Last Updated on May 6, 2012
UPDATE: Snopes.com now reports that the photo purported to be shooting victim Trayvon Martin flipping off the camera is not of the same Trayvon Martin that was shot to death, but of a different youth with the same name.   The points about the conspiracy theory outlined below are still valid, and now even more so:   the same people who seem to want Martin portrayed negatively have been calling for the media to use an inaccurate photo to make the comparison!
If you’re on Facebook, you’ve probably seen the graphic that’s floating around in the wake of the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin. If you’ve looked at the four images, two at a time, side by side, and just read the questions without thinking about it — which is always the goal of conspiracy theorists — then you might even have been taken in by the accusation.
If you’ve really taken time to study the images and think about what’s being asked, you’ve probably realized something very interesting about those raising the questions: they’re clearly just as biased as they accuse the “media narrative” of being.
Take a look at the image:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/Pattboy92/News/trayvon-media-narrative.jpg
Four Photos
Based on what we know from the earliest reports following the shooting, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was small for his age. The top right photo of him is clearly not a photo of a five-year-old boy. I can’t imagine anyone seriously thinking that looks like a kindergartener. When you compare the size of the head in the top right picture to that of the bottom right, you don’t see much of a difference.
When you look at other photos of the boy online, you see that he looks virtually the same size in most. And the few sites that attempt to date that top right smiling photo list it as being two years old, indicating that he was 15 — not five — at the time that photo was taken.
But what’s a minor, ten-year difference in the life of a boy who only made it to 17? Or, to put it another way, why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?
Then there are the two photos of George Zimmerman, the self-appointed community watchdog who police say gunned down Martin. Zimmerman claimed he fired in self-defense after being jumped from behind.
The one on the top left is a 2005 booking photo. If he’s 28 now, he would have been about 21 at that time. So why would the media use an outdated photo of the defendant?
The answer is simple, and here’s the reality check: that booking photo is a matter of public record. That means that is easily available to the media. The media do not, as conspiracy theorists might believe, have nice glossy headshots of everyone it reports. Unless news organizations can get their hands on a school yearbook — which in Zimmerman’s case would have produced a photo that would have even been more out of date — or the man’s Facebook page, and be sure that it’s the Facebook page of the real person and not someone else who happened to be named George Zimmerman, their  safest legal option is to go with a booking photo.
Someone had to send the media the nicer portrait of Zimmerman smiling and in a suit. Or the media found it on their own as the story continued to develop. But such a headshot wouldn’t have been immediately available right after the shooting unless the shooter happened to be a well-known celebrity.   Zimmerman, as far as we can tell, was not a celebrity.
The fourth photo, the lower image of Martin, appears to have come from a Facebook or Myspace page, and shows Martin wearing a cap, saggy jeans revealing his boxers, and flipping two birds to the camera. A certainly non-angelic, “thug-like” looking pose that seems to play on multiple stereotypes of young African American youth. An interesting alternate choice from the conspiracy theorists.
Two Leading Questions
Let’s look at the text:
Don’t believe in the “Media Narrative”?
Then why are you being shown this…
(5-7 years old)Instead of this
(current)
The first question is clearly leading: the person asking it has already made up his mind that not only is there a “media narrative” at work here, but that you are falling for it.
But it’s the second question that is even more telling. And the key issue involves one single word: instead.
Why are you being shown a pair of photos, it asks, that depicts the adult as unshaven and emotionless, side by side with a photo showing the victim with an innocent smile? The insinuation is that the Zimmerman photo intentionally makes him look uncaring or cold. Both look like they could be driver’s license or ID photos; we only know the Zimmerman photo is a booking photo because that has already been reported.
When they ask why are you being shown those two images instead of the lower pair. This implies that the second set is more appropriate, or that it at the very least would indicate that there wasn’t a narrative at play.
So now you have a nice looking, smiling adult side by side with a teenager displaying a vulgar hand sign with both hands and dressed in a “gangsta” style.
If this is somehow the preferred set of photos, one has to wonder how anyone could believe that there isn’t some kind of desired “narrative” that someone wants to see.
The Real Question Not Asked
The ultimate proof that this is a conspiracy theory is what goes unasked. In fact, that missing question is so obvious that it amazes me that anyone would pass around such a photo.
If we’re really looking to quash an example of unfairness in the media, the question anyone with such a concern should be asking is why the two smiling shots — the lower left and upper right images — aren’t the ones being shown.
Like this one I found on ABC News’s website:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/Pattboy92/News/zimmerman-martin.jpg
ABC News, last time I checked, is a relatively large part of the media, and certainly a big player in coverage of this particular story.
In this image, the playing field is level. You have two smiling, presumably innocent people. No expression or gesture to influence one’s opinion about either is present.
No “narrative” to be found.
Why wouldn’t a conspiracy theorist want that on display if he truly had no agenda of his own?
I think one of the problems with the MSM today is the rush to get a story on the air to be the “First†coverage of a news story. I think in the rush to be the first, they do not have time to verify all of their sources or they do not get the best source. In the Trayvon Martin case, they grabbed to first photos that they found without verifying the photo. The other problem is us, we want instantaneous news, and we want to find out about a news story NOW. I remember the assignation of President… Read more »
I think one of the problems with the MSM today is the rush to get a story on the air to be the “First†coverage of a news story. I think in the rush to be the first, they do not have time to verify all of their sources or they do not get the best source. In the Trayvon Martin case, they grabbed to first photos that they found without verifying the photo. The other problem is us, we want instantaneous news, and we want to find out about a news story NOW. I remember the assignation of President… Read more »
Patrick, I think you misunderstood the “5-7 years old” caption. “5-7 years old” refers to the age of the photograph itself not the person in the photograph. You state that the booking photo of Zimmerman is from 2005, 7 years ago. As 7 years ago corresponds to the upper limit of the age of the two photographs and corresponds to the photo of Zimmerman, it is a reasonable assumption that the “5” the corresponds to the age of the photo of Martin. If that assumption is correct and Martin was 17 at the time of his death, then he would… Read more »
 @JohnH3 John, Even if misunderstood the 5-7 year reference, as best as I can tell, it’s STILL inaccurate, because the photo of Trayvon appears to be only 2 years old.  As I pointed out in the article, it has been reported from the beginning that the boy was small for his age, which could easily explain why he could look younger than his real age, no matter when the pic was taken.  By and large — and this comes from someone who WORKS in the media — there’s no general collusion to intentionally use “bad” photos for people “we don’t… Read more »
 @patricksplace How about innaccurate representation by using a picture that is not even of Trayvon since that bottom “thug” image of him is a different Martin Trayvon still alive?
 @patricksplace Hi Partrick! Thanks for the reply. This would certainly be an easier conversation in person, verbally but, writing will have to suffice. I warn you, I get wordy. 🙂  There is so much swirl and misinformation surrounding this tragic story but, I don’t think your article is as much about Martin and Zimmerman as it is about media coverage and perceptions of media coverage, so, let’s pursue that.  Let me also say that I’m trying not to generalize about individual members of the media. There are good journalists in the MSM but there also are bad journalists… Read more »
 @JohnH3 John, thanks for the discussion and the disclaimer.  First, let me clarify my work in the media. There was a time when I was a reporter. My area of concentration now is more in the area of promotion, so I do not have any say in what my newsroom does and doesn’t cover; that’s a major reason why I can reasonably do commentary on news coverage, as I’m in no direct position (other than on this blog, of course) to dictate what is actually covered.  Having said that, I do believe that IF police had taken photos… Read more »
 @patricksplace Very good! Seems we do agree on a few things.  I’m sure you have “heard it all” at one point or another in the media business. Keep in mind thought that even the most vehement media critics, and I’m talking about the talking heads e.g. Brent Bozell, Bernie Goldberg, etc, do not suspect a “dark agenda” or even a conspiracy but rather more of a symptom of the “group think” due to the common political ideology and common training found int he industry. So, we agree that there is no conspiracy but we likely still disagree that there… Read more »
 @patricksplace BTW, I was just reading your 24 MAR post on Justice for Trayvon and saw this in your timeline, “Zimmerman has a bloody nose and a wound to the back of his head.” No pics yet, as we discussed, but I didn’t realize that this detail was known as far back as the 24th.
Cheers!
