Sunday, October 26

Is cable news overreacting to an Ebola diagnosis in New York? Jay Carney on Obama's relationship with the press; Donna Rice Hughes on Monica Lewinsky's comeback.

Is cable news overreacting to an Ebola diagnosis in New York? Jay Carney on Obama's relationship with the press; Donna Rice Hughes on Monica Lewinsky's comeback.

July 10th, 2011
01:29 PM ET

When a trial becomes entertainment

Howard Kurtz, Lauren Ashburn and Diane Dimond debate why Casey Anthony's trial received wall-to-wall media coverage.


Filed under: Casey Anthony • Crime • Media • Nancy Grace
soundoff (103 Responses)
  1. Gutter Guards

    What a great article, thanks a lot for sharing such a great and informative piece.

    July 4, 2013 at 3:53 am | Reply
  2. Lachu79932

    Oh Diane, Diane, what to do with you? Pushing negative comments about you , so people don't see them, because you thing they won't bother to scroll down... Your resourcefulness is undeniable. That's exactly how you've managed to stay in the business for so long. But, are you ethical? Absolutely not. Michael Jackson couldn't have said it better: ...Anything for money, even sell your soul to the devil..."

    November 28, 2012 at 6:12 pm | Reply
  3. Nina Hamilton

    'Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds' – Albert Einstein.

    'The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it; ignorance may deride it, but, in the end, there it is. – Winston Churchill.

    Nina Hamilton.
    West Midlands.
    United Kingdom.

    November 28, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Reply
  4. Pharmk301

    Very nice site!

    November 27, 2012 at 6:29 am | Reply
    • MNLady

      Diane your little ploy won't work. Filling this page with jibberish (not YOUR normal jibberish) so people don't scroll down and read legitimate comments shows how desperate you truly are.

      November 27, 2012 at 6:52 pm | Reply
    • mjtruthnow

      Pharm301-What is your problem.You must be one of the hacks on HLN or Diane Dimond trying to push the negative comments about the purveyors of lies that whip up the media frenzy. It actually turns my stomach a bit to have Diane Dimond pontificating about the ratings game that she so skillfully played for most of her career. The bigger and more scandalous the lie, Dimond and others made their careers this way up to and including offering thousands of dollars to people to invent stories. Dimond even caught caught a few times but has never apologized. Nancy Grace's part in sensationalizing this trial and behaving like an unofficial judge/jury members is disgusting. I hope they all learned something in counting chickens before they hatch. Dimond and Grace should have learned their lesson back in 2005. Let the justice system do its job.

      November 27, 2012 at 9:26 pm | Reply
    • LadyBee

      Diane Dimond is a total nutcase! She has staked her entire pathetic career on maligning MJ. Now that he is gone she feels lost because she does not have much to write about. She is only interested in high profile cases where she can call attention to herself. Her ridiculous lies about MJ have been exposed! She needs to crawl into a hole and stay there for eternity! She has long gone past her due date and we can't stand to hear one more word from her about MJ. Whether she likes it or not, MJ's star is going to shine while she will soon be forgotten and treated with the utmost scorn that she deserves. Even her own children are going to be ashamed of her appalling behavior. Leave her to wallow in her utter mediocrity! Enough!

      November 27, 2012 at 11:12 pm | Reply
  5. Pharme560

    Hello! egfdabd interesting egfdabd site! I'm really like it! Very, very egfdabd good!

    November 27, 2012 at 6:29 am | Reply
  6. Pharmb223

    Very nice site!

    November 27, 2012 at 6:29 am | Reply
  7. Pharmb270

    Hello! bfbgdfa interesting bfbgdfa site! I'm really like it! Very, very bfbgdfa good!

    November 27, 2012 at 6:28 am | Reply
  8. Pharmg275

    Very nice site!

    November 2, 2012 at 6:39 am | Reply
  9. Pharmb88

    Hello! dkcgedg interesting dkcgedg site! I'm really like it! Very, very dkcgedg good!

    November 2, 2012 at 6:39 am | Reply
  10. Pharmd28

    Very nice site!

    November 2, 2012 at 6:39 am | Reply
  11. Pharmf197

    Hello! fakcaee interesting fakcaee site! I'm really like it! Very, very fakcaee good!

    November 2, 2012 at 6:36 am | Reply
  12. Pharma828

    Very nice site!

    September 4, 2012 at 2:29 am | Reply
  13. Pharme548

    Hello! dbgkcaa interesting dbgkcaa site! I'm really like it! Very, very dbgkcaa good!

    September 4, 2012 at 2:27 am | Reply
  14. Pharmc988

    Hello! bkeecbe interesting bkeecbe site! I'm really like it! Very, very bkeecbe good!

    September 4, 2012 at 2:22 am | Reply
  15. pregnancy information

    I am extremely inspired along with your writing skills as neatly as with the structure to your weblog. Is this a paid subject or did you customize it your self? Either way stay up the excellent quality writing, it is rare to look a great blog like this one today..

    September 1, 2012 at 2:32 pm | Reply
  16. Pharmd362

    Hello! efekdef interesting efekdef site! I'm really like it! Very, very efekdef good!

    April 15, 2012 at 11:13 pm | Reply
  17. Sadie

    This is an outrage. Diane Dimond should NOT be allowed to cover the Conrad Murray trial, she is a tabloid reporter and nothing more. She does nothing but report FICTION as facts when she has no proof or anything to back it up with. She gets her money off trashing Michael Jackson and it has to be stopped. Enough is enough. This is so wrong on so many levels and it's time people finally woke up and saw just how hateful and cruel this woman is. Slandering someone, let alone about anyone should be a crime, especially reporting it on the news. maybe its just me but I want to see TRUTH being reported on the news, not some news outlet's personal opinion and they report that as facts to the audience...Opinions are NOT facts. Diane Dimond wants nothing more than to continue to smear michael's name and get her pubiclity and money off that. How wrong is that? It shows that Diane Dimond has absolutely NO class or morals. In this life, it's quite important to have those two qualities and it's very clear this woman lacks that. Diane Dimond never has any evidence to back up her so called claims with when she trashes Michael, she only states that she has her sources and isn't willing to expose them. Plain and simple, Diane Dimond should be banned completely from covering the Conrad Murray trial, she needs to learn in this life, you make your money off someone else's misery, only paints a clear picture of how low one person can stoop. It's time for some respect in the news outlets and time to get the reporters/journalists who only choose to report fiction off the air ways....Its time for FACTS, not opinions to be reported.

    September 15, 2011 at 11:36 pm | Reply
    • joyce c luffman

      thank you so much for the great words for michael... i can't stand diana diamond the reason she want say who her sources are is because she made it all up... i wonder if she a racist myself! all anyone needs to do is read the court transcripts of the 2005 mj trial... michael was innocent... the con artist mother wanted money she lied also her children lied!!! rip michael!!!

      November 3, 2011 at 10:15 am | Reply
  18. Pharma593

    Very nice site!

    September 13, 2011 at 8:34 pm | Reply
  19. Pharmd490

    Hello! kddcbfe interesting kddcbfe site! I'm really like it! Very, very kddcbfe good!

    September 13, 2011 at 8:34 pm | Reply
  20. Pharmk932

    Very nice site!

    September 13, 2011 at 8:34 pm | Reply
  21. Pharmb16

    Hello! dcekdfe interesting dcekdfe site! I'm really like it! Very, very dcekdfe good!

