3 NBC employees lose jobs due to Martin reports

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://news.yahoo.com/3-nbc-employees-lose-jobs-due-martin-reports-192425434.html

By DAVID BAUDER | Associated Press – Fri, May 4, 2012

NEW YORK (AP) — Three employees of NBC or an NBC-owned television station have now lost their jobs because of editing changes to a call made to police by George Zimmerman on the night he shot Trayvon Martin.

Lilia Luciano, an NBC News correspondent based in Miami, is no longer working at the network, spokeswoman Amy Lynn said. Her departure came as a result of an investigation into her March 20 "Today" show report on the Martin case.

Each of the reports on either "Today" or NBC's Miami station WTVJ involve editing of Zimmerman's phone call to a dispatcher that emphasizes his identification of Martin as a black male. Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer in Sanford, Fla., is charged with second-degree murder in the death of 17-year-old Martin, a case that has increased racial tensions.

In the report involving Luciano, audio of the police phone call was edited to insert a reference to Martin's race that had been made later in the conversation.

Last month, an NBC News producer was fired in connection with a March 27 "Today" show report where a tape of the call was edited to suggest that Zimmerman volunteered to police that "this guy looks like he's up to no good. He's black."

The broadcast portion of the audio had deleted a part of the conversation where the police dispatcher asked Zimmerman about whether a suspicious male he was reporting was "black, white or Hispanic." Zimmerman answered, "he looks black."

Lynn said Friday that NBC News' investigation into the reports has ended.

In an investigation about a separate incident, reporter Jeff Burnside of WTVJ lost his job because of a March 19 report on the dispatcher's call that similarly edited out the dispatcher's question that prompted Zimmerman's characterization of Martin as black, said Matt Glassman, spokesman for the NBC-owned station.

The WTVJ report did not air on any other NBC stations, he said.

Last week, WTVJ aired an apology to its viewers for the report on some of its newscasts, and posted it on the station's website. The statement said that "an error in editorial judgment was made in which a question from the operator was deleted which could have created the impression that Mr. Zimmerman's statement may have been singling out Trayvon Martin because of his race.

"We take this incident very seriously and apologize to our viewers," WTVJ said. "After conducting an extensive investigation, we are putting a more stringent editorial process in place to ensure this does not happen again."

NBC News did not immediately respond to questions about whether the "Today" show has addressed the misleading reports on the air, or whether there are any plans to do so.

Brent Bozell, founder of the conservative media watchdog the Media Research Center, said NBC still has not come clean.

"The truth has been withheld from NBC's own viewers now for more than one month," he said. "Do the network executives at NBC think that this is acceptable?"

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Good for NBC correcting their mistakes. Had it been Fox, they probably would have given raises.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Good for NBC correcting their mistakes. Had it been Fox, they probably would have given raises.

Um...the key here is IT WAS NOT FOX!!!!!!! Why would you speculate on something that did not happen? What is the agenda related to THAT? How does FOX even become a factor in this discussion?

I look forward to seeing if there are any calls for boycotts or sponsorship withdrawl as there were when a certain someone said "#######" on the radio. What do you bet?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Um...the key here is IT WAS NOT FOX!!!!!!! Why would you speculate on something that did not happen? What is the agenda related to THAT? How does FOX even become a factor in this discussion?

I look forward to seeing if there are any calls for boycotts or sponsorship withdrawl as there were when a certain someone said "#######" on the radio. What do you bet?

Fox has edited in a similar manner and its owner is embroiled in a major scandal. Also i'm not really sure why you say "the key here is it was not fox". That's said almost like you were meaning "for once its not fox". Regarding boycotts, did Limbaugh's broadcast company fire him like NBC has to these three?

Edited May 6, 2012 by Sousuke

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Fox has edited in a similar manner and its owner is embroiled in a major scandal. Also i'm not really sure why you say "the key here is it was not fox". That's said almost like you were meaning "for once its not fox". Regarding boycotts, did Limbaugh's broadcast company fire him like NBC has to these three?

