NBC fires producer over edited Zimmerman 911 call

[Crossroads Inc.]

From Yahoo News

A producer for NBC News has been fired for editing a recording of George Zimmerman's call to police the night he fatally shot Trayvon Martin.

The New York Times is reporting that "the person was fired on Thursday, according to two people with direct knowledge of the disciplinary action who declined to be identified discussing internal company matters."
The dismissal of the Miami-based producer, whose name has not been publicized, followed an internal investigation by NBC, which led to the network apologizing earlier this week for having aired the deceptive audio.

This photo combo shows George Zimmerman. At left is a 2005 booking photo provided by …
The recording aired on NBC's "Today" show on March 27, when the audio viewers heard suggested that Zimmerman volunteered to police, without provocation, that Martin was black: "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black."

But the tape had been edited, and the portion where the 911 dispatcher specifically asks Zimmerman if the person in question was "black, white or Hispanic," was deleted.

The conversation that actually occurred between the dispatcher and Zimmerman is as follows:
"This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about." Then the dispatcher asked, "O.K., and this guy — is he white, black or Hispanic?" To which Zimmerman replied, "He looks black."

After that phone call on the night of Feb. 26, Zimmerman fatally shot Martin. The 17-year-old Martin was unarmed, and Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer in Sanford, Fla., told police he fired in self-defense after Martin attacked him.

[Related: Did Zimmerman say 'punks' or racial slur in 911 recording? ]
Since then, it has been debated if Zimmerman was racially profiling the teenager, a notion the edited version of the tape reinforces.

The Times reports that NewsBusters, a conservative media monitoring group, first reported NBC's discrepancy on March 30. The following day, NBC told The Washington Post that it would investigate. On Tuesday, NBC said in a statement that its investigation turned up "an error made in the production process that we deeply regret." The network promised that "necessary steps" would be taken "to prevent this from happening in the future" and NBC apologized to viewers.
No steps were specified, but the New York Times reports that the next day "a Miami-based producer who had worked at NBC for several years" was fired, and "people with direct knowledge of the firing characterized the misleading edit as a mistake, not a purposeful act."

[Related: George Zimmerman video shows injury to back of his head ]
On Thursday, Reuters cited an unnamed NBC executive saying "The "Today" show's editorial control policies -- which include a script editor, senior producer oversight, and in most cases legal and standards department reviews of material to be broadcast -- missed the selective editing of the call."

Staff members at NBC News, who had been working on the Trayvon Martin story for weeks in Florida, were initially "in shock" over the altered tape, and later furious, another source told Reuters.
Reuters also reports that "NBC News executives interviewed more than half a dozen employees during their investigation."

On Saturday, the "Today" portion of MSNBC's Web site posted a Reuter's story on the producer's firing.

So hear is my question, has there ever been a Fox reporter fired for the outright lies and "mistakes" they do on a regular basis?

[Dalton]

I feel bad for the editor. They probably got the third degree. If they're freelance, they're probably already out of a job.

[TheHammer]

I feel bad for the editor. They probably got the third degree. If they're freelance, they're probably already out of a job.

I don't feel bad for the editor. Something like that should never have happened.

[Siege]

I don't feel bad for the editor. Something like that should never have happened.

While I won't disagree with the second sentence, the first betrays that you probably have no concept of what the editorial process looks like. If this piece of spectacularly idiotic editing made it on air then it's not just the guy that did the actual editing at fault but also his editor-in-chief, his producer and whoever else was in the loop (or should have been in the loop) higher up the food chain. The guy sweating in the editing box more likely than not has very little input on what the end product looks like, he's just doing what he's told by the higher-ups. It's very easy to say "well this should never have happened" when you're sitting comfortably at home; doing it when your paycheck's on the line, with a deadline and some producer breathing down your neck is something else entirely.

