Tongues are wagging over a confrontation between CNN’s Piers Morgan and MSNBC’s Toure (a journalist who appears to go by just one name like Cher or the Artist Formerly Known As Prince). At issue was whether Morgan should have been tougher on George Zimmerman’s brother in an interview or conversely whether journalists like Toure have discarded their neutrality and objective distance in declaring Zimmerman a murderer. Putting aside the childish rhetoric, it is a serious question of whether journalists are crossing the line into advocacy in declaring the guilt of someone like Zimmerman. The controversy has also raised long-standing uncertainty of the role of anchors and journalists in actively supporting a claim, cause or movement.
The exchange below is clearly driven to some extent by bad blood between the two men who crossed virtual swords over Twitter. After the Zimmerman interview, Toure objected that “Piers did not challenge Robert Zimmerman the way a professional journalist should” and later accused him of “allowing Rob Zimmerman to spout unchallenged lies further poisons a tense moment in American history. Be professional.” Morgan responded by tweeting “Oh Toure, you’re such a tedious little twerp . . . ps @Toure – 71k tweets for just 57k followers? Ouch. Ever get the feeling you’re doing a LOT of jabbering but nobody’s listening?”
Not exactly the stuff of Edward R. Murrow. Then however it got more direct and even more personal on the show. Morgan pointed out that Toure had pronounced the guilt of a man without all of the evidence and disregarding the claims of the accused. Toure insisted that Morgan was ignoring the obvious evidence of guilt.
MORGAN: Wait a minute. At no stage did I give any sense that I agreed with what he was saying. I challenged him repeatedly about many of the things that he was saying.
TOURE: What you understand as challenging, perhaps, maybe that goes in England. That’s not what we do in terms of challenging in America.
While not defending Morgan’s interview with Zimmerman, he did challenge Zimmerman’s account:
MORGAN: How do you explain as a family the video that came out last night of your brother within not much time after this incident walking around, unaided, perfectly OK, with no apparent markings to his face? If you get a broken nose or the kind of head injuries sustainable from having your head smashed on the concrete floor, you’re going to have blood everywhere. You’re going to have injuries. There is nothing.
I mean, we’re looking at images now. There’s no visible sign of any attack. How do you explain that?
I did understand Toure’s frustration with Zimmerman’s brother. However, I was a bit surprised to see a journalist say that a second unreleased 911 call would clearly prove Zimmerman guilty.
MORGAN: Do you believe that George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin?
TOURE: Yes.
MORGAN: So you’ve already tried him? You’ve convicted him?
TOURE: You asked me what I think.
MORGAN: You called me — you called me — you called me an irresponsible journalist. Really? That is professional? Professional journalism means that you have just —
(CROSSTALK)
TOURE: — George Zimmerman is clearly showing repeatedly racist bias against a person who he does not know and has never seen before, and is pouring all these sort of stereotypes into this person.
That’s even before we get to coon. They always get away, which is ridiculous because the jails are filled with millions of black men. But he thinks they always get away. He’s up to no good. He’s got his hands in his pants. He’s on drugs.
It’s a 17-year-old boy walking down the street talking to his girl on the phone. None of those things are true. But he’s already said all those things.
And then we have the other 911 call, which I imagine will be extraordinarily damaging if we ever get to a court of law, where we hear someone screaming, which clearly sounds like a young boy and not a 200 something pound 28-year-old man with a gun.
A person, however, is screaming. There’s a gunshot. And there’s no more screaming. That sounds to me pretty damning. It reminds him of the face Emmett Till, bashed in the coffin, where we see here’s evidence of a black body being destroyed wrongfully, innocently. And the justice system, of course, not coming to his aid.
MORGAN: I’ve raised many questions about the justice system, the legal process, as anyone who has watched the show in the last week knows. What I haven’t done is convict George Zimmerman because I haven’t seen all the facts yet. You berate me for a lack of professional journalism.
But you have just said that you believe he murdered him. You have a very biased, one sided opinion of this, based on your assessment of the limited amount of facts that we have at our disposal. That’s your prerogative. I don’t challenge you. I simply say that as a fact. You also think it’s OK to do stupid dumb jokes, mocking — what did you call it, Zimmermaning (ph) me? You’re killing me.
