NYTimes Hits Police 'Missteps' in Trayvon Martin Case, Played Own Race Games With 'White Hispanic' Zimmerman
The New York Times's Serge Kovaleski reported from Sanford, Fla. on the many "missteps" in the police investigation into the fatal shooting of black youth Treyvon Martin by George Zimmerman: "In Martin Case, Police Missteps Add to Challenges to Find Truth." Of course, the Times and the rest of the media have made plenty of their own mistakes in covering the volatile case.
Kovaleski's front-page story Thursday glided over a scrap of data pointing toward vindication for Zimmerman: "...One witness, though, provided information to the police that corroborated Mr. Zimmerman’s account of the struggle, according to a law enforcement official."
The paper ignored other more direct news pointing in that direction. Blogger Tom Maguire cited ABC News to accuse the Times of omission: "The NY Times can't quite bring itself to report on the latest news in the Zimmerman case -- Zimmerman's medical file shows he was banged up and Martin's autopsy showed bloody knuckles -- so they hand the mike to the Ben Crump, the Martin family attorney, and rehash every possible mistake made by the Sanford PD."
The Sanford police aren't the only ones guilty of "missteps" in the Zimmerman case. NBC's misconduct in editing the 911 tapes to portray Zimmerman as racist is well known. And National Review's Jonah Goldberg used the Times's lead story on the relative decline of white births in the U.S. to recall the Times's own ethnic gamesmanship on Zimmerman.
Goldberg wrote Thursday morning:
We are going to hear a lot about this in the days to come. Non-Hispanic white births now account for less than fifty percent of all births. One point that is already going by the wayside: More than half of all U.S. Hispanics are...white. Funny how the New York Times only has use for the term “white Hispanic” when it comes to George Zimmerman (and I’m not even sure Zimmerman actually fits the designation).
Indeed the Times referred to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic" in several late-March articles, after the February 26 shooting became a national issue. Goldberg's March 27 Los Angeles Times op-ed noted that under that standard President Obama should be called a "white African-American."
And media critic Bernard Goldberg said on FOX News: "The New York Times, in almost a caricature of a liberal media, refers to George Zimmerman as a 'white Hispanic.' I guarantee you that if George Zimmerman did something good -- if he finished first in his high school graduating class when he was younger -- they wouldn’t refer to him as a white Hispanic, he’d just be a Hispanic....He’s only a 'white Hispanic' because they need the word 'white' to further the story line, which is, White, probably racist vigilante shoots an unarmed black kid."
Washington Post blogger Eric Wemple also found the paper's formulation odd at the time, noting the term rarely appeared in the paper before the Zimmerman case. Times' standards editor Phil Corbett acknowledged the term's awkwardness when asked, but strongly denied any agenda-pushing.
The description has mostly faded from the paper's pages. Yet Zimmerman was called a "white Hispanic man" on the paper's education site The Learning Network quite recently, on May 1.
And a caption attached to a bizarre March 27 online op-ed on the case, likely from a Times staffer, used a case from the slavery era to conflate Zimmerman with "white man": "The message from a Michigan judge: If a white man is pursuing a black man, don’t interfere." Not even the author went that far, though he used torturous language to describe Zimmerman as "non-black": "In short, it appears that whites (or other non-blacks) may hunt down blacks with immunity from arrest so long as they leave behind no clue that they were not acting to defend themselves..."
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
Latinos/hispanics never refer to themselves as "white".
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 3:52pm.
In some corners of the Latino/hispanic community, being called "white" would be considered an insult. So would the term "anglo". Depends on the part of the community, but "white hispanic" or "white latino" just does not enter the self-descriptive vocabulary.
Latinos/hispanics
Submitted by nanabanana on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 4:17pm.
Hi, drsam - I have a question I thought you might be able to answer for me. I read somewhere that the terms Latino and hispanic are not universally accepted, and also that it depends on where you live, etc. Is that true? What is the preferred designation actually? Is being called Mexican considered "bad"? Cuban isn't, nor Columbian, Peruvian, etc. At least I don't think so. My community here in Southwest Washington has a fairly good population of Mexicans/Latinos/hispanics, but I've never heard this 'name thing' being addressed. Thanks.
Ouch!
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 4:56pm.
I once asked a person who was from Puerto Rico (which I didn't know) if he was from Mexico. Boy, did he get angry. I mean he was terribly insulted that I thought he was Mexican.
I don't ask anymore.
Puerto Ricans also don't like
Submitted by rockyracoon on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 5:15pm.
Puerto Ricans also don't like to be thought of as Dominican, and vice-versa either, take my word for it.
Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.
my understanding. after
Submitted by Zippy on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 7:14pm.
my understanding. after living around San Diego, CA.
Mexicans were Spanish and Indians.
Which is an insult to Spanish folks. From Mexico.
There are still some families in Mexico, where they do not inter marry........
But, in my travels in Mexico. The people are like people the world over.
We are all mutts...............
Good question, Nana.
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 8:09pm.