[gizmojumpjet]

While I won't disagree with the second sentence, the first betrays that you probably have no concept of what the editorial process looks like. If this piece of spectacularly idiotic editing made it on air then it's not just the guy that did the actual editing at fault but also his editor-in-chief, his producer and whoever else was in the loop (or should have been in the loop) higher up the food chain. The guy sweating in the editing box more likely than not has very little input on what the end product looks like, he's just doing what he's told by the higher-ups. It's very easy to say "well this should never have happened" when you're sitting comfortably at home; doing it when your paycheck's on the line, with a deadline and some producer breathing down your neck is something else entirely.

Yeah, I'm sure at some point during his career in journalism, the basic fact that it's at least unethical and possibly illegal to simply make shit up was explained to him, so no, I don't give a good goddamn about him either. He made shit up. If he made shit up for a paycheck, fuck him, he still made shit up. "I was just following orders" is not a valid excuse. If anyone else was complicit in this, fuck them too, but it doesn't let Mr. Sweaty in the Editing Booth off the hook at all.

[Dalton]

Yeah, I'm sure at some point during his career in journalism,

Editors are not journalists. They are technical operators.

the basic fact that it's at least unethical and possibly illegal to simply make shit up was explained to him, so no, I don't give a good goddamn about him either. He made shit up. If he made shit up for a paycheck, fuck him, he still made shit up. "I was just following orders" is not a valid excuse. If anyone else was complicit in this, fuck them too, but it doesn't let Mr. Sweaty in the Editing Booth off the hook at all.

Done thumping your chest yet, tough guy? The person ultimately responsible for the editorial decisions got the boot. Is that not enough for you? I sincerely doubt the editor thought they were "making shit up" or complicit in anything so blaming them for the shitty decisions (i.e. "mistake") of what was most likely a segment producer is unfair. Maybe they should fire the tape op, director and anchor as well?

[CaptainChewbacca]

So... if they say they fired the producer but they won't tell us the name, how do we know anyone was actually fired?

[gizmojumpjet]

Editors are not journalists. They are technical operators.

Well gee, it sure is a good thing I referred to his "career in journalism" instead of his "career as a journalist!" If you're doing editing for a news television show, you're in journalism. You ought to know have a grasp of some of the ethics involved, like "don't make shit up." I've never taken a journalism class and even I know that.

Done thumping your chest yet, tough guy?

Sorry, but expressing an opinion that someone involved in an absolutely despicable distortion of the truth isn't chest thumping or being an ITG. It's not like I put a bounty out on the guy, dead or alive.

The person ultimately responsible for the editorial decisions got the boot. Is that not enough for you? I sincerely doubt the editor thought they were "making shit up" or complicit in anything so blaming them for the shitty decisions (i.e. "mistake") of what was most likely a segment producer is unfair. Maybe they should fire the tape op, director and anchor as well?

If anyone else was complicit in this, fuck them too,

I guess you missed this part of my post. Just so we're clear on my thinking: I think that anyone who knew about the distortion committed in this case and did nothing to stop it should be fired. If you really think that somehow or another an audio editor can't tell that re-arranging a 911 tape so that the aired content is dramatically different from the original is making shit up, and can be excused for not knowing that making shit up is bad because they just a technician, well, I just don't believe that you're being realistic. But who really cares because no matter how hard I thump my chest there's really a bigger issue here:

So... if they say they fired the producer but they won't tell us the name, how do we know anyone was actually fired?

That is a very good question Mister Captain Chewbacca! It is indeed a conundrum. If I don't know who they fired, how do I know if I should even begin to think about considering giving NBC the benefit of the doubt about anything ever again? And assuming someone was indeed fired over this, I'd really like to know who he is in case he winds up working somewhere else, so I can make sure not to pay any attention to them anymore.

[SCRawl]

gizmo, I'm not sure how much more wrong about this whole situation you could possibly get.