    September 13, 2011 at 8:30 pm | Reply
  22. JOC

    Diane Dimond is not and never will be a expert on anything! She has no journalistic integrity, she's just some tabloid hack. I wish people like this did not exist in the mainstream media. The Michael Jackson case was a disgrace, and it's time there was some apology made to his family over this whole affair. Unfortunately alot of people were brainwashed and believed he was guilty with people like Dimond trying to distort the facts, or just simply lying. I value true credentials and good research over this poor, lazy, lying type of journalist. I can only hope though.

    September 5, 2011 at 5:00 pm | Reply
  23. Rosie Real

    How absurb the media has become. Heard that Dimond never attended an accredited university where she ought to have received a degree in journalism, including at least one course in media ethics and media law. The way she followed that crook DA Sneddon around, I bet she is more than just a media ho.

    August 1, 2011 at 5:29 pm | Reply
  24. Marie Paul

    I normally enjoy watching CNN but seeing Diane Dimond being given air time and proclaiming to be an expert is very disappointing, I have watched her try and destroy Michael Jackson over the years , there is evidence that what she has proclaimed about Michael has no substance and yet she still continues with her defamatory remarks, give us a break and get rid of tabloid junkies like Diane....the public are becoming a little more aware at how these people work, anything for a dollar and using underhand tactics. I read Tori Tompkins comment which goes into more detail of Dianes past...no need for me to reiterate.

    July 22, 2011 at 12:39 am | Reply
    • Seiya

      This is an excellent DVD. The sound and pirtuce quality is brilliant and the songs and music videos are some of the best around. The King Of Pop is great! Brace Yourself A good intro to the DVD showing clips of Michael performing live in front of many fans. Brace Yourself Billie Jean This is one of the best Michael Jackson videos ever released. A highlight. The Way You Make Me Feel This nine and a half minute version is great and also rarely seen! Black Or White My all-time favourite Michael video. It made me laugh at the beginning and the rest of it was brilliant! Rock With You Not keen on the song but I love the video! Bad The full-length 18-minute version is a must-have! It shows Michael as a young school boy at the beginning. Thriller Possibly the most popular Michael video. It needed to make this collection! Beat It A great video and a great song. Another highlight. Remember The Time I just love this video! Not only is the song good, but it includes a great egyptian-style video! Don't Stop Til You Get Enough Not one of my favourites, but not bad either. Heal The World This song and video end the DVD nicely! Overall, this may not be as good as History On Film: Volume 2 or Dangerous: The Short Films, but it's still worth the money.

      November 11, 2012 at 9:55 am | Reply
  25. Listen Up

    Don't you people in the media get it, we don't want to hear from Diane Dimond on any issue. If you chose to continue with this nonsense then we have no other choice than to find a RELIABLE news source.

    July 21, 2011 at 8:13 pm | Reply
    • SeptSpirit

      This is what the public can expect from Dimond. Hysterical slanderous story telling.
      KING: Do we — hold it! Does anyone here — does anyone here — anyone — know of the existence of these letters?
      DIMOND: I absolutely know of their existence!
      KING: Diane, have you read them?
      DIMOND: No, I have not read them, but I absolutely know that that was tops on the list of the DA and sheriff’s department, things to look for inside Neverland. Listen, Larry, these are letters that are written in Michael Jackson’s hand. They are said to be — no, I’ve not read them, but they — they went after them because they’re said to be so sensational and so salacious in nature that this could be a key to the prosecution.

      When pressed about her certainty of the letters Dimond got very defensive. Consider this entertaining exchange between her and Pixley :
      PIXLEY: I think it’s inevitable that they’re going to report the story in one way, though, Larry, and that’s to say that Michael Jackson is guilty of these charges…
      DIMOND: Oh, BS!
      PIXLEY: … before there are even charges. I’m sorry, Diane…
      DIMOND: Baloney!
      PIXLEY:… have you entertained for a moment the idea that these love letters that you know nothing about may be just that, nothing?
      DIMOND: First of all, Chris, I do know about them, and I know about them from high law enforcement sources. But I have always said, I don’t know if Michael Jackson is a pedophile. This charge should go to court.
      PIXLEY: You said they play it close to the chest, you think this is a good DA’s office that doesn’t leak stories, that play it close to the chest. But you know from high-ranking officials exactly what these letters say, or at least…
      DIMOND: I didn’t say I know what they say!
      PIXLEY: … what they are likely to say…
      DIMOND: If you’re going to…
      PIXLEY:… that they’re salacious.
      DIMOND: And you know what, Chris? Get it right! I get it right when I quote somebody! You get it right when you quote me!
      PIXLEY:Who are you quoting about the letters, then, Diane, so we can get it right? Who is it that you’re quoting?
      DIMOND: I’m not going to…
      PIXLEY: You don’t have anyone to quote.
      DIMOND: … give you my sources! I’m not giving you my sources!
      PIXLEY:Then why are we talking about this as though it’s a fact?
      IN FACT, IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT THERE WERE NO 'LOVE LETTERS'

      SeptSpirit
      DD, you really should take a serious look at your demented obsession with MJ. You've shown again how little you actually know about him, his desire not to tour, and his future plans.
      The judge throwing out MJs $100million suit against you, was the single most devastating thing that could've happened, and set a bad precedent. It gave you, and others of your ilk, carte blanche to continue to be an outrageous, rumor mongering, brazen *itch. It served to sanction Medialoid reporting- infiltration of Tabloid sensationalism into mainstream journalism.
      What kind of ethical reporter would go on national tv and state in fact that he was a Pedophile, as you did on LKL? What kind of reporter would make the media junket carrying a pair of underwear in a plastic bag, that she believed might be MJs?
      In all sincerity, you clearly have a problem you should seek help for. As MJ would say, you, DD, desperately need LOVE.
      There is a reason millions around the globe appreciate and love him. Put down the poison pen and report on MJs unparalleled humanitarianism. You might learn something of value when you actually do research instead of taking as truth, what your "sources" tell you. Those of us who have taken the time to know his heart, also know he was incapable of harming children.
      "This Is It" had dual meaning. Yes, the last concerts, but also- If we don't stop environment degradation and hating one another, we're done for. Clearly, you can't comprehend his message. Your loss, dear.

      1:36 pm, Nov 1, 2009
      DianeMDimond
      you are incorrect. I never stated on Larry King Live or any other program that Michael Jackson was a Pedophile. I never went on a media junket "carrying a pair of underwear in a plastic bag."
      Just because Jackson fans spread mountains of misinformation about what I've said or written about doesn't make it true. Have a good time in your idolatry ... Facts are my business.

      5:17 pm, Nov 2, 2009
      SeptSpirit
      Lies are your business.
      In case you've forgotten what you said on LKL?
      DIMOND: ... Michael Jackson is a pedophile. This charge...
      PIXLEY: You said they play it...
      DIMOND: ... should go to court.

      http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/24/lkl.00.html

      In her Court TV report last March on Vaccaro's collection, Dimond is shown daintily lifting the soiled briefs and speculating that they might contain "DNA evidence." When the camera was turned off, Vaccaro recalled, "she told me she was going to call the prosecutor about this."
      http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/2005/03/15/2005-03-15_did_jax_re porter_brief_da_.html

      When I relocate the video, I'll be back to post it.

      SeptSpirit
      Was it difficult Diane, to have every instance of that embarrassing report (with the underwear in the baggie) removed from the internet? Gone the way of Sneddon's embarassing unprofessional press conference.