In general, the term "Latino" refers to ANYONE of Spanish or Portuguese heritage living on the American continents. It is considered to be more inclusive for Brazil and other countries that have limited or no Spanish influence to their cultures. Problem is, "Latino" would also mean countries like Suriname which is predominantly Dutch in heritage, Belize which is mostly British (and in Central America versus South America), French Guiana (self-explanatory) and some other exceptions like the Caribbean nations.
Most prefer being called by their country of origin, and it is a grave insult to call a Costa Rican a Guatemalan, or Puerto Rican a Cuban, etc. Being called Mexican is not bad, except if you are not from Mexico.
In all honesty, the two camps (Latino vs. Hispanic) are divided over the issue. Typically, the term Hispanic is used for Centroamericans (though not always--as in the case of Belize), and South Americans prefer the term Latino (same though for those who are NOT of Spanish or Portuguese descent). With the Caribbean, it gets even fuzzier.
I personally use the term Latino and then quickly explain I mean the geography and not the heritage. Even those of us who prefer "Latino" are looked at with some derision by Centroamericans because it makes it sound like we are forsaking our Spanish heritage, which we are not necessarily doing. It's just the mishmash of cultures that comprise Latin America can be very tricky even for those of us in the community.
The best thing to do is always just ask someone where they are from. If they tell you, refer to them by their country of origin or identification. After you get to know them, you will notice they will say they are Americans.
"Anglo" rant
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 9:00pm.
For the record, I HATE "anglo". That means I AM A BRIT. Anytime I start watching local news here, either Austin or San Antonio affiliates, and they start tossing that word around, it is like taking a cheese grater to my nerves.
Call me "white". Call me "caucasian". Call me "pasty". Hell, call me a saltine. But I am NOT a bloody Brit!
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Meanwhile, over at The New York Times . . .
Submitted by cristo on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 4:48pm.
Jill's out walking the dog. Woof, woof.
Do you think that its
Submitted by Pewah on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 5:50pm.
Do you think that its occurred to Mr. Zimmerman yet that if he had shot a white guy instead that the same MSM that is currently crucifying him would then be defending and promoting him as their minority celeb du jour?
I know now that there are some 1/2's in our present day culture are more equal than other 1/2's, but in a hypothetical case of 1/4 black vs. 1/2 hispanic, who would win the hearts of the media? How about 4/4 native american vs. either of those 1/2's? To really confuse things we could add in gay or political affiliation exponents and these things truly become something that only the left would not only appreciate, but consider worthy of consideration. I think being Danish, like me, would put me in a racial category so worthless in the minds of liberals that thousands of our dead bodies could be stacked up to create a bridge over our southern border and the MSM's concerns would certainly be with the awful stench that the illegals were being forced to endure as they climbed over us...lol.
Better yet
Submitted by Dave the mailman on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 6:04pm.
His "get out of jail free" card would have been to claim he is gay, and Trayvon called him 'fag' and attacked him. The shooting would be celebrated. He'd be a rainbow hero!
So ever more, it's looking
Submitted by LinTaylor on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 7:07pm.
So ever more, it's looking like Martin, the "innocent choir boy angel", was beating the snot out of Zimmerman when the latter used his gun. Hmm.
Crips and bloods. It's all business.
Submitted by Zippy on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 7:18pm.
Martin was a crack head. Saw Zimmerman and thought Zimmerman was horning in on his drug trade. It's all just business.
Best time to find an empty house is during a rain storm. The lights would be on, if someone was home.........
Best time to sell drugs. During a rain storm. The cops are at the doughnut shop.
In that vein, Lin, I offer this,
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 8:49pm.
from ABC News, no less. Seems there's more there than the "scratch" that some Kossaks referred to. And, the article quotes two witnesses, who "describe a man on his back with another person wearing a hoodie straddling him and throwing punches".
And, they again bring up that Trayvon's dad said initially, that it was not his son calling for help on the tape. But, after he'd listened to a "cleaned up" version of the tape, and had time enough to consult with the family attorney, claimed that it was Trayvon.
Interesting
Submitted by BuffNBone on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 10:23pm.
It seems like the pictures of Trayvon are becoming increasing older the longer this plays out.
Shockingly
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 10:34pm.
the picture HuffPo has on AOL is a downright threatening looking Trayvon.
Willing to bet that they've
Submitted by BuffNBone on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 10:46pm.
Willing to bet that they've had those pictures all along. They just didn't fit with the narrative.
There's a word to describe Obama.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 2:26am.
There's a word that can perfectly describe Obama's heritage. I won't display the whole thing, least I get accused of racism, but it replaces "n" with "w" in the "n-word." Someone even wrote a song about it.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I never even heard the term before Poor Little Trayvon
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 8:11am.
So, if Zimmerman is a "white/hispanic", is Obambi a "white/black?
Trayvon is so obviously not innocent
Submitted by burnadams on Fri, 05/18/2012 - 10:17am.
Even taking a look at the map of the area, it is obvious Zimmerman didn't "chase down" Trayvon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvFMojcNTF8