Did Orlando Sentinal change the story?

[vanlassie]

Lawrence O'Donnell just read a quote several times to the reporter. He said there was to attribution for the following: "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose." He made the point, more than once, that this statement was made as fact. That there was no attribution. In fact, he said "Now it doesn't cost you a lot of print to add "according to Zimmerman, according to the police."

So I went to the article, and there is this:

Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police.

Did they get in there and fix it after this spanking by LO'D?

[The Magistrate]

1. Very Poor Quality Fiction, Ma'am

Creative writing is one more thing this dim mook is a failure at.

[fishwax]

2. wasn't Zimmerman's first story that Martin jumped him from behind as Z was returning to his truck?

[vanlassie]

3. Yeah- he jumped him from behind and punched him in the nose!!!

Using his Go Go Gadget arm.

[freshwest]

4. Next, they'll say Zimmerman never left his SUV and Martin was a carjacker?

That appears to be the perception they are trying to sell here.

[Paul Johnson]

5. Did Orlando Sentinel Change the Story?

It's really difficult to tell because Google News makes it difficult to find earlier versions of the same story. The article that you read was updated at 7:35 pm EDT, and thus might explain why Rene Stutzman was careful to say "if you go to that article you will see." It seems quite possible that O'Donnell was looking at the version of the article that was published in the morning edition of the Orlando Sentinel. I tried to find the earlier version on Google, and then on Lexis/Nexis, but was unsuccessful. Stutzman or some editor at the Sentinel well might have changed the title and the text of the article during the course of the day; since most people only see the online version, that's really easy to get away with.

[X_Digger]

6. Or Lawrence's writers didn't think he'd take their clips of the article literally.

It's pretty clear that this is Zimmerman's account, you don't have to preface every sentence with, "According to Zimmerman.."

[Paul Johnson]

7. Or Lawrence was reading from an earlier version of the article

Good news! Even though the original article has been removed from the Orlando Sentinel website and replaced with a rewritten version (7:36 pm ET), the Sentinel syndicates its stories, and you can find the morning version reprinted in The Age (Australia). Here is the section that Lawrence was citing, and you will note that only one statement of the narrative is specifically attributed to Zimmerman: "Police have been reluctant to provided details about all their evidence, but this is what they've disclosed to the Sentinel:

Zimmerman was on his way to the grocery store when he spotted Trayvon walking through his gated community.

Trayvon was visiting his father's fiancee, who lived there. He had been suspended from school in Miami after being found with an empty marijuana baggie. Miami schools have a zero-tolerance policy for drug possession.

Zimmerman called police and reported a suspicious person, describing Trayvon as black, acting strangely and perhaps on drugs.

Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Trayvon on foot. When a dispatch employee asked Zimmerman if he was following the 17-year-old, Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to do that.

There is about a one-minute gap during which police say they're not sure what happened.

Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.

Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his mobile phone, he told police.

Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose."

[grasswire]

8. excellent research!

Thank you for finding that!

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. "you don't have to preface every sentence with, 'According to Zimmerman..'"

Um, yes you do.

[X_Digger]

12. Not if you explain that what follows is a person's account..

That would get ridiculous, otherwise.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. Um, no, you're wrong

The reason you attribute every sourced utterance is because people don't necessarily read newspaper articles from start to finish. That's why you don't get to run some sloppy writing that maybe suggests an attribution up front, then drops it the rest of the way through. Doing so is deceptive in the extreme. This has been clear practice in journalism for decades. You include a signal phrase throughout your article when you are citing from sources. Doing so is especially important when the source is purportedly describing a event as factual, but the reporter can't independently confirm that. Any kid on a high school paper could tell you that.

Indeed, the best evidence that you are wrong is what the paper did to the article after their sloppiness had been revealed: the revised article includes signal phrases throughout.

[X_Digger]

18. Read below on the other syndicated article..

The original had attribution peppered throughout.. Just not in every single sentence.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. It should have a signal phrase in every **sourced** sentence

That's basic journalism. Why? Again, because the reader might pick up the article and read just that sentence, and walk away thinking it is a factual statement being made by the reporter, rather than a claim of fact being made by an interested source. You learn this on Day 1 at the high school newspaper.

