You've got some facts messed up here.
First, I never criticized the "mainstream media" for playing up the no injuries video. I said ABC news attached the line "No bruises, injuries" to that video, which I thought was irresponsible on their part. A poor quality video, and they're making definitive statements about bruises/injuries? That's irresponsible journalism. Not even up for debate.
But the DailyCaller video where they say the can 'see an injury' on the back of the head - that was something you were completely willing to stand behind, to post as evidence to the contrary. You did not seem to have any issue with their claims - which is my entire point. You complain about people finding things that fit their narrative, complain about the media making claims off some grainy video - then you source a media site that makes a claim off a grainy video and use it to fit your narrative.
Ironically, just yesterday Good Morning America (ABC) were the ones to show the "enhanced video", and injuries being visible.
There was also a "conservative site" that made the same claim earlier, and their analysis did come to same conclusion ABC eventually did.
I bet when Good morning America made that analysis, you stopped giving them grief eh?
The bottom line is that I was arguing in favor of uncertainty, rather than an exact point of view, like YOU are. There is a massive difference between our two points of view, but for some reason your brain interprets "not agreeing with me", as "must be choosing the other "side".
Not even close to an issue - I had no problems with you disagreeing with me, you could disagree, give me a counter argument - and I would do the same - no issue.
My problem is, again, with your holier than thou attitude, you are as 'guilty' of the absorption of media bias as anyone else, and it's obvious that when it fits your argument, well the media is no longer being bias - is it?
Again, big differences here. The video comes, with ABC labeling it with "no injuries", and many people immediately posting here "No injuries! No broken nose!".
In the video though we see an officer examining the back of his head, and we see what appears to be some sort of marks on the back of his head. We also have a police report saying there was "blood on the back of his head". Do you see where this is going?
What are you even saying here? The ABC video said "Surveillence video has surfaced that appears to show Zimmerman without any injuries" - how is that particularly bad, or un-newslike? How is what the daily caller did any different? And why does a police officer LOOKING at the back of his head have anything to do with it? It could easily be said that he was checking to see if there was anything there of note - and his lack of interest indicates that there isn't.
Do you not see how it's ironic that you give something so innocuous so much value, but then complain when people give the video
itself value?
3 different arrows pointing in the same direction. There is evidence to suggest those things amount to something being there. Whether it was severe or not isn't the point. People making immediate claims of "nothing" stand in direct contrast to other pieces of evidence. In the end I hope we have pictures to settle this once and for all.
Three different arrows that you have given value
1. Police looking at the back of his head - this can mean absolutely anything, yet
you choose to apply a particular narrative to it
2. Something you claim is an injury, via your own personal perspective - but trump around like it is something objective, regardless of arguments to the contrary
3. The police report - do I need to tell you why something like that might be taken with extreme criticism in this case?
I dare you to look at the gifs from a few pages back and tell me those daily caller enhancements are wounds. Dare you.
You're kidding yourself if you believe the mob mentality in this thread allows for any respect of anyone now towing the mob line. It's happened a hundred times in this thread already. Someone shows up with a contrary view, and is replied to 5 times telling them how racist, dumb, or insane" they are.
And I'm being the judgmental one?
You're a fool if you think you can just step into a thread, throw up a contrary position, talk down to everyone around you and expect to be treated with respect. How many contrary positions have I held, have other people held - that people have not met with disdain and yelling? Quite a few - what makes your position different? You're acting like a dick.
