More Disabled Readers
We've only pointed out the liberal media's rush to support an agenda that doesn't quite jibe with the facts at hand. We listed their errors and pointed out their omissions and for that we're accused of all sorts of racism. Racism?
What's the quote? "Better a hundred guilty men go free, than one innocent man suffer." Unless of course, you're a liberal with an agenda and then damn the facts and let's find us a rope and a tree, right?
And the latest from the Zimmerman case? The New York Times again, backing off earlier assumptions for Zimmerman being a paranoid headcase:
- First, Times reporter Lizette Alvarez reported on March 16 and again on March 20 that Mr. Zimmerman "placed 46 calls to 911 in 14 months"; even NPR eventually noted that those 46 phone calls ran from January 2004 to the present, so "46 calls to 911 in eight years" is the phrase they seek. Yet no correction is appended to either story, nor was the error addressed in their big walkback/walk away piece. Is it relevant to the story? The Times thought so when they reported it, and some might find that it reveals a bit about Mr. Zimmerman's paranoia, or lack thereof.
So the New York Times went from reporting 46 calls in 14 months to 46 calls in 8 years? That's what, 6 calls a year? Hell, we call 9-1-1 more than 6 times a year and we don't even run a neighborhood watch organization. So much for paranoia.
Labels: scc responds