So we are different people. I like to think that I’m a professional journalist, Toure. I think you are something else. But I appreciate you joining me tonight.
There has always been an interesting question of when a journalist should clearly state what has been established even if denied by a party. For example, I have long criticized the use of the term “enhanced interrogation” by the media — a term made up by the Bush Administration to avoid calling waterboarding “torture” as uniformly defined by U.S. and foreign courts. That is an example of where news reporting can mislead the reader into believing that there is a credible debate or uncertainty over whether waterboarding is torture. Yet, here many journalists feel the evidence is clear and conclusive — should they speak of the evidence in such terms?
Of course, in this case, you have an individual who insists that he was attacked and there is only sketchy evidence of what occurred at the scene. I have previously stated that I believe Zimmerman could have been arrested at the scene based on that evidence. Yet,I have been criticized for simply noting that the case had “murky” element and was “not as conclusive” as suggested in some coverage. I have also been criticized for not declaring Zimmerman clearly guilty while exploring the likely issues facing any possible prosecution.
As a legal commentator and a civil libertarian, I am uncomfortable with political campaigns and petitions demanding prosecutions. While I have expressed my skepticism over Zimmerman’s account, there remains standards to satisfy for any prosecution — including proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There are many details that have yet to come out, including forensic evidence. There are also questions such as whether Zimmerman will claim that Martin tried to grab the gun. Self-defense cases are context bound and detail driven. My training leads me to be neutral in such analysis. While expressing my skepticism, I think it is important to explore both versions of the shooting in a detached manner to assist others in reaching conclusions about the state of the evidence.
The question is whether some television personalities and journalists have crossed the line such as Al Sharpton’s suggestion of civil unrest unless there is an indictment. This includes journalists like Allison Samuels recounting what Martin was thinking at the time of his killing:
SAMUELS: Is this slavery day, where we have to show our papers and say, “Hey, look, I’m allowed to be here. I’m free?” That’s ridiculous. You don’t have to explain who you are or why you’re here to someone who does not have a badge, who is not in a uniform.
I am sure this young man’s attitude was, “What are you following me for, what are you doing?” And I don’t know why they would try to flip the script on that, and make that seem that that’s inappropriate, when he had every right to be there, and didn’t have to explain that to anyone.
. . .SAMUELS: Trayvon Martin had no idea what was happening. He had no idea why this guy was behind him. And the young girl, the girlfriend, I think is going to be very important when she is able to testify, to say he was saying, “This guy’s following me.” She’s telling him to run. Trayvon was very scared for his life, and I think there’s no way that they can sort of change the way that that went down, no matter what they release. . . .
SAMUELS: No, and I was in Sanford, Florida for a couple of days. I went around the community, I talked to a number of people. No one that I spoke to there could sort of defend what George Zimmerman had done, no one was in agreement with what he had done, and no one had seen what he had done. The women that you’ve seen — who admitted, who came forth — they went to the police, they went to the police station, and they talked to the media, they talked about what they saw. I even talked to a little kid who had seen sort of the end of it.
But I talked to no one who had actually witnessed the other part of this story that Zimmerman is putting forth. So, it’s all very suspect. It is also very convenient for it to come out now, when he — Zimmerman — and the police department is taking such a beating.
Samuels made some very good points in the interview and she is a serious journalist by any measure, but the question is where journalists should draw the line in presuming feelings or thoughts. This has always been a difficult question for me in drawing this line. However, I am concerned that the super-heated environment in this case may be interfering with an objective accounting of the facts and possible prosecution. That can itself lead to a violent response if the public is not told about the difficult legal issues that would be raised in any trial.
Notably, the continued super-heated language and marches (and irresponsible tweeting and use of social media) will create a serious question of a fair trial if an indictment is ever brought in the case. A change of venue motion would likely be filed, but where would such a trial occur. With rallies being held in major cities, the defense might try to push the trial to smaller cities or towns. However, there may be a racial differential in the jury pool in such jurisdictions. That would create an ironic twist that the rallies and public statements in various cities could work to the advantage of the defense in a venue change in a more rural area or less urban area.
