Fox News’ demonization of Trayvon Martin – which just happens to coincide with the tactics of shooter George Martin's legal defense - continued today when a former police detective on Fox News Live, an online show, announced that “Trayvon Martin would be alive today, OK, if he didn’t, alright, have a street attitude."
Ever on the lookout, apparently, for ways to use the case to promote racial tensions, Fox’s Uma Pemmaraju brought up the subject of race when she chose an email to read, asking how the lawyers will deal with the issue in choosing a jury. “The blacks will tend to side with their own race as will the latinos and the whites,” she said, supposedly quoting the sender. She asked former detective Harry Houck to respond.
“It’s a possibility,” he acknowledged. “This isn’t 100% foolproof.” Then he said that the lawyers would plant seeds in the minds of juries that would remain even after a judge told them to disregard it. He added:
She (Fox News’ Tamara Holder, also part of the discussion) was talking about the Skittles, you know, that he had, and the Coca-Cola that, you know, that Trayvon Martin had. …That doesn’t look good, you know, for the defense because (the prosecuting attorney is) injecting something into their minds. … Like this is a little kid with candy walking around the street.
Listen, Trayvon Martin would be alive today, okay, if he didn’t, alright, have a street attitude. That’s the bottom line.
When Holder suggested that “street attitude” could be construed as racist, and noted that she had been told that the use of the word “thug” had been construed as racist, Houck said, “That’s insane,” and laughed.
Following the break, Raw Story reports:
The Fox News host noted that “we live in a society right now that’s extremely focused on being politically correct.”
“Personally, I think people who use the word ‘thug’ or believe that the word ‘thug’ is a racist [word] is racist themselves,” Houck opined. “You know, because I call somebody a thug, I’m a racist? No. I don’t think so. I mean, that’s crazy.”
Maybe it isn't racist but it's certainly another attempt to demonize Martin - and it's worth noting that nobody knows precisely what happened between Martin and Zimmerman.
The video below via Raw Story. The post-break discussion was not included.
(3/14/20 Update: Video is no longer available)
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/centerstage/2013/06/08/does-the-evidence-prove-trayvon-martin-was-murdered
Which ones, paulhue? Links?
.
As far as I know, hate speech and hate crime are still classified on a seven stage hate model. Though it’s actually far more complex than how I’m going to boil it down, it runs on this system-
Bigotry is divided at the “Phylum” into people who are genuinely motivated by hate (Irrational) and people who merely see hatred as a tool in an agenda (rational). Don’t say I mean “Kingdom,” because using this imagery, “Kingdom” would be the type of hate- Racial, Religious, Sexual…
This is then further divided into “classes” people who are reactionary, thrill-seeking, and sociopathic.
It is then divided “futher” into orders, which is their the closest someone can determine to a primary motive. This is where it starts to get complex, but they’re all just variations of Agenda, Nationalism, Nihilism, Mission Orientation, Opportunism, and Sadism.
Disclosing that I’m not especially well-versed in this, other than my background and a very small amount of formal training, let’s use this model against Fox News’ coverage of the trial. Tell me how I do.
Fox News is not easily categorized… They’re all rational bigots who know they’re employing racial discord and enjoy it. But, on the next level, it’s difficult to say if they’re sociopathic or thrill-seeking. Many of them are both, and I can’t tell which one they lean more towards.
As a unit, I want to say they’re more thrill seeking, because the seem to enjoy the results they get when they successfully rally their viewers into hateful behaviour. They don’t seem to have a consistent agenda beyond ratings, they’re too in control to qualify as reactionaries. Well, a few of them are (Jesse Watters is the very definition of a reactionary), but the Thrill seekers are the large majority, and Hannity’s the only one I can say has a clear enough stake in racial agenda to put him in that class with a straight face. Well, Beck as well if you still count him.
“Order” is where I can’t handle them as a group anymore. I’m not even sure I could divide it by percentage. I mean, there’s the ones where even the most lamen person alive can tell what they are after only a couple incidents- O’Reilly is a sadist, Hannity’s mission oriented, Kelly’s an opportunist, etc…
So… yeah. Not entirely relevant, but an interesting point I hope to see a more qualified individual looking into someday. I just bring it up when it hits enough of a head for me to see if that person fell into Newshounds’ lap.
And with that… Time for work. Be nice with my little amateur psychology, it’s still better than Ablow’s.
The only “street attitude” Trayvon Martin had was being on the same street as George Zimmerman — who’s actually to blame for his death . . .
.
Well, it all depends on WHOM you call a “thug.” While the word is actually pretty neutral, we don’t routinely hear it being used by white men or conservatives EXCEPT in pejorative senses, such as “union thugs” or certain young men of the African-American persuasion. When the word is used in the latter sense, then YES, it IS racist and YOU are a racist. That you have to ask such a thing shows that you don’t know what racism involves, you Hack.
