>-----Original Message-----
>From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 10:22 PM
>Subject: [ZION] Trial by Media
>What cracks me up, and would make me laugh if it 
>weren't so pathetic, is 
>the way people suppose they know whether someone is 
>guilty or innocent 
>because of the media coverage of a high profile trial.  
>Consider the Martha 
>Stewart trial, for instance.
>She was found guilty of all four counts given to the 
>jury.  The jury saw 
>all the evidence in court and unanimously found her 
>guilty even though each 
>juror had passed the veto of the defense during jury 
>selection.  Yet a CNN 
>poll on the website showed that only about 60 percent 
>of the website 
>visitors thought she should have been convicted.  
>Another 40 percent 
>thought she should have been acquitted.
>On what basis? They weren't on the jury.  They didn't 
>see the evidence or 
>hear the witnesses.  All they have to go on is media 
>coverage.  What is the 
>point of having a trial if guilt or innocence can be 
>determined without 
>one, without hearing the evidence or both sides of the story?
>The mob mentality, driven by the media, would be 
>laughable if it weren't so 

You mean, sort of like the OJ trial?


///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!

Reply via email to