There may be a different standard for legal commentators and journalists as opposed to others. However, for years, legal commentators have been urged to be outspoken in their accounts — taking predictable sides in coverage that often produces more heat than light. Another (different) question is whether it is appropriate for anchors on Fox or MSNBC to lead political rallies and campaigns. Keith Olbermann was fired at MSNBC for writing a couple of small checks to candidates for political office. I understand that policy and the importance to keep journalists neutral, but there appears no bar on actually leading a political rally and openly supporting one party — so long as you do not give actual money. Again, I am not sure of what the objective line is that divided a small financial contribution to a candidate and leading voting drives for a particular party. Fox recently cancelled an auction item by Dick Morris to assist a local GOP campaign. In defense of people like Sharpton, I am not sure such a line has been articulated. Moreover, Sharpton is billed as a civil rights leader and activist as opposed to a journalist. Morris is defined as a political operative. Does that matter?
What do you think?
Here is the transcript of the Toure/Morgan interview.
(Yes, they wrote that liine for me (and strange no z’s cause cats seem to adore them the most ((*_*)) )
leejcaroll,
thanks for pointing out the detail distinguishing your comment from Mike Appleton. His comment was directly addressing whether Toure has the right to an opinion as a journalist. He clearly has a right to his opinion in this interview. You further qualified ” if they are giving a news story.”
In a straight reporter role, a reporter should do what was asked and present the facts. But this is a narrow use of a journalist, because not all journalists are ‘reporters’. Journalists are not monolithic nor are they drone cameras and microphones. If an investigative journalist is invited in for an interview, they will likely report all the facts they’ve uncovered but are equally able to give opinions. They will clearly distinguish their opinion from the facts, but are able to give opinions when asked. Ideally, their opinion is based in the facts presented or their credibility would be at risk. Coloring the facts is considered unprofessional. Giving an opinion may risk coloring the facts but it doesn’t automatically do that.
“so what is your read of the situation then”
“so where do you think this is going”
“so do you think there will be follow up”
“do you think they were forthright with you?”
“do think this is all they’ll have to say about this?”
Very common questions in interviews with journalists.
Without the ability to give an opinion, the journalist is merely a parrot when being asked questions not found in the obvious. The model of “no opinion” would mean we’re better off sending drone microphones and cameras into events we want coverage of. Just put 24/7 cameras in all meetings, public spaces, etc, if you want a sterile account of the facts.
Especially when it comes to investigative journalism, opinions do matter. But if they conflict with the facts, the journalist hasn’t done a very good job and should be judged as such.
Toure wasn’t reporting on a story above. He was rendering an opinion when asked his opinion. That is perfectly acceptable.
All the attacks on him about whether he was ‘unprofessional’ are red herrings in addressing the substance of this meeting…Did Piers Morgan do a fluff piece with Robert Zimmerman. Instead, we’re discussing whether Toure is a professional because that is how Piers Morgan attacked to distract from the accusation. In doing so Morgan’s professionalism also came into question. But the question still didn’t get addressed, Was Robert Zimmerman allowed to come and fog the discussion? My answer, Yes.
You are most welcome, leejcarol.
And you know how cats are . . . spotty typists and even worse proofreaderz. 😀
Gene, Thanks. (and my cats often help me too but not to get rid of the lice(d) ((*_*))
*moused over your*
Sorry. That’s what happens when animals are helping me type. 😀
leejcaroll,
As an aside (and completely OT), I accidentally moused of your your Gravatar. You may want to double check the text of your Gravatar profile. Just a suggestion and hopefully a helpful one.
You did not read my comment, I said: unlike a panelist, if they are reporting a story then they do not have that luxury. You need to take an extra second or two and really read what is written.
MichaelCheneyMcCollum, in appearing to take issue with my statements you actually said what I said, come to a story and find the facts not go into it to prove your bias.