Regarding the editor: as Dalton said, he's just a technician. He's as guilty of wrongdoing as the gunsmith who repairs a rifle for someone who then goes on a killing spree. He gets an order from his boss to splice some audio together according to some specifications, and he does it. He might not have any idea about how it's going to be used. If that offends your sensibilities, well, that's your affair.

Regarding the anonymity of the producer: we aren't entitled to know that person's name. It's a matter of employment between him and NBC, and naming names in public would be the sort of thing the producer could sue about. For an on-air personality, this can't be avoided, but for a "behind the scenes" journalist it can. The reasons for having lost his job at NBC will naturally come up in his next job interview, and if another news agency hires him anyway then you'll just have to hope that his new employer will be satisfied with his level of integrity.

[Simon_Jester]

gizmo, I'm not sure how much more wrong about this whole situation you could possibly get.

Regarding the editor: as Dalton said, he's just a technician. He's as guilty of wrongdoing as the gunsmith who repairs a rifle for someone who then goes on a killing spree. He gets an order from his boss to splice some audio together according to some specifications, and he does it. He might not have any idea about how it's going to be used. If that offends your sensibilities, well, that's your affair.

I'd be really surprised if the editor couldn't guess from hearing the footage why it'd been spliced that way.

[Flagg]

gizmo, I'm not sure how much more wrong about this whole situation you could possibly get.

Regarding the editor: as Dalton said, he's just a technician. He's as guilty of wrongdoing as the gunsmith who repairs a rifle for someone who then goes on a killing spree. He gets an order from his boss to splice some audio together according to some specifications, and he does it. He might not have any idea about how it's going to be used. If that offends your sensibilities, well, that's your affair.

That's ridiculous. It's more like the gunsmith who repairs a rifle for someone to go out on a shooting spree, knowing full well the intentions of the person he's fixing the gun for. Anyone with a brain could tell you that what the producer was asking the editor to do was wrong.

[SCRawl]

I'd be really surprised if the editor couldn't guess from hearing the footage why it'd been spliced that way.

A guess? Sure, he could make an educated guess, perhaps even an informed opinion about the purpose behind the audio. He might even have been certain in his own mind as to its purpose. Is this product of his mental processes enough to stop his work and voice his displeasure, or perhaps make a principled stand for journalistic integrity? Only someone unfamiliar with the role of a technical editor would think so.

[Purple]

Say he does do all that, understand its wrong and why and decides to take a stand and refuse to do it. Won't that just get him fired while someone else will do the job instead? On the other hand if he shuts up and complies and than later the evil is exposed than its the producer (the guy that told him to do it) who gets fired. Seems to me like he did the right thing here.

[Omega18]

I'd be really surprised if the editor couldn't guess from hearing the footage why it'd been spliced that way.

A guess? Sure, he could make an educated guess, perhaps even an informed opinion about the purpose behind the audio. He might even have been certain in his own mind as to its purpose. Is this product of his mental processes enough to stop his work and voice his displeasure, or perhaps make a principled stand for journalistic integrity? Only someone unfamiliar with the role of a technical editor would think so.

Furthermore, its possible to see someone not really thinking things through and just going through the technical motions viewing this is simply a cut of some audio for time purposes and nothing more significant.

(Something which actually happens all the time with TV for time purposes and in some instances is not really problematic.)

Now certainly you can make the argument that a really good self confident technical operator really should have at least brought this to the attention of the producer or someone else involved in the production process, the potential issue of the cut as they wanted it to be made in case it had been overlooked, but it really is not their job. If he gets an answer around the lines of "we're aware of that and are handling it" he really can't hold up the process any longer without putting his job at serious risk. (And crucially as noted there is the possibility he/her didn't even realize there was a problem with the cut as made as they were going through the technical motions actually exists.)

Basically its other people in the production process who are really supposed to be considering these things and making certain something like this doesn't happen, not the person engaging in the mechanics of the audio cuts.