      Halperin mentions it in Unmasked on page 245.
      There's also mention in a Grace transcript.

      http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/30/ng.01.html

      DIMOND: ... in the wardrobe closet, I have to admit, it wasn`t my most shining moment as an investigative reporter, but I did note the underwear. And the Santa Barbara D.A.`s office did come and get it during the criminal trial, and I believe they did test it. They were Michael`s.
      (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
      UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Two trucks, around 30 people, unloading nearly 2,000 items, items that once belonged to Michael Jackson and the rest of his talented singing family, gold and platinum albums and shoes. If you bid the highest price, anything crammed inside this room at the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino can be yours.
      UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s an extraordinary body of material. In sheer volume, it`s probably as large, if not larger, than other collections that we`ve ever had.
      UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: From the 1960s with the Jackson Five to Michael`s solo success, the auction brings you up close and personal to the entire Jackson family. The auction is sure to draw the curious and the fanatics.
      UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, I don`t know. See this? That`s somebody`s white briefs that were soiled, right here.
      UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Calvin Klein underwear.
      UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t know whose they are, and I`m not about to find out. But they`re soiled.
      UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How big are they?
      UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t know, and I don`t want to know! (LAUGHTER)
      UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you mind if I check?
      UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go ahead.
      UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They`re size 28.
      UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, they`re not mine.
      UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Henry, you know...
      UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They`re not mine! (LAUGHTER)
      UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ... that might have some DNA on it.
      UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It probably does.
      (END VIDEO CLIP)
      The "Unidentified Female", of course being you, Diane. And the "Unidentified Male", Vacarro.

      I hear the infamous undies are going on the auction block. Will you be bidding? You can display them in a shadow box next to his Fedora. Which remains a mystery. Why would someone who despises Jackson as much as you claim to, desire to own any of his personal possessions? I guess that's one best left for a shrink.

      SeptSpirit
      Another question for you to ponder DD. It's inevitable that one of MJs children is going to stumble upon one of your salacious and inaccurate Medialoid attacks of their father in the annals of history- media reports and interviews. If one of his children writes to ask why you told so many lies, why you stated as fact that he was a Pedophile, why you hated him to the core of your being and held such a personal vendetta, why you stalked an innocent man to death for 16 years and continue in death.... How will you respond?
      Will you have the integrity to tell them that stalking and slandering their father was how you earned your unethical living and what you built your pathetic career upon? Will you tell them that you never bothered to meet their father, that you possessed no facts about him, only salacious rumors from unidentified "sources"(which in fact, could be proven to be no more than figments of your over-active, biased imagination)?
      What precedent does this set for your own children? They'll read the same reports, and with any luck, articles that report the truth. Will they wonder about your motive as well? Will they view your behavior as admirable and honorable or painfully embarassing?
      2:02 pm, Nov 1, 2009

      July 22, 2011 at 1:24 am | Reply
      • VeteranTeacher

        You did a fantastic job with your research. Anyone who has any doubts about Ms. Dimond's disgusting tabloid pedigree has now been presented with the truth about her. CNN should know better than to ask her on for commentary. They know she is not a trained journalist, but they brought her on anyway because they think the American public are idiots with short memories. Given what is happening in the world today with all the media scandals, wake up people and demand to be told the truth. Shame on CNN for allowing the queen of tabloid sensationalism, who tried a case in the media with malice and vindictive intent, come on their newscast and outright lie to it's viewers. An apology and/or a retraction is in order.

        July 22, 2011 at 6:22 am |
      • joyce c luffman

        i hope and pray with all my heart that michael jackson's children sue her and win... she is a total disgrace of a reporter... she told flat out lies outside the courthouse on mj's trial... if she is on any news show i turn the channel... why did she hate him so... the reason she want tell who her sourses are is because she made it all up... i hope if michael's children go to any red carpets events... that do the cut direct to all of hollywoods celebrity's that told complete lies on their father....the mj trial transcripts of 2005 are on the internet all anyone has to do is look it up and read... michael jackson was innocent odf all the charges in 2005 and 1993... diamond make me sick at my stomach... she is nothing but a liar... and one of these days she will get what is coming to her....rip micael

        November 3, 2011 at 10:37 am |
  26. cawobeth

    Media discussing over-kill of a story ?? Is this supposed to be funny ?

    I am sooo sick of commentary. Did you know that there is real news of concern occurring while you devour time with your opinions of opinions ? Media talking about the perverse sensationalism of media; how much lowers can you go ? Well, obviously you lack scruples to be so bold as to insult yourselves with the presence of Dimond and to quote O'Reilly, of all people, too.

    It behooves me why Dimond is even considered for commentary. Is CNN desperate for attention ? She's no crime expert. Wake-up. She's simply succeeded in promoting herselfl. She is a self-proclaimed "investigative reporter"; big difference. This is so outrageously & disgustingly ironic to have Dimond speak about this subject, I can hardly believe this. Since you call your show "Reliable Sources", I suggest you invite such.

    Dimond has gained the reputation & earned the status of a tabloid journalist so why, for sake of any integrity left of media, does ANYONE invite her for commentary ? You couldn't have insulted yourself more except maybe by having Grace there. Ha, ha, ha...Dimond & Grace friends; birds of a feather, though I shouldn't insult birds.

    There can be no way that CNN is ignorant to the manipulative & trash mouth of Dimond. She dare speak of tainted cases ? If you want to consider Dimond an expert, this is what she is an expert at, tainting stories. She sabotaged one of the most famous cases in history. Dimond worked as hard as she possibly could to taint the case of Michael Jackson. She actually accompanied Sneddon, who was already known to be a corrupt officer, to Mr. Jackson's home repeatedly to TRY & find something on him. And she still has a vendetta for Mr. Jackson, even since he was acquitted by hard, cold FACTUAL evidence. How sick is that ?

    I find inciting controversy, by having such guests to be a very lowly way of grasping for ratings.

    I ask you, if you even care that your viewers have any respect for you, I highly suggest that you respect yourself first. Respect begets respect as does disrespect.

    And I could care less that you THINK Anthony is guilty !!

    July 21, 2011 at 1:18 pm | Reply
  27. Susie

    DIAMON, GO TO HELL! THAT IS WHERE YOU AND OTHER DEVILS ARE BELONG TO!

    July 20, 2011 at 10:09 pm | Reply
  28. V. Brame

    Tabloid journalism is ruining the American judicial system and I sincerely hope that Diane Diamond will be removed from coverage of the Conrad Murray trial. Her coverage of the Michael Jackson trial was a disgrace. She disgustingly slanted and outright made prejudicial comments and personal opinions which were damaging to Michael’s presumption of innocence. Her personal attacks didn’t stop once he was acquitted. If there is a way for her to put Michael Jackson on trial and drag his name through the mud during the Murray trial I know she will find it. Surely the national networks can find reporters with journalistic integrity that can set aside their own prejudice and cover news stories without turning the coverage into the National Enquirer or a kangaroo court. Will ethical media coverage of news coverage please stand up?

    V. Brame
    Westland, Michigan

    July 18, 2011 at 3:18 pm | Reply
    • T. Gallagher

      V. Brame, This is a great comment. Please send it also to Entertainment Tonight and CBS who have also used this woman as a so called "Michael Jackson Expert," just recently. I am sure we will hear from Dimond on one news source or the other if we don't speak up now.

      July 18, 2011 at 9:34 pm | Reply
    • Sue Adams

      Awesome Vee! Thanks sister for your brilliant comments!