Journalists do not have the luxury, like a panelist like the Prof for instance, to give their view on the story, only the good ol’ Jack Webb, just the facts, ma’am (or sir) if they are giving a news story.
“Journalists do not have the luxury”
I do take issue with this in reference to a “journalist” having an opinion.
Having a journalist write a piece is not the same as asking a journalist their opinion. Of course a journalist has the luxury of their opinion.
Why would you think that a journalist cannot give their opinion in an interview?
Truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability constitute the professional journalist’s code of ethics.
Unless the Publisher says otherwise.
That’s it in a nutshell.
Lets see we know that NBC framed it this way
“Today” segment took this approach to a key part of the dispatcher call:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.
Here’s how the actual conversation went down:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/nbc-to-do-internal-investigation-on-zimmerman-segment/2012/03/31/gIQAc4HhnS_blog.html
and now this
Latest Media Lie Exposed: George Zimmerman Weighs 170 Pounds Not 240 Pounds
However it started, witnesses described to the 911 dispatcher what resulted: the neighborhood watch coordinator, 5-foot-9 and 170 pounds, and the visitor, 6-foot-1 and 150, wrestling on the ground.
Trayvon Martin is consistently described as 140 lbs, although the police report had him at 160. The Sanford PD initial police report listed a weight for Martin but not Zimmerman; in retrospect, that will rank as one of the biggest blunders of their investigation.
I am serious – if the Times is correctly telling us that Zimmerman was roughly Martin’s size, that changes the whole theme of the scary large man stalking the overmatched boy. Do I need links to document how widespread that meme is?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/04/george-z/
As a legal concept, the phrase “stand your ground” sounds as plausible as “stand by your man.” I remember years ago preparing to take the driver’s test for a motorcycle license. The instructor kept telling us: “you may actually have the right of way, but only a fool would insist on it.”
Passing laws to encourage armed, homicidal confrontation between and among hyper-terrified Americans doesn’t sound wise to me, but then I don’t live in that paranoid asylum any longer. So I’ll just watch safely from across the Pacific pond.
Truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability constitute the professional journalist’s code of ethics.
Unless the Publisher says otherwise.
That’s it in a nutshell.
BTW, the absence of brevity in many of these posts indicates a lack of familiarity with the red pencil pusher. Also, clarity would definitely be an issue with the copy editor.
A journalism-free news media
You don’t need reporting skills to thrive in the news today. All you need is a big mouth or a famous parent
By David
4/2/12
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/02/a_journalism_free_news_media/singleton/
Hasn’t the media done enough with this case already?
Wow…. Media…..It never ceases to amaze me how people react the way they do…. We don’t have news…. We have a damn circus….. The problem is determining who the ringleader is…….
I remember someone here stated that the news reporters or at least some of them used to be the best cops in town….. The only thing changing is the medium……
I know MCM. He’s been in the news media for over 20 years and I find it hilarious to see you arguing whether he gets what a professional journalist is from your lawyer perch!!!!
Michael Cheneywatch McCollum 1, April 2, 2012 at 8:21 pm
Santa Claws,
The purpose of posting personal information is what?
——————————————————————-
So I can be more like Spike Lee and Roseanne Barr – 2 great bastions of the left. Just following their examples 🙂 I like handing out presents.
“So I can be more like Spike Lee ”
You mean you’ll pay for the damages? That’s what he just did.
hello Mr. Oliver, sorry I’ll miss SXSW. Maybe next time.
Nothing wrong with a lawyer rendering an opinion about journalism. It does help to do it before talking about it, but to each their own.
And to Anonymously,
“We don’t have news…. We have a damn circus”
We have both. There’s plenty of straight forward news, but yes, there is also a circus atmosphere in general.
It is important to demand quality reporting.
What Bob, Esq actually wrote: “That is to say, we all know the difference between a Bill Moyers and a Sean Hannity.”
———————————————————-
Michael Cheneywatch McCollum response:
“’Bill Moyers and a Sean Hannity’
These men don’t even belong in the same sentence.
You can do a retake if you need.”