[Flagg]

Well I would think "the right thing" would be to go over that producers head. I think you would have a responsibility to not just follow orders. I feel bad that the editor was put in the shitty situation they were, it's kind of an impossible one, but if they didn't know what they were doing was at the very least questionable then I have to wonder if they should be working in that area of Television production.

[Dark Hellion]

Again, a point that is being missed is that you are assuming that the editor was listening and processing the words that were being said and edited out and thinking about their meaning and implications. In all likelihood he was just making sure that the audio synched up and everything sounded right and for all he cared he was editing Flava-Flav's reading of James Joyce's Ulysses.

You are assuming malice because it aligns with your prejudices and allows for the proper amount of outrage and vitriol instead of examining how such a process could occur.

[Flagg]

Again, a point that is being missed is that you are assuming that the editor was listening and processing the words that were being said and edited out and thinking about their meaning and implications. In all likelihood he was just making sure that the audio synched up and everything sounded right and for all he cared he was editing Flava-Flav's reading of James Joyce's Ulysses.

You are assuming malice because it aligns with your prejudices and allows for the proper amount of outrage and vitriol instead of examining how such a process could occur.

You're a mind reader now? I'm not assuming malice on the editors part, I'm assuming negligence.

[Dalton]

Ultimately the producer makes the final call. If the editor questioned the integrity of the story, he may very well have discussed it with the producer, who would have told him to go along with it anyway. In any case, aside from the fired producer, others involved were subject to disciplinary actions as per Steve Capus.

Editors are not journalists. They are technical operators.

Well gee, it sure is a good thing I referred to his "career in journalism" instead of his "career as a journalist!" If you're doing editing for a news television show, you're in journalism. You ought to know have a grasp of some of the ethics involved, like "don't make shit up." I've never taken a journalism class and even I know that.

Oh, so it's semantics we're playing. Fine. Yes, the editor was "in journalism", inasmuch as a technical operator who may also work in sports, entertainment or advertising may also be "in" those careers. Yes, they may have a grasp of the ethics involved. No, it's not a job requirement for an editor, because the people in editorial and S&P ultimately review and are responsible for the output of the network. The editor is just there to cut the fuckin' show, and if he's given a bunch of time codes to hack together, that's what he'll do. You haven't even shown that this editor was aware of the context of the original call, so maybe didn't have a basis for "don't make shit up". Even if he did, you don't even know that he didn't mention it to the ex-producer.

Sorry, but expressing an opinion that someone involved in an absolutely despicable distortion of the truth isn't chest thumping or being an ITG. It's not like I put a bounty out on the guy, dead or alive.

Fine, you're not an ITG. Just a pontificating armchair pundit pointing a finger of shame at someone who's probably up to his neck in shit.

If anyone else was complicit in this, fuck them too,

I guess you missed this part of my post. Just so we're clear on my thinking: I think that anyone who knew about the distortion committed in this case and did nothing to stop it should be fired. If you really think that somehow or another an audio editor can't tell that re-arranging a 911 tape so that the aired content is dramatically different from the original is making shit up, and can be excused for not knowing that making shit up is bad because they just a technician, well, I just don't believe that you're being realistic.

How do you know the editor did nothing to stop it? The official explanation is that a "mistake" was made, but even if the editor knew what was being said and reported the issue, the producer ultimately, again, has final cut. The segment producer took the fall because it was their responsibility. The editor is, if a freelancer, probably seeking other gigs or got reamed out. I think enough punishment has been dealt.

But who really cares because no matter how hard I thump my chest there's really a bigger issue here:

So... if they say they fired the producer but they won't tell us the name, how do we know anyone was actually fired?

That is a very good question Mister Captain Chewbacca! It is indeed a conundrum. If I don't know who they fired, how do I know if I should even begin to think about considering giving NBC the benefit of the doubt about anything ever again? And assuming someone was indeed fired over this, I'd really like to know who he is in case he winds up working somewhere else, so I can make sure not to pay any attention to them anymore.

Well gee, maybe it has something to do with the fact that crazy vigilante assholes would track them down and send hate mail and death threats.