Limbaugh OWNS the broadcast company. EIB is his. Limbaugh has never offered false "evidence" in a public broadcast forum in a criminal case in an effort to affect that case. Be serious.

And my reference to FOX is that when NBC is caught you immediately turn the subject to FOX. NBC did not ferret this out themselves, it was thrust upon them due to the proliference of the internet and it is most intriguing that anyone thought they could get away with it. Why do you think they had that idea?

Fox has edited in a similar manner and its owner is embroiled in a major scandal. Also i'm not really sure why you say "the key here is it was not fox". That's said almost like you were meaning "for once its not fox". Regarding boycotts, did Limbaugh's broadcast company fire him like NBC has to these three?

Murdock's scandal is not related to FOX news. Try to stay focused and stop deflecting.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Limbaugh OWNS the broadcast company. EIB is his. Limbaugh has never offered false "evidence" in a public broadcast forum in a criminal case in an effort to affect that case. Be serious.

And my reference to FOX is that when NBC is caught you immediately turn the subject to FOX. NBC did not ferret this out themselves, it was thrust upon them due to the proliference of the internet and it is most intriguing that anyone thought they could get away with it. Why do you think they had that idea?

Murdock's scandal is not related to FOX news. Try to stay focused and stop deflecting.

You brought up Limbaugh through the ####### comment. Was that not deflection? Why bring up that incident? Please take your own advice and be serious...seriously.

Murdoch owns Fox.

I personally do not like Fox, they are biased. I personally do not like NBC, they are biased. However, I haven't seen many firings from Fox. (Maybe Glen Beck, was he really fired or did he quit)

Edited May 6, 2012 by Sousuke

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You brought up Limbaugh through the ####### comment. Was that not deflection? Why bring up that incident? Please take your own advice and be serious...seriously.

Murdoch owns Fox.

I personally do not like Fox, they are biased. I personally do not like NBC, they are biased. However, I haven't seen many firings from Fox. (Maybe Glen Beck, was he really fired or did he quit)

Yours was the first post, the first response referred to something in no way related to NBC. Bizarre. Not really unexpected, but bizarre nonetheless

Seems the typical left/democrat/liberal reponse to virtually everything...repeat after me...

1. It could be worse

2. He did it also

Just very telling.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Yours was the first post, the first response referred to something in no way related to NBC. Bizarre. Not really unexpected, but bizarre nonetheless

Seems the typical left/democrat/liberal reponse to virtually everything...repeat after me...

1. It could be worse

2. He did it also

Just very telling.

Actually, I've been pretty critical of NBC and the media, in other threads, in how they have treated George Zimmerman. But again i'm glad they have fired those responsible.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Sousuke

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Actually, I've been pretty critical of NBC and the media, in other threads, in how they have treated George Zimmerman. But again i'm glad they have fired those responsible.

Thank you. In my opinion there should be criminal charges against those that did this. This is witness tampering, or should be viewed as such.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Thank you. In my opinion there should be criminal charges against those that did this. This is witness tampering, or should be viewed as such.

[Dakine10 5,452]

This is witness tampering, or should be viewed as such.

Witness tampering has a legal definition. How does this fit?

Leglly they are probably looking at a defamation of character charge. Zimmerman won't need to solicit donations any more.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Witness tampering has a legal definition. How does this fit?

Leglly they are probably looking at a defamation of character charge. Zimmerman won't need to solicit donations any more.

Legal definitons do not seem to have a meaning for George Zimmerman...definitions like "trial"

Tainting the jury pool with purposely false information...how would that NOT be jury tampering?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Witness tampering has a legal definition. How does this fit?

Leglly they are probably looking at a defamation of character charge. Zimmerman won't need to solicit donations any more.

So I wonder what will happen when Zimmerman is acquitted and ends up filthy rich?

[lostinblue 1,989]

Just another example of how news media slants a story to fit its agenda. Dan Rather comes to mind.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Legal definitons do not seem to have a meaning for George Zimmerman...definitions like "trial"

Tainting the jury pool with purposely false information...how would that NOT be jury tampering?

Jury tampering would be directly interfering wit a jury during a trial. It's different from witness tampering.