The ethical duty not to mislead overrules any consideration like "stylistic appeal." Basic journalism. Good journalists and editors generally don't writer stories where every sentence requires a signal phrase, because that's usually mouthpiece journalism anyway, as it is here. And even then, good journalists know how to vary their signal phrases and sentence structure to include proper sourcing while avoiding redundancy: that's what being a good journalistic writer is all about.

In this case, the point is even more clear and disturbing: one of the only sentences without attribution in the article is the claim that the whole dispute rests on? Really? That strikes you as appropriate journalistic practice for stylistic reasons? It's ludicrous.

[X_Digger]

20. Maybe I give readers more credit than they deserve.

Wouldn't be the first time people have surprised me with their inability to read, comprehend, and synthesize.

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. There's nothing wrong with readers

People don't read newspapers the way they read novels or scientific reports or mortgage contracts. That fact, and the social role of newspapers, are built into the ethical system of journalism. There's nothing wrong with a reader who sits on the can, starts glancing over a newspaper article, notices a sentence stated as fact, gets distracted by something, stops reading, and comes away thinking that the statement was verified fact, when it was, in fact, a much disputed claim by an interested source.

There is, however, something deeply wrong with the writers and editors who would allow such a thing to happen through their sloppy or deceptive writing. They are bad journalists at best, deeply unethical propagandists at worst.

[X_Digger]

23. I guess I'm the exception, then.

Of course, I'm an avid reader of other things, too. I go through four or five books a week depending on size.

[deutsey]

13. Things may have changed since I was in journalism school

but that's what we were taught:

Attribution, attribution, attribution.

I remember one professor telling us don't worry about it sounding repetitive ("police said" or "according to police", for example). It's important to cite where you're getting your information. If it's an eyewitness account by the reporter, you still need to put it in there somewhere as well. "A reporter for the Orlando Sentinel who was on the scene observed blah blah blah," or you put something at the top of the story indicating this article is an eyewitness account by the reporter.

In this article, there's only one clear citation and that's near the end.

Yeah, the exchange between the dispatcher and Zimmerman is a matter of public record, but even there I would have put something like "according to 911 recordings released by police".

But who knows? Maybe all that stuff is old school these days.

[X_Digger]

14. Here's another syndicated link to what appears to be the original..

http://www.smh.com.au/world/was-trayvon-to-blame-shooter-claims-teen-punched-him-slammed-his-head-into-ground-20120327-1vvns.html

Reading that article, there's no doubt (to my mind, at least) that what we're reading is Zimmerman's account.

"That is the account Zimmerman gave police"

"Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened, but that night, February 26, and in later meetings he described and re-enacted for police what he says happened."

"In his version of events, he had"

"reached for his mobile phone, he told police."

"head into the sidewalk, he told police."

[deutsey]

15. That's an example of what I'm talking about

I was commenting on what was posted above.

I'll look over the link you posted, but if it's clearly stating the information is coming from Zimmerman and from police (the marijuana, etc.), then that's what you're supposed to do as a journalist. Although to avoid confusion, it should be clearly stated that what follows is Zimmerman's or the police's account. And it wouldn't hurt to say, "Zimmerman's account contradicts claims by the legal team representing Martin's family, who allege blah blah blah." Or something like that.

[X_Digger]

17. Could it be clearer? Sure..

But I wouldn't expect every sentence to be attributed. Not when it's being told in a narrative.

Maybe I'm just giving the journalist a break, or I read way too much DU.

[deutsey]

22. I've looked it over and the article does have better attribution than the original excerpt I saw

However, you're right...it is sloppy in places (how does the reporter know Zimmerman got medical treatment the next day?), and it wouldn't have hurt to do what my journalism professor said and be repetitive in attributing sources. I agree that to have an attribution before or after every sentence would be silly, but sprinkling them throughout the article (especially toward the end) may have helped avoid confusion.

Just my opinion, fwiw.

[X_Digger]

24. Ahh, maybe this was a later version than the one that Paul Johnson excerpted above.

In any case, I agree, it could have been clearer.

[grasswire]

9. yes, they did!

Thanks for the heads up.

[DonCoquixote]

10. Hell yes

Do not forget, this was the same GOP drag that did all it could to destory Alan Grayson.