 @JohnH3  @patricksplace Thought you might find this interesting, if you haven’t seen it already. Seems that the Orland Sentinel, at least, had a picture of Martin in a hoodie much earlier than they had the smiling Hollister t-shirt picture. Because the hoodie picture was deemed (by whom?) to be “incendiary”, it was replaced with smiling picture. It seems that the media did alter the content of the news so as to portray a different narrative, opting for a picture of Martin given by his parents rather than that of Martins self-portrayal from his Twitter page. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/videogallery/69125947/News/Behind-the-photos-of-the-Trayvon-Martin-case
 @JohnH3 John, now really, did you listen to that video?  Their explanation pretty much confirms everything I GUESSED about in the beginning.  The “hoodie” photo of Trayvon was WIDELY circulated.  The media certainly didn’t hide that picture.  It is the fact that this photo was so well-seen and well-known that led people to post pictures of themselves wearing a hoodie as a protest of the way police handled the case.  So you can’t say that the media didn’t give that photo quite a run.  When you’re talking about a victim of homicide, particularly a child, the media will use… Read more »
 @patricksplace Thank you again for the reply.  I think you are overblowing my point. I’ve said over and over again that there is no “conspiracy”. I pay a lot of attention to news (too much, if you ask my wife. 😛 ) and I hadn’t seen the b&w photo of Martin in his hoodie until I saw it in the video piece. I had only ever seen the Hollister T shirt pic.I think it is a significant point to make that the photos were swapped because one was deemed “incendiary”. Why was it considered incendiary? By whom was it… Read more »
 @patricksplace Woops. I wanted to give you a blatant example of bias and false narrative and I’d like your analysis.  Watch this video from MSNBC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI White racists with guns showing up at Tea Party rallies because Obama is black. Notive how the footage is edited and looped to only show the rifle and pistol.Now, what appears to be the raw footage of the same man with the same rifle at the same rally: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcJmtZWb3hs  Amazing how that video was “accidentally” edited, removing the portions which showed the face and skin color of the man with the rifle. … Read more »
@JohnH3 Correcting the record. Two posts ago I incorrectly identified ABC as the network which selectively edited George Zimmermans 911 call to make it appear as though Zimmerman’s actions were based on race. The elective editing was actually done by NBC (oddly, the same network, for all intents and purposes, that edited the video in the above post to make it look like Tea Partiers were armed racists. Is this a pattern for NBC?)Excerpted from a RedState.com story on the subject: Here is the transcript of the NBC segment: Zimmerman says: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good.… Read more »
 @JohnH3 I’m going to do a separate post on the footage you recommended with a few points on the way you and others characterize it.  With regard to Rush Limbaugh, I don’t talk a lot about him, because, you see, I don’t listen to him.  Limbaugh isn’t a journalist, nor does he have any ounce of objectivity in anything he says.  I honestly haven’t heard ANYONE defend Biden for some of the things he’s said.  As for making fun of the president, if it was wrong to do it for Bush, I have to wonder why so many… Read more »
 @patricksplace I saw the headline for your separate post and am looking forward to reading it. Would it be a conspiracy if I thought I was the inspiration for that article? :)I don’t mind making fun of any political figure, oar anyone, including me, for that matter. I love comedy. There is a line between good fun and mean spirited attack. Poking fun at Bush’s “strategery” and such are good fun. Branding him an “idiot” for common slips of the lip that we all make is another. It’s all in the delivery. My other objection is right up your alley… Read more »
 @JohnH3 I will assure you that there’s no intent to poke fun at you — or any other specific person, for that matter — in the new post.  You’ve brought up some good examples that I felt needed their own post.  I understand your concerns about Obama vs. Palin and Biden.  But I respectfully submit to you that this ALWAYS goes on and it ALWAYS depends on your political party.  When Obama makes a gaffe, Democrats excuse him and Republicans call him an idiot.  When Palin makes a gaffe, Republicans excuse her and Democrats call her an idiot.  It’s… Read more »
 @patricksplace Patrick, no poking, in jest or otherwise was construed. I think you’re a good guy and I like our discussions. 🙂  My point on the gaffes isn’t that Democrats or Republicans excuse their own guys (or gals as the case may be), it’s that the MSM treats D’s and R’s differently based on the D or the R. I fully expect it from the politicians. Sadly, I expect it too from the MSM, but the point is that the double standard should not be there from the MSM coverage.  For example: How many stories were there in… Read more »