The Maverick Conservative

The follwing FACTS came out today:

1.  The wall that the tiger evidently jumped is NOT "20 feet high" (first reports).  It is NOT  18 feet high (later statement by zoo spokesman).  It is NOT 16 ft., 4" high, as recoomended by the zoo accrediting agency.  It is 12 feet, 5 inches high.   That was announced by the zoo director. 

Remember that absolute IDIOT that the AP quoted (a former director of the zoo)--a quote I put in this blog, and correctly RIDICULED.   The guy, and other experts, were quoted--as gospel--by the media that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the tiger to jump that high without help.  This total idiot SPECULATED that the VICITMS put a BOARD in the moat to help the tiger get out.  The guy evidently failed to know that the wall was "only" 12 feet, 5 inches tall.

2.  There was no water in the "moat".  Now members of the media, based on the zoo statements seemed to be under the impression that there WAS water in the moat.  That had actually puzzled me. I have seen a number of zoos with a "moat" that does not actually contain water (the idea of the DRY MOAT seemingly being to deter the wild animals from easy access to the wall/fence).   Note, however, that the media FAILED to discover that elementary fact (being to busy in back fence gossip SPECULATION).  Is it not "journalistic" (these people do not deserve to be called "journalists") MALPRACTICE to not even find out and report the basic facts--such as no water in the "moat" and the height of the wall/fence?  Of course it is.  It shows how BAD the present media is.

3.  The zoo directer said that present information indicates that the tiger DID jump the wall.  You have to take this with some grains of salt, as it is not a FACT.  It is an assumption, based on the lack of any contrary information and the newly revealed actual height of the wall.

4.  There is evidentally NO evidence that the victims were "dangling" a leg over the barrier.  The San Francisco Chronicle story about a SHOE found in the encousure was FALSE (according to a police news conference:  see next entry).

Despite the above, the media still seems to be unwilling to totally abandon the SPECULATION about "taunting"  I just saw Fox News continue to refer to "police sources" saying that the police still had indications that the victims were where they weren't suopposed to be, and the police still "suspected" taunting.  Notice that this is STILL SPECULATION, with few facts (other than reference to "evidence" that the police refuse to specify).  There is also a somewhat gratuitous SLAM that the two surviving victims were failing to cooperate with the police (small wonder, given the media LYNCHING--I was an attorney for 30 yers, and any attorney worth his or her salt would advise refusal to cooperate when these VICTIMS already seem to be the TARGETS of a criminal investigation/media witch hunt).

Now is it possible that the victims were "taunting" the tiger?  Sure, but there is NO EVIDENCE of any serious "taunting", even hough the media has virtually "convicted" the victims of it.   If a leg was not "dangled", how serous is it that the victiims MAY have been in an unauthorized area and MAY have been teasing the tiger FROM A DISTANCE.   Let us agree that if the victims managed to throw things at the tiger, and get close, that would be pretty despicable.  But there is NO EVIDENCE of such a serious thing.  There is NO EVIDENCE of "dangling a leg".  "Your mama" is NOT enough.  Jumping up and down, and YELLING at the tiger, FROM A DISTANCE, would NOT be--in my view--serious taunting.  It may represent a violation of the rules, if they did it from an unauthorized area, but you surely would expect youthful visitors to sometimes wave, or yell, or jump up and down, to get the attention of the tiger (without intending to be cruel or provoke an attack that they would consider impossible).  Again, the FACTS are sparse, and yet the media (including Fox News--part of the PROBLEM and not part of the solution)  CONTINUE to SPECULATE.  This is EVIL stuff.

Consider how badly the media BLEW IT.  They FAILED to find out the solid, and seemingly easy to discover, FACTS.  Instead, they engaged in BACK FENCE GOSSIP and SPECULATION--much of which has turned out to be FALSE.  It is a truly terrible performance--at least as bad as the zoo.

Look at the zoo.  WITHOUT measuring, they stated the fence was 18 feet (and somehow have the media the initial impression it was 20 feet high). HOW can you present "facts" without even minimal verification?  There is no excuse for it.  Heads should indeed roll.  But the media, with a performance at least as disgraceful, simply goes on without seeming to recognize how truly BAD their performance was.  Heads should roll there too, up to and including the death of entire media organizations.

Mike Nifong must be kicking himself:  "If only I had remained ANONYMOUS, I would be fine."  Then he must be absolutely astonished that the media that eventually VILLIFIED him is doing the very same thing over and over again--often with "facts" that turn out to be FALSE. 

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this