      July 25, 2011 at 8:42 pm | Reply
  29. Doris Gorgo

    Diane Dimond is a joke. CNN refers to her as a trained journalist! I am surprised that a reputable news media would stoop so low as to even comment on Dimond. We would all love to see her credentials. She is a trained "tabloid" reporter and nothing more. She is not a journalist. We are tired of listening to her biased reporting concerning Michael Jackson. Ms Dimond was sued by Mr. Jackson for lies and untruths she reported pertaining to Mr. Jackson. She makes her living on lies and sensationlism. That is not fair journalism, but of course, she is not a journalist. Ms Dimond was a friend of Tom Sneddon. Tom Sneddon was well known for "having it in for Michael". Tom Sneddon was known to have planted false evidence in an attempt to have Michael appear guilty. There many of those who are of the opinion that because the 1993 incident never went to trial, it meant Michael was guilty. It never went to trial VERY MUCH AGAINST MICHAEL'S WISHES. His insurance company settled at the insistance of his managers. There were tours planned and they did not want Michael to be tied up in a lengthy trial. You guys should get the facts straight. However, because the family who made allegations against Michael received a great sum of money from the insurance company, another family thought they could do the same in 2003. But, Mr. Jackson decided enough was enough and he insisted that this case be brought to trial. Mr. Jackson was found NOT GUILTY on all charges by a jury of 12 men and women. Both of these matters involved extortion. This could happen to anyone. It could happen to Martin Bashir, Diane Dimond, Nancy Grace and all others who are biased in their reporting. Martin Bashir, however, admitted later (after he made certain innuendos on national television and after he destroyed Michael's life) that he did not see any signs of inappropriate behavior at the Neverland Ranch. Just because Michael loved children, it does not mean that he molested them. Everyone is trying to get rich off of Michael. This man was a loving, compassionate and caring individual who cared more for others than he did for himself. He was not only the greatest entertainer ever, but he was also one of the greatest humanitarians of his time. It is a crime that this kind of reporting can be allowed to happen. Dimond had better be careful or she and whoever is backing her will have happen to them as happened to officials of News of The World. CNN, don't stoop so low as to come under Dimond's "spell".

    July 17, 2011 at 8:21 pm | Reply
  30. Elisabeth Gran

    Pleas take a min and look at this document ..
    How would you feel Ms Dimond if YOU had false charges over you ?? How would your twins feel if theyr mother was slandered with false false accusations Ms Grace ? It must feel great to play expert when you have TV and a tiny microphone that raises your bad poorly self esteem and even less research!! Shame on you two and CNN for hiring two sush media slut's that only see profit in making up stories! I think tiny little Norway must have the best journalistic ethics when it comes to celebrities and wealthy people .. Over here you would have been sacked on the DAY! I feel anger and sadness for the DAMAGE you are doing !! Michael was the kindest person and donated almost every penny to aids and children ,too charity and medicin sienc ..Some of those money maybe have been helping some of your relatives or friends without your knowledge ..Those money have helped thousends of children homeless and sick ..You Ladies (And this is NOT ladielike ) should be ashamed of yourself !! REGARDS FROM NORWAY ELISABETH ZORA GRAN

    July 17, 2011 at 8:03 pm | Reply
  31. LG

    Diane Dimond exposed:

    http://www.mj-777.com/?p=5594

    The media has taken every opportunity to belittle and torment Michael Jackson during his life. Just because someone is a celebrity, does not make it acceptable to spread lies or to allow the disrespectful treatment to continue after they are gone. As you understand, the chosing of Diane Demon, a known BFF to Zonen and Sneddon is highly insulting and disrespectful to a man that shared his extraordinary talent and charitable works with the entire humanity for decades.

    A jury of Michael’s Jackson’s peers found him to be not guilty of all of the charges from the 2005 trial. The reason for this is because the evidence that was presented by the prosecution did not substantiate the charges. There were many inconsistencies in the evidence and testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. To insinuate that Michael Jackson was acquitted of the charges because he was wealthy has no merit. Please refer to a few important facts to consider. Sources for the information below can be available upon request.

    · DA Tom Sneddon was the same District Attorney who was in charge of trying to bring charges against Michael Jackson in 1993. Three grand juries refused to indict Michael Jackson because was no evidence for an indictment.
    · Michael Jackson did not settle with the Chandlers from the 1993 case, his insurance company did and it was against his wishes.
    · Once the Chandlers received the money, they were nowhere to be found. Why is it that they accepted the money verses going to the authorities and remaining steadfast in their fight to bring their child’s perpetrator to justice?
    · The 1993 case was never closed out, therefore leaving the door open for DA Tom Sneddon to be able to dig up possible evidence in order to go back after Michael Jackson.
    · DA Tom Sneddon had a personal vendetta against Michael Jackson and had mischaracterized the case from day one.
    · DA Tom Sneddon had been searching for accusers since the previous case fell apart in 1993. He went as far as to travel around to world looking for someone to come forth and say that Michael Jackson abused them. He could find no one.
    · Janet Arvizo was investigated for fraud involving money in the past. It was proven during the trial that Janet Arvizo and her family have been involved in many extortion attempts with other celebrities, JC Penny and the state of California.
    · Janet Arvizo also hired several attorneys and private investigators to look for information on Michael Jackson before she even met him in January 2000.

    Michael Jackson’s music and humanitarian efforts were many and should be the focus of his legacy for his children's sake. His contributions have been overlooked due to the sensationalistic and inaccurate stories that have been and are currently being reported. It is my hope that your organization is interested in aligning with the Journalism Code of Ethics and you wish to only report a story honestly with accuracy and integrity. It is important that Michael Jackson’s legacy be preserved in a positive light as he was a caring, generous, gifted and loving human being who only saw what good could be done in this world in light of the obstacles he encountered.

    Worthy alternatives reporters that are unbiased and would give a much better understanding of trial procedure would be Aphrodite Jones, William J. Wagener, Charles Thomson, Matt Semino, James Fayed, Larry Nimmer, Dan Whitcomb.

    July 17, 2011 at 9:37 am | Reply
  32. Nina Hamilton

    I feel very tired at having to post comments about people like Diane Dimond. I have read all the above comments, but why do we have to keep protesting? Why are these people still working, writing so that we have to? CNN, do the right sensible thing and take them off, fire them. All these people commenting is just a waste of their time because you seem to take no notice. I wonder if you even read the comments. Are television broadcasters as bad as the tabloids?

    July 15, 2011 at 7:14 pm | Reply
  33. Our voice as one

    I am completely outraged. The hypocrisy here is palatable. How can CNN consult Diane Dimond, a tabloid reporter, who has built her career on biased, tabloid coverage, as a commentator of media ethics. Ms. Dimond claimed, three times, that she is a "trained journalist." She has never attended any journalism school or program. She is merely a tabloid reporter. At least a journalism program would have required her to complete an ethics in journalism course to graduate. Ms. Dimond is unethical and unscrupulous, to say the least, and is notorious for fabricating her facts and sources. Does anyone remember her one sided, pro-prosecution coverage, in which she worked alongside Nancy Grace, during the Michael Jackson Trial of 2005? The two of them, along with several other talking heads and legal "analysts" convicted Mr. Jackson of child molestation before he ever went to trial. They not only convicted him but vilified and dehumanized the man. Amazingly, this jury, who was NOT sequestered as in the Anthony Trial, was not swayed by the frenzied media coverage. I did not hear Dimond claim that Nancy Grace was "just a lawyer" and she a "trained journalist" then. Now she is turning on someone she claims to be her "friend!" Ms. Dimond was fired from Court TV after the Jackson Trial. Does anyone remember that? She received just as much backlash after the Jackson Trial as Grace is now receiving after the Anthony Trial. Shame on CNN for consulting someone who has shown herself to be a tabloid hack that is well known for her one sided reporting for entertainment and ratings. Bringing this woman on and allowing her to lie is exactly why we have this media bias problem in the first place. If Diane Dimond is the best CNN can do on a show that discusses journalistic ethics then we are all in trouble.

