to have happened.

  • Richard Johnson

    “In other words, if you are attacked, you are permitted to “stand your ground” and are not obligated to flee or call for help before resorting to deadly force.”

    A couple of questions here:

    – Did Treyvon Miller have a legal right to be where he was?
    – Did Treyvon Miller determine that George Zimmerman was a threat to him because he was following him, or when Zimmerman turned around and Martin saw the gun in his waistband?

    While we can probably guess the answer to the first question, we will never know the answer to the second.

  • Marcus Lamberticus


    Your concise and eloquent conversation is both convincing and charged but alas you are missing the point. The point is that NBC news did not err or could not have possibly erred when they play the 911 tape that they presented as valid and original. The audio was purposely modified to promote a story that falsely tries to incriminate a decent person of racist behavior in the death of a young man.

    So why all he blah blah blah about history and other situations? NBC lied and cheated to get a better story and to terrorize a man that could very well be found innocent or never even be charged. Where does that leave you and NBC? The answer is looking and sounding like idiots with the gift of clear speech but no aptitude or desire for the truth. And not worth listening to.