Do yu remember Dr. Sam Sheppard? "The Fugitive?" Richard Kimble (fictioinal character based on Dr. Sheppard)? The one-aremed man?
Well, Dr. Sheppard is famous for the "landmark" Supreme Court case that "pre-trial publicity" could be so unfair as to make a criminal convictin UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I alwyas disagreed with that result: not that the media should not be mrore responsible in its coverage, or that courts sould not do their best to avoid a trial being "tainted" by outside publicity, but the idea that thehe Constitutin really shuld be involved in this. I actually think my position has been vindicated, because the Sheppard case has really led to almost NO follow-up cases reversing convictions on this ground (as a matter of the U.S. Constitution).
But what is most annoying about this? What is the main problem? Right. It is the EVIL PEOPLE (again,, I mean it) of the MEDIAwho are realy UNFAIR--not the courts. Take George Zimmerman, for example. Would there be ay problem with him getting a "fair trial" if the media had simply presented the FACTS (as they became known)? Of course not. It is the media LYNCHING of george Zimmerman that makes a "fair trial' almost impossible. SOME of the jury are going to want to ACQUIT George Zimmerman, becaue they are tired of lthese media LLYNCHINGS based on RACE. SOME of the jury are going to want to CONVICT George Zimmerman because the media has convinced them that we are a racist county, and the only way to "cure" that is by convicting peole likke George Zimmerman. I don't think it is POSSIBLE to get a jury ALNYWHERE that is going to decide this case solely on the FACTS. Indeed, the prosecution has given every indicatin it is going to TRY George Zimmerman on everything but the facts, including "racial porfiling". Why else arrest George Zimmerman's wife, which I regard as blatant persecution?The facts have been LOST in this cae, and it may now be effectively impossible to get back to them.
Remember that stuff from EVIL media peole abut "f------ coons"? This one of tghe most DISGRACEFUL, EVIL CRIMES ever conducted by "journaliss". These people (the "journalists"--not Zimmerman) shhould be SHUNNED. Anderson Coper, Wolf Blitgzer, and the people of CNN should be SHUNNED (in public). Then there was the NBC alteratin of the tape to LIE about George Zimmerman being the first to bring up race (when he was not--merely responding to the police dispatchrer's question on the race of the suspicious person). Agiann, NBC should Bbe SHUNTTED. The reporters who made this all about race should be SHUNNED. I have wondered before, in this blog. Do you "journalists" out there mind that i truly think of yu as EVIL lpeole, regularly spreading EVIL? It should bother you, because I think more and more peopole are coming around to my point of view on this. As I hav ve said before, I am sure there are a fFEW exceptions. I just have been unable to find, or remember any recent ones-despite my 10-year, futile Sodom And Gomorrah search for ONE honet, competent Associated Press reporter.
I simply cant't stand the HYPOCRITES of the mediia. They act like this is NOT their problem, when it is. Since the time of Dr. Sam Sheppard, the media has gotten WORSE. Cable TV people routinely ADVOCATE "guilt". Nope. It is an eVIL thing for TV people to even ARGUE over "guilt" and "innocence". The media is NOt the appropriate place to conduct a trial. I have actually heard these EVIL HYPOCRITES say that this is not a problem, because the media can't put anyone in jail . Well, the Dr. Sheepard cae stands for the propositin that the media CAN effectivvely put people in jail. And that is besides the EVIL that the media can tdo to a person's LIFE. No. I can't stand thee people. And they do it for MONEY : ratings and circulation (as well as for agenda).
This blog has accuratelyl told lyou that it is INSANE to put a JURY in JAIL (sequestration) for any sifnificant length of time. As a judge, I would NEVER do it. And we often do this INSANE thing because of the EVIL people of the media simply hammering people. As stated, I don't think that the Consitutinn requires this kind of "cosmetic" attepts to "handle" media UNFAIRNESS. But the one thing I wuld do is put the matter squarely on the media, and call them out to be responsible (plus "gag orders" and the like). The attack here needs to be on the PROBLEM. And the PROBLEm is the MEDIA. No, you can't violate the First Amendment. But people can start telling it like it is, like this blog does. And there is always SHUNNING. The media shoiuld worry that their present stock in trade is almsot exclusively "back fence gossip" (wore than that in any small town--see, for example, the movie "The Children's Hour").
Whhat prompted this tirade? It was this mainstream media headliine/story that has been "featured" ALL DAY on Yahoo "News" (my AT&T default page), from something called t"The Lookout":
"Can George Zimmerman get a fair trial in Samford/"
I can't tell you how ANGRY this story gets e. Do you see that this is an attempt to act liike Pontinus Pilate? The media jsut wants to wash its hands of any responsibility for this. As stated, I don't think George Zimmerman can get a "fair trial" ANYWHERE in the United States, based on what the trial is supposed to be about: the FACTS. To the extent it is worse in Samford, it would be because the LOCAL MEDIA has compounded the problem stirred up by the natinoal media (and racial "activists"). Again, this is a MEDIA problem, and they deserved to be CONDEMNED for creating it. I, of course, am glad to do the condemning. It is a pleasant job, but someone has to do it.
P.S. No proofreading o spell checking (bad eyesight).