    July 15, 2011 at 10:29 am | Reply
    • joyce c luffman

      i can't stand her.... she stood outside the courthouse and lied... the other reporters told a different story than what she told and they were in the courtroom... didn't know that court tv had fired her... they knew she lied and they fired her!! why she hated him so is anyone guess... i hope mj's children sue her... that they give the cut direct to all of celebrity's that also told lies...read the court transcripts of the 2005 trial... michael was innocent then and also in 1993... i hope she gets what is coming to her... that NO ONE will ever have her on any new network to tell her lies... rest in peace michael!!

      November 3, 2011 at 11:00 am | Reply
  34. Tess Greenwood

    The credibility of this show has been greatly compromised. Did Howard Kurtz and "Reliable Sources-CNN" just condone the telling of a bald-faced lie to the American public by Diane Dimond, a tabloid reporter? She claimed several times that she is a "trained journalist." She never attended any accredited journalism school or program in her life. She is as biased as they come and is well known for her unethical antics. While I agree with the show's general topic that the media should not try cases, the show's message is now tainted. Ms. Dimond received just as much backlash in 2005 as Nancy Grace is now receiving for her coverage of the Anthony Trial. Both ladies declared the defendants guilty in the court of public opinion before they even went to trial. What a shameful display! Your viewers deserve a disclaimer or retraction regarding her outright lie. This is the only way this show will preserve its credibility.

    July 14, 2011 at 11:18 pm | Reply
  35. Sue Adams

    Unbelievable! Dimond calling herself a "trained" journalist! Since when? No credentials, no professionalism and, being as she has a loaded bias against Michael Jackson and has done for many years on nothing but her own skewed and twisted perceptions and "knowledge"! Therefore, for ANY network to even let her anywhere near 'reporting' for the Conrad Murray trial is a lack of integrity and insight on behalf of any broadcasting company.

    As much as Nancy disGrace is in hersef equally biased and twisted as per their 'perceptions' of Mr Jackson; for Dimond to turn on her like a rabid dog is utterly a disgrace and ludicrous step! Shame for what has become a catfight between two equally nauseous unprofessional media-whores!

    July 14, 2011 at 7:30 pm | Reply
  36. Dickie62

    Oh!,I forgot,I might sue casey also,Because I volunteerd my time watching the whole trial,Does anyone have an idea on how much time in worth,I figure some where around $10. Million Dollars,What do you think.? I could have been cutting my grass,Washing my truck,Rideing my bike,Enjoying life.But no I felt compelled to watch the media,Hang some one,Before court begain,This is great stuff,Thats why I try not break the law. ONLY IN AMERICA.

    July 14, 2011 at 11:13 am | Reply
  37. Dickie62

    It is truly wonderful that American has people that care enoungh & time to [VOLUNTEER] their services to help look for some one missing,For what ever reason.But when you VOLUNTEER YOUR SERVICES,One needs to look in a dictionary,To find the real definition of the word VOLUNTEER. It clearly notes,And in [NO WAY] CAN BE MISS INTERPOLATED IN ANYWAY!,You give your time,exspences,And what other means to help someone in need,With no [LEGAL OBLIGATION, TO PAY FOR THIER SERVICE, REGUARDLESS OF THE OUT COME OF THE SERVICE,!,And for the bounty hunter,Who loved getting his momet on TV,On how great he was,In his own mind,Because of the love he had for the Anthnoy family,Seems to have turned to greed,As well as others,I guess the bounty hunter,Didn't get the exposure he wanted,To get his own TV show,So this is just another way to be seen on TV,It's really sick of how people start out being sweet,loveing,& careing untill,They are not in the line light,No one made these people come to give their support,Which is great they did,But now it's turned into greed,The media,Has a real nack to turn people againest each other,Just to make a story,Weather it hurts people or not,They try to sound like they care,but off the screen,They want bad,Not the whole truth just alittle,But they want blood,to make it more exciteing,I though Nancy Grace,WAS GREAT & wanted truth,But in this trial, She hung Casey out dry,Before she even knew the facts,The police,& Investigators,Screwed up again on evidence,Just like the little Jon Boenet Ramsey,The total blame will go on the news media,If Casey,Is harmed in anyway,But that will just be another story for them. If everyone knew & could do their jobs right,Maybe Casey would be in prison,You can't be angry with the jury,I think they did a wonderful job, ON THE FACTS GIVEN.

    July 14, 2011 at 10:50 am | Reply
  38. Rossana

    I will only say a few words: Michael deserves respect and Mrs. Dimond is not the right person to talk about him...

    July 14, 2011 at 4:43 am | Reply
  39. FirstBeKind

    The level of media coverage focused on the Casey Anthony trial is beyond justification. Reporting on the day's events is one thing–non-stop "medialoid" opinionating is an entirely different matter. Clearly the sensationalist styles of Nancy Grace and Jane Velez-Mitchell portrayed Casey Anthony as "guilty" before she ever set foot in a courtroom. From the moment that Casey Anthony was arrested, this case became a disgusting soap opera of sorts–entertainment for a society obsessed with the need to be “entertained”. We’re scared to death of being alone, and quiet. We’re addicted to our cell phones and “texting” messages often at the risk of harming innocent people because of distraction. Speak to me, I’m lonely! Tell me a story. We can’t function without TV reality shows and crime series. Entertain me, I’m bored!

    With the recent scandal surrounding the now-defunct "News of the World," an obvious question begs an answer: What has happened to journalism? Oh, I know News of the World was a scandalous tabloid rag, but mainstream journalism is rapidly degenerating in its ethics and struggles to bring unbiased, non-prejudicial news to the masses. Hold on, though! We are not without responsibility–we don’t have to listen or watch. Click to another network that exercises more restraint, more objectivity. If it is all about ratings and advertising dollars, flex your consumer muscles, people! Tell the advertisers you’ll no longer buy their products as long as they continue to advertise and support this garbage. Stop watching that network. If it’s all about dollars, then hit them where it hurts–their profits and dividends! It’s time to place some duct tape on the mouths of the talking heads. Send them packing. This is an opportunity, too, to tear away the powerful hold that tabloids and their paparazzi scum have on not only celebrities, but average, everyday people, too. If we focused one-tenth of our attention on helping each other as we seem delighted to devote to watching and reading hideous, fabricated stories about others, we could really make a difference in our world.

    I practically choked when I heard Diane Dimond say she was a "trained" journalist during this video interview. If she’s a trained journalist, we’re in a world of hurt when the next big legal extravaganza hits. All eyes will soon focus on Los Angeles and those in the know are reminded of that “trained” journalist’s unrelenting deception– the questionable sources, the unsubstantiated claims and lying witnesses.

    Don’t let this happen. Complain and ask that an unbiased, ethical journalist cover the Conrad Murray trial.

    "Our lives begin to end when we remain silent about the things that matter." ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

    July 14, 2011 at 2:23 am | Reply
  40. jm

    Why not hire Martin Bashir. Dimond and Bashir could be a team, both yellow journalists. One could be the venriloqist and the other the dummy, taking turns. Diane Dimond loves to sensationalize, and Bashir loves to make other people look bad, really bad.

    July 13, 2011 at 10:14 pm | Reply
    • appleh

      Don´t forget Nancy Grace and Maureen Orth.

      July 14, 2011 at 1:39 pm | Reply
  41. Lisa Perky

    If we are wise we won't pay Diane Diamond any mean cause we she has no integrity.

    July 13, 2011 at 7:09 pm | Reply
  42. Marie

    I wanted to make one more point regarding Ms Dimond...She , Martin Bashir and even Ray Chandler of the infamous Chandler clan ,who put out a book of baloney regarding the 93 allegations against Michael Jackson, have all three HID behind the Ca. shield law after slinging mud....Ray Chandler was actually out in the media promoting his book of lies, all the while fighting to stay out of court...BTW it was MIchael Jacksons defense team that was calling him to testify........Wonder if the media ever picked up on that.....They should have if they were doing their jobs....
    Now someone is actually putting Diane Dimond on a show regarding ethics???...Why...
    Is the media gearing up to slander and smear Jackson all over again in death with the Murray trial??
    Because if that is the product you are selling...I am not buying it

    July 13, 2011 at 6:54 pm | Reply
  43. Magsy

    How sickening it is to once again witness the malign impact the media and its members have on public opinion. Nancy Grace’s behaviour has been despicable in this affair, and she deserves the criticism she is receiving. One of the basic tenets of the justice system is that we are all innocent until proven guilty – that is proven guilty by a court of law, not by the press or so-called journalists who think they know better.

    The irony here is that six years ago, it was Diane Dimond who set herself up as judge and jury at another high-profile trial, and she should be hanging her head in shame along with Nancy Grace. Ms Dimond made a name for herself back then, when she went out all guns blazing for Michael Jackson, who was acquitted of all charges against him, despite her best efforts to condemn him. What a short memory she has!

    Trial by media is an ugly and disturbing trend, promoted by competition for ratings and popularity. The sooner “trained” journalists like Diane Dimond are outed as tabloid liars and hypocrites the better for everyone.

    July 13, 2011 at 5:40 pm | Reply
    • VeteranTeacher

      Magsy, You make an excellent point! Ms. Dimond has not forgotten what she did in 2005, she just thinks the American public has forgotten. She claims she is a "trained" journalist because she thinks viewers are stupid. She is pompous and arrogant. She obviously thinks that if enough time passes, people will forget that she is nothing but the queen of tabloid sensationalism. Diane Dimond appearing on a a show that claims to place a watchful eye on the practices of the media would be comical if it weren't so sad and hypocritical. Shame on CNN! Please tell us you are not yet another news organization that has gone tabloid!

      July 22, 2011 at 12:39 am | Reply
  44. Marie

    i just wanted to point out what a lousy job CNN did of checking Diane Dimonds credentials before putting her on this show about ETHICS of all things..She pays for stories..period..right there that is unethical..she was sued for claiming she saw some kind of non existent kiddie porn/ love notes regarding Michael Jackson.....They never existed....., Victor Guiterrez, her cohort , in these lies....owed Jackson millions in court ordered damages and fled the country....Meanwhile prosecutor Sneddon stepped in in his official duty to bail Diane out..Speaks terribly of all of them iimo..A government prosecutor so enamored with a tabloid reporter that he places himself in a compromising position of covering her butt during a civil suit??...And then said tabloid reporter returns the favor when he is prosecuting Jackson by acting as an arm for the prosecution in the media...
    SOME ETHICS......CNN>>>that should have been the story ...... that prosecutor and that tabloid reporter , best buddies stomping on Jacksons civil rights., while the same civil atty Larry Feldman, waits in the background for a civil settlement...........shame on you for putting ratings first ..
    My question for CNN and its journalists is how come I know all this and yet they dont?Why did Dateline used Guiterrez as a consultant during the 2003 Jackson episode?
    Shouldnt they have known what transpired in a court of law..That what he wrote was fraudulent and libelous?
    Why dont they know of Dimonds own questionable ethics?
    Why didnt they report that the Jackson trial was essentially a trial for media rating and many of the prosecutors points were based on tabloid lies?
    This man is dead now due in large part to the constant harassment of tabloids.... his life's work /reputation and health were compromised by media and their insatiable quest for rating / cash..
    Please do not underestimate how fed up your audience is with half wits like Dimond filling a chair on this show..

    July 13, 2011 at 5:02 pm | Reply
    • Carm

      Marie has given an excellent description of basically everything that went wrong with media reporting on Michael Jackson. This is especially relevent after the recent "News of the World" revelations. Wake up CNN. It's time to start paying attention. You could attract an audience (and some respect) simply by revealing a few truths and exposing opportunistic vultures like Dimond, Bashir, Oarth, Sneddon, etc. If there were justice in the world Dimond's indiscretions would be exposed to a wider audience and she would be made to pay for her unethical behaviour, not rewarded.

      July 16, 2011 at 5:05 pm | Reply
  45. julie and Hal

    Diane Dimond has no credibility. Her malice towards michael jackson has been distressing to witness and history will judge her harshly. Just as Rupert Murdoch thought that he was
    untouchable, in the end the public do begin to see the ugliness that is presented to them in the name of entertainment and we begin to see how it debases us as human beings. By continuing to employ this woman you lose credibility with a public who are seeing through the lies. Michael Jackson is an historic figure and the truth will come out eventually. Lies run sprints, the truth runs marathons.

    July 13, 2011 at 4:48 pm | Reply
  46. Ceejay

    How to assassinate someone in the media? Ask Diane Dimond she's the Expert!

    July 13, 2011 at 1:39 pm | Reply
  47. Luna

    A trial becoming entertainment...since when is that new? Hasn't it been for centuries that accused people were displayed and judged, whether they were guilty or not? Way back people stood on a pillory, now we watch them on TV or tabloids. Obviously we haven't learned from our past. But there are people who put the accused up there and one of them is this so called "trained "and "objective" journalist, Dianhe Dimond. I couldn't help but laugh outloud when she called herself that. She calling other people biased and incompetent?? She was the worst person to report on TV for the Michael Jackson trial. And even before and after he was aqcuited, she kept on bashing him. Even after he died...She is full of disrespect and egotism, and lacks a serious amount of empathy, common sense and professionalism. I truly believe "journalist" like herself are partly responsible for Michael Jackson's death. But maybe he was competition in the entertaining profession...maybe the 'media' wanted to become a greater entertainer than he was. Let's hope that will never happen. For me and I know for millions of people, it won't!

    July 13, 2011 at 12:26 pm | Reply
  48. Susan

    I was quite disturbed when I saw Diane Dimond, of all people, talking about media ethics! Then I heard her say she was a trained journalist? D. Dimond is the last person who should be talking on this subject after the unethical way she reported on the Michael Jackson case and accusations during her career. I hope your station, HLN, and your affiliates are not planning to use her to as a commentator for the Dr. Murray trial. I definately won't be watching any station that uses her for this purpose! I appreciate seeing this topic discussed on Reliable Sources. Our media could be so much better if we stopped using tragedy as entertainment, and stuck to well informed and responsible journalism reported by real professionals.

    July 13, 2011 at 12:12 pm | Reply
  49. HelenaMary

    What would have been a great debate has been ruined with the interjection of Ms. Dimond a well know “broadcast and research later “reporter. It’s actually quite laughable that she considers herself as a bona fide journalist considering she has proven time and time again to be an unfair, unbalanced person who lacks necessary training in media ethics and law. She has made a career interjecting her opinion on various topics specifically Michael Jackson without putting forward any facts .May I suggest CNN not insult me your audience by having Ms. Diamond appear as any kind of expert unless you have a show dedicated to her and her role in the tabloidization of journalism today .The only truth I found in her words were “There is enough hypocrisy here to go around “.It’s good to see she is perhaps on the road to recovery but in the meantime CNN when there is a news vacuum I do not want to be entertained by Ms.Dimond as a viewer I would rather hoover my own room than listen to her .She of all people is one of the reasons I encourage and support the Licensing of all journalist’s of which she is not .

