America Live once again showed a shocking racial insensitivity by hosting Mark Fuhrman as a neutral analyst for the opening argument of the George Zimmerman trial. What’s even worse than hosting Fuhrman in the first place is that Megyn Kelly and her America Live staff knew from Fuhrman’s previous appearance discussing the case that he has already suggested that Zimmerman is the victim of a racial witch hunt and that he has described Trayvon Martin as a possible “dead suspect.” This time, Furhman reiterated his bias by saying that Martin “definitely could have left the scene” but chose instead to confront (i.e. instigate aggression toward) Zimmerman. And how did host Kelly react? By adding her own sympathetic-to-the-defense remarks.

Fuhrman seemed to take a stab at fairness and balance as he said that both the prosecution and the defense “get a little piece of this pie.” But his comments were almost entirely anti-Trayvon Martin:

I think that Trayvon Martin definitely could have left the scene. He was younger, smaller, quicker and he had a head start. He could have left the scene. But the evidence suggests that he paused, waited or turned to actually meet George Zimmerman who was following him or lost track of him. And that’s when the altercation took place. So I think either side is barking up the wrong tree as far as the altercation location or who exactly initiated it. The fact is, is no crime was committed by pausing, talking or confronting.

No crime committed but suggesting that Martin gratuitously confronted Zimmerman also suggests Martin was the aggressor.

Kelly could have and, in my view, should have noted that no evidence has yet been presented at trial and urged that Fuhrman should wait for that to happen before concluding what it suggests. Instead, she distorted the question of guilt or innocence by suggesting that Zimmerman was being (wrongly) accused of being “out to get” a thug.

And the whole question is what was in George Zimmerman’s head. Was he out to get this, you know, kid. (She made air quotes around “kid”) whom he was profiling (another set of air quotes) as the prosecution wants us to believe. Or was he just trying to protect the neighborhood and things went awry when he started to suffer a beat down as the defense would claim?

In fact, the “whole question” is whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense, not whether he was “out to get” Martin or was “just trying to protect the neighborhood” when he suddenly “started to suffer a beat down.” But Fox’s coverage has been so pro-Zimmerman, you might think of it as their own contribution to his defense costs.