——————————————————
Cheap spin in the worst journalistic tradition. Not even clever. Dismissed.
Santa Claws,
The purpose of posting personal information is what?
Toure’ makes one unassailable point and that is that six years of even intense scrutiny of this Country will not give anyone a true or complete understanding of race relations — or the pain this case has brought because of them. His statement that this is a “major moment” in American history is true, I think. Perceived grave injustices usually bring about social change, not because of the events themselves but because they shine a glaring beacon onto just what a nation thinks about itself.
Too naive, poetic, or esoteric a stance? Ask Cpt. Dreyfus. Or 1970 America one day after Kent State.
To Mespo727272
“Toure’ makes one unassailable point and that is that six years of even intense scrutiny of this Country will not give anyone a true or complete understanding of race relations — or the pain this case has brought because of them.”
And yet they attack him exactly on this point…fascinating.
This is one of the key festering issues. The utter ignorance of the pattern this represents. Just one year ago the same police department had their chief dismissed, the city officials went through the same symbolic change and yet a year later, the paradigm didn’t really change. If officials can’t understand the pain in a part of their community then they are likely to be rather stunted in their response to that community’s concern.
For years gay americans have been ignored for their pains. Atheists mocked for theirs, even hauled up to court. Our history is riddled with so much prejudice and oppression that don’t just leap out by reading a Cornell West book, though that’s a start. It isn’t about knowing who Stokley Carmichael is or even intellectualizing an understanding of the radical messages of Huey Newton, Cesar Chavez, or the voices of resistance in NOW.
There are plenty of folks just waiting to be in a ‘post racial world’. Very cool if you’re so evolved that you just don’t see color. And very unique. It is a rhetorically nonsensical position, and yet we hear it all the time. “oh, George…he’s just color blind, after all he’s hispanic (which simply means you speak spanish and thus means nothing about racism.) Yes, being of an origin other than Anglo can involve racism against another group. I don’t think we have to look far for examples of this outside Anglo-European people. The fact is, there is much more to be learned.
It isn’t hard to see the insincere in this work to get beyond racism. I don’t subscribe to race in the first place so its a bit more complicated question when you start breaking down what doesn’t even exist in the first place and a mass agreement on this non-thing. Might as well believe in unicorns.
Yet, the affect of skin color is clear. “a black man is” leads many calls because the culture hasn’t transcended this distinction. I’m sure some are more clear than others, but it isn’t a one person issue. It isn’t only about George Zimmerman, though his actions brought us all to this discussion point.
To Mespo727272 continued:
“His statement that this is a “major moment” in American history is true, I think. Perceived grave injustices usually bring about social change, not because of the events themselves but because they shine a glaring beacon onto just what a nation thinks about itself.”
I agree. I learned more in individual death penalty cases than the over arching protest against war or against police brutality as a concept. Each case had a name at the time not simply a concept. It wasn’t driven by Facebook, Twitter, or other, but by phone calls, campus work and existing community centers. I do consider these moments to be filled with amazing positive opportunity for those who want a more just world.
Mike Appleton: “As for Toure, a journalist appearing before a national audience does not have the luxury of voicing his personal opinion on the guilt or innocence of a criminal suspect. To do so creates a risk of harm to the suspect’s right to a fair trial.”
Mike,
I couldn’t agree more.
MCM,
No issue with that. My statement was merely to suggest why Thompson works as a journalist despite his unconventional style. That he was a journalist I think is without question. His professionalism compared to a Murrow or the like? Eh, I’m willing to admit that was at times questionable.
Gene, “My statement was merely to suggest why Thompson works as a journalist despite his unconventional style.”
you did great! This is exactly a perfect example of my argument against “professional journalism” having some construct that is stiff, void of the personal view.
Professionalism is such a loaded term regardless of journalism. It is often a term used to abuse people who are doing their job just fine. In the case of journalism it is a clique term often used to give access to particular media outlets. AP, Reuters, CNN, and the networks think they are the only legit services when you are all standing at the same events. They work hard to control the pool feeds, who gets interviews and who gets a scoop. They hate to be outclassed by any independent journalists.