    July 13, 2011 at 10:37 am | Reply
  50. Marie Paul

    To hear that Diane Dimond may be reporting on anything is scraping the barrel, after what has been happening with the News of the World and other media outlets I would think you would be wanting to portray a much more professional stance and not employ someone who is known to be biased in her opinions and not adverse to using underhand tactics in getting her story. I have watched her reporting about Michael Jackson, and you get a certain sense that she is insinuating that he died from being a drug addict where the autopsy showed that to be untrue....did she apologise ? Not that I heard !! ....NO TO DIANE DIMOND doing any reporting, especially if she isn't even qualified ????

    July 13, 2011 at 6:29 am | Reply
  51. Appreciates Real Journalism

    I'll give you just two examples of "trained journalist." Linda Deutsch of The Associated Press (University of Missouri School of Journalism's Honor Medal for Distinguished Service in Journalism and the Society of Professional Journalist's First Amendment Award) and Howard Kurtz (Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism), These two people are bona fide journalists who attended accredited universities to learn their craft, then burnished their skills in the newsroom, working for prestige news outlets that wouldn't give Dimond the time of day.

    Dimond's "training?" High school graduate. Then Hard Copy. A rag. A tabloid garbage can. Dimond ruled the roost there.

    July 13, 2011 at 1:29 am | Reply
  52. Norman Jacobs

    Unbelievable! Diane Dimond is calling herself a "trained journalist" now. She is neither trained nor a journalist. I bet even
    Nancy DisGrace is laughing her head off at this article right now! I don't understand why news shows are repeatedly having Diane Dimond on as an expert on anything! Her hypocrisy makes me sick! She and DisGrace are neck and neck for the lead in biased trial coverage, with DisGrace leading by a slight nose after her comments on the Anthony trial and the jurors. Neither of these women should be allowed in a courtroom unless they are being tried for libel or slander!

    July 12, 2011 at 6:50 pm | Reply
  53. MNLady

    This is rich! Dimond is a "trained journalist"? What cereal box did she get her degree from? She is by far the most unethical and least fair and/or balanced "jouranlist" that EVER graced the airwaves. She should never be given any air time and I certainly hope that she will not have a format for the upcoming Conrad Murray trial. She claims to be an expert on Michael Jackson! uh huh an expert on helping to destroy a man while he was alive and still maligning him now that he has passed. Nancy Grace and Diane Dimond are cut from the same uncomfortable cloth – burlap bags. They should be fired from the airwaves for their hate spewing "commentaries".

    July 12, 2011 at 6:43 pm | Reply
  54. MarthaMMD

    Mr. Kurtz, I must say I am disappointed that CNN and you, a journalist, allowed a second-rate gossip-monger such as Diane Dimond the voice to pass herself off as a journalist! Having an high school diploma, an opinion, a writing gig and a stint on the TV tabloid Hard Copy, do not qualify someone to proclaim themselves a member of the profession of journalism. I always thought the label "journalist" required at minimum: 1) an education, 2) a grasp of, and commitment to journalistic ethics, and 3) experience in applying these standards to one's work. Dimond represents the worst of modern infotainment, and everything that is wrong with the media today: Questionable motives and ethics; sensationalism for ratings, whether the "news" is true or not, and talking head "experts" with nothing substantial to say.

    July 12, 2011 at 5:44 pm | Reply
  55. Tori Tompkins

    The irony inherent in Ms.Dimond's assertions that other reporters adopt an unfairly bias, tabloid stance is marked. I hardly think she is any place to judge another, considering that, throughout her career, she has demonstrated a blatant disregard for journalistic ethics and professionalism. This is most evident in her obsessive, two- decade hunting, of Mr Michael Jackson, who was an innocent man. Let me provide several examples of this obsessive and unethical behaviour:

    • In 1995, Ms Dimond, her colleague Mr Victor Guiterez, and two TV stations with which they were involved, were sued for $100 million. With the help of Mr Sneddon, (who would later become the DA who appears to have been driven by a willful and baseless vendetta in Mr Jackson’s 2005 case,) Ms Dimond hid behind the media shield law to escape conviction. Her colleague Mr Guiterez however, was ordered to pay Mr Jackson the sum of $2.7 million in damages.

    • During Mr Jackson's 2005 trial, (of which he was fully acquitted of all charges,) Ms Dimond’s reporting served more as a mouthpiece for the prosecution, than an objective, rational and fair record of what was actually taking place inside the courtroom, a testament, no doubt, to her friendship with the prosecuting DA, Mr Sneddon
    .
    • In a recent interview on the preliminary hearings into Mr Jackson’s tragic death, Ms Dimond stated that Mr Jackson was a long term alcoholic, quoting as her evidence, the 2005 court transcripts. I, and many others, have read these transcripts and can find no evidence to support this claim. Ms Dimond also suggested that Mr Jackson was a long term drug abuser. Many of my colleagues have read the autopsy report, and, they will tell you that it in no way supports this claim.

    These are just a few examples of a pattern which has coloured Ms Dimond’s journalistic career from the outset. Namely, that she presents fallacy as fact, and, so often, as in Mr Jackson’s case, publishes stories which are quite obviously false and baseless in order to discredit her subject. It goes without saying that a reporter with such a jaded personal history should be barred from offering their comments or views on any of the major networks. In affording her a platform to speak, you offer her a credibility her life's work ill deserves.

    One dictionary defines journalism as the presentation of news reports, factually, without analysis. Ms.Dimond instead seems to have built a career on the opposite-analysing and imposing an opinion first-regarding the facts later-sometimes never. Respected commentators approach their work and research in a balanced, fair and honest manner-These, surely, are the cornerstones of professional journalism and the tenets which seem so glaringly absent from Ms.Dimond's work. I ask you then to refrain from inviting her to comment on any subjects, (especially those pertaining to Mr.Jackson) in the future. Please strive to uphold these central, integral tenets of this medium.

    July 12, 2011 at 5:44 pm | Reply
  56. Cassie

    My God Diane Dimond, stop beating a dead horse. You don’t have any offiial credentials making you a trained journalist. You are nothing more than an opinionated hate monger who have made her career off of telling lies about Michael Jackson.

    July 12, 2011 at 3:11 pm | Reply
  57. Sara

    While I agree wholeheartedly with the fact that the Casey Anthony trial has turned into a soap opera of sorts, I feel that Diane Dimond is the last person on Earth who should be making these statements. I'm sure everyone remembers the Michael Jackson trial, where a similar media circus transpired on an even larger scale. Ms. Dimond was arguably one of the ring leaders. At the very least, Ms. Dimond is a hypocrite. Again, I agree with what's being said. It doesn't matter whether or not we, the public, think Miss Anthony is guilty or not. We are not at liberty to criticize the jury's verdict. However, for Ms. Dimond, who has, since 1993, made a career of simply skewing Mr. Jackson to criticize other journalists and legal pundits is simply comical and outrageous. She turned that trial into a soap opera. Notice she called herself a "trained journalist" several times. That's debatable, I assure you. Ms. Dimond never attended any university specializing in journalism, and she has never sustained a job with any certain media outlet. At best, she is a blogger, one who makes her career out of lying and keeping the public misinformed. Ms. Dimond is an oppurtunist, and it doesn't suprise me that she'd make such statements, as it's very true to her character to jump on any kind of bandwagon to make herself look good. Thank you for your time.

    July 12, 2011 at 1:37 pm | Reply
  58. clg

    Damn right the defense lawyer has a point, and kudos to the commentator on this, for refusing to join the media frenzy on the case. However, why CNN would even consider having Diane Dimond speak about this is beyond insane. She is not a trained journalist, and her saying it 3 times in this interview don't make it so. She should know about overkill and tainting cases, classic example of the pot calling the kettle black.

    July 11, 2011 at 11:01 pm | Reply
  59. Mark Bentley

    This from Kurtz's bio: "Host Howard Kurtz, Washington Bureau Chief of The Daily Beast, is the nation's premier media critic, and each week he questions print reporters, television correspondents and Internet bloggers about how the press is covering the major stories of the week."

    Sounds nice, but it flies in the face of entertaining a discussion with a tabloid writer like Diane Dimond. She represents much of what is wrong with media today. Am I supposed to take this column seriously now? Do your homework, please, and give us a discussion with real journalists interested in elevating the public discourse. Then we might gain a bona fide insight, as opposed to more self-serving, hypocritical, and self-righteous rhetoric.

    July 11, 2011 at 10:11 pm | Reply
  60. Layne

    Excuse me, but since when is Dimond an authority of any kind of media overkill except being guilty herself of the same thing in
    a well publicized trial about 6 years ago? Journalist? One needs only do a one step review of her record to discover she is
    not a 'trained' anything. She made her name and career as an 'expert' on the back of a celebrity when, in fact, her information
    was from various unnamed 'sources', never revealed and grossly inaccurate. Dimond is a more subdued, subtle version
    of Nancy Grace...but I remember her vitriolic proclamations of guilt in the past and, in my opinion, she has no business on
    anyone's program voicing her 'expert' opinions on anything. Pfft.

    July 11, 2011 at 7:19 pm | Reply
  61. Nancy Arlens

    Diane Dimond on “Reliable Sources”? The ultimate irony! Where did she receive her journalistic training? On Hard Copy?! She has no right to call the coverage of a trial by lawyers biased when she has presented the most biased coverage on Court TV, even more biased than Nancy Grace! She served as a cheerleader and mouthpiece for the prosecution during the Michael Jackson trial, for God’s sake! I can’t understand why decent news programs have her on commenting about anything when she is so hypocritical! Trained journalist indeed! I guess she was playing hooky on the days when the Media Ethics courses were in session!

    July 11, 2011 at 6:26 pm | Reply
  62. Melanye

    veritas vos liberabit

    Diane Dimond is NOT a credentialed journalist. She does not hold a degree in journalism, and she has not received formal journalism training that includes required curriculum in mass media law and ethics. Dimond does not subscribe to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.

    Dimond is an entertainment commentator whose ambition is using “Big Media” pulpits to create frenzy around rumors, innuendo, and lies and pass them off as truth. She makes a living on self promotion and mass media war mongering that is not interested in sharing truth, and she will continue to posture herself as a vociferous bastion of justice, when in reality, she is nothing more than a pawn in “Big Media” games for big bucks.

    In a world of emerging global communications and ubiquitous consumption, the symbiotic boundaries of ethical journalism and media integrity became blurred just as the rules of objective journalism shifted with tabloid T.V., infotainment, and the dawn of the Internet. Communications conglomerates now build empires of vertical mainstream news and channeled tabloid media that propagate rumors in a race to be first with messages that sell. Dimond and others like her, e.g., Martin Bashir, Maureen Orth, and Nancy Grace, are part of a new breed of UNETHICAL journalists who remove context, manipulate content, and practice all manner of libel and slander, then hide behind First Amendment privilege while simultaneously trampling the civil rights of others.

    Think about that. Understand how that very concept misleads an entire culture on myriad issues and contributes to the decline of our social psyche and the destruction of contributing human beings.

    Thank you, Mr. Kurtz, for providing an open forum for intelligent, critical discourse regarding the current state of our media and its implications on contemporary society.

    The truth shall set you free.

    My name is Melanye, and I AM a trained journalist.

    July 11, 2011 at 5:14 pm | Reply
  63. 111HV

    CNN really REALLY has me blocked from voicing my opinion about Diane. Go ahead, idiots, protect her! How about this...... my sources tell me that Mrs. Dimond is not credible in her bias reporting. We'll see if this comment goes through, 3rd time is a charm they say! (Comments are not pre-screened before they post – LIARS!)

    July 11, 2011 at 4:55 pm | Reply
  64. Pendragon

    If I wanted to discuss media ethics and professional journalism with someone, Diane Dimond would be the last person I would choose. She tells us several times in this interview that she is a trained journalist and describes herself as objective. Firstly, it is my understanding that Diane is just a tabloid reporter, who has no recognized credentials in journalism and secondly, her objectivity was sadly lacking in 2005 when she was reporting on the Michael Jackson trial.

    At that time, she was the one publicly condemning the defendant even before the jury had been selected, and she was the one looking for celebrity status and ratings. Her face was seen on many prime-time shows, demonizing Jackson, declaring that she had seen incriminating evidence and spoken to victims of abuse – none of which appeared to have existed. Ironically, both she and Nancy Grace performed quite a double-act as the mouthpiece for the then D.A., Tom Sneddon, and questions were asked as to how Diane came to be in possession of confidential information had been leaked from the prosecution team prior to the trial.

    Whilst Howard Kutz and Lauren Ashburn make some valid points here about the role the media have played in the outcome of the Casey Anthony trial, the inclusion of Diane Dimond in the conversation detracts from the integrity of the debate.

    July 11, 2011 at 3:02 pm | Reply
  65. judson44

    Ms. Dimond's recent column focuses on the role of attorneys in justice gone wrong and why the public is rightously at their machinations. I am struck by how easy it is to substitute (or add) 'journalist' wherever lawyer is referenced in her article.

    Our Justice System is only as fair and excellent as its prosecutors and defense attorneys; judges and juries, witnesses and court clerks, investigators and police officers. News Organizations, too, are only as credible as its journalists, editors, researchers, fact checkers, and sources. In both cases - absent respect for self, respect for the profession, and respect for law and the public interest - those claiming to serve justice or journalism are but armies of bounty hunters or rogue cops chasing high-value targets for pay.

    The journalist’s role is to report the news – not invent distracting fictions and phantoms to manipulate or inflame public opinion. A journalist recognizes that justice is rendered in the courtroom, not on the Nancy Grace Show, Hard Copy, or other shamelessly biased pundit programs that litter television and radio stations. We need trustworthy reporters as our eyes and ears around the world providing facts from which we make informed choices.

    As it stands now, the mainstream news guardians stumble badly in their duty – seemingly distracted by the hefty profits enjoyed by their tabloid competitors, and scrambling to copy their model. Enter medialoid - mainstream media infected by tabloid journalism - a perfect plague.

    For the public: there no painful symptoms or dripping pustules, only a low-grade, persistent caving for junk food gossip and scandal de jour. Is it true? Is it false? Dunno, but it is sweet, slides down easy, and satisfies.

    For the media moguls: addicted viewers and readers aplenty, high ratings, and happy sponsors – all validating news-on-the-cheap.

    For the targets, famous or obscure: a rating point is a pound of their flesh, a scar, an invasion, a mock vivisection for the mob. Medialoid sears, burns, breaks, dismembers, dehumanizes, then turns away to the next spectacle.

    It is in this half-light that Ms. Dimond was nurtured, validated and boldly practiced the journalism of personