Media vs. jury
Media vs. jury
I watched closely the media's coverage of the George Zimmerman trial. I watched pundits nightly remind me that Trayvon Martin was a young “black” man and Zimmerman was a “white” man. For whatever reason, they wanted me to remember that more than anything else.
So I did. I concluded that particular views of society's ills and the relative state of affairs of race in the U.S. were not the charge to this jury.
There is no redeeming rationale to regurgitating our grievances over matters that were of no concern to these six women. They had a specific role to play, limited to rendering a verdict consistent with the law. They performed that “focused” responsibility — to the letter of the law.
The media wanted all past indiscretions addressed by this trial. These jurors could not possibly have been expected to fulfill their pledge to the court by considering anything other than the facts before them.
Now, if a discussion needs to occur about flaws in the system, or about how some have a greater advantage and others lesser, let's have that discussion. But to include it in the happenings in Sanford, Fla., does a disservice to those who still respect this system and believe in its integrity.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Atheists & religious expression
- Article painted wrong picture
- Show appreciation
- Mitochondrial disease awareness
- Thomas’ ‘humanity’
- Pols’ real interest
- Hope for spinal cord injuries
- ‘Trust’ in God
- Fitz draws ire