[SCRawl]

Well I would think "the right thing" would be to go over that producers head. I think you would have a responsibility to not just follow orders. I feel bad that the editor was put in the shitty situation they were, it's kind of an impossible one, but if they didn't know what they were doing was at the very least questionable then I have to wonder if they should be working in that area of Television production.

It's pretty hectic in a news room. With all of the news agencies these days, the pressure to "scoop" everyone else is pretty high, and so time is of the essence. In an ideal world, yes, the editor would (after unloading his opinion about whether or not creating the clip is a good idea to the producer who ordered it) go over his boss' head for a higher level of approval. (We don't know that he didn't, but personally I think it unlikely.) In the world in which we live, though, that clip was probably wanted in short order, with the unspoken threat of "if you can't do it by the top of the hour, I'll find someone who can".

As Purple and Omega18 pointed out: even if the editor was aware of what the clip was to be used for -- which can itself be called into question, but is ultimately irrelevant -- the decision about whether or not to create it is out of his hands. A journalist makes that decision, and a technician is not a journalist.

[Flagg]

Fair point.

[Rogue 9]

Besides, if the order was "we have five minutes of audio, cut out everything between 1:45 and 3:00," for instance, he doesn't even need to listen to it as a cohesive whole to do his job. It would serve just as well to listen around the cuts to make sure he didn't cut a sentence in half and send it on. I'm not willing to condemn a technician who stands a high probability of not even knowing the specifics of what he was ordered to do.

[Skylon]

Regarding the editor: as Dalton said, he's just a technician. He's as guilty of wrongdoing as the gunsmith who repairs a rifle for someone who then goes on a killing spree. He gets an order from his boss to splice some audio together according to some specifications, and he does it. He might not have any idea about how it's going to be used. If that offends your sensibilities, well, that's your affair.

To clarify, the article said a producer was fired. Not an editor. If that title hold the same as the job my girlfriend does at her radio station, which is writing newscasts for on-air reading, complete with recommended cuts of audio clips, then, yes the person who told the cutting room editor what to do, was canned.

[SCRawl]

Regarding the editor: as Dalton said, he's just a technician. He's as guilty of wrongdoing as the gunsmith who repairs a rifle for someone who then goes on a killing spree. He gets an order from his boss to splice some audio together according to some specifications, and he does it. He might not have any idea about how it's going to be used. If that offends your sensibilities, well, that's your affair.

To clarify, the article said a producer was fired. Not an editor. If that title hold the same as the job my girlfriend does at her radio station, which is writing newscasts for on-air reading, complete with recommended cuts of audio clips, then, yes the person who told the cutting room editor what to do, was canned.

Reading the thread before commenting is, in general, preferred. My comment was in response to TheHammer and gizmojumpjet, who suggested that anyone associated with the asinine decision to produce the edited audio clip ought to suffer the same fate as the producer. No one has suggested that the editor was fired, and no one thinking things through has suggested that he ought to have been.

[Skylon]

Reading the thread before commenting is, in general, preferred.

Its because I hate you and 6:40 AM hates me. Also the Editor got brought up quickly in the discussion and I got my facts crossed.

My comment was in response to TheHammer and gizmojumpjet, who suggested that anyone associated with the asinine decision to produce the edited audio clip ought to suffer the same fate as the producer. No one has suggested that the editor was fired, and no one thinking things through has suggested that he ought to have been.

Then we are on the same page.

[Block]

Well I would think "the right thing" would be to go over that producers head. I think you would have a responsibility to not just follow orders. I feel bad that the editor was put in the shitty situation they were, it's kind of an impossible one, but if they didn't know what they were doing was at the very least questionable then I have to wonder if they should be working in that area of Television production.

Typically the orders to do shitty stuff like this come from over the producer's head, so trying to go over their head is chancy. Ideally yeah, you blow the whistle, but the business guys are where a lot of the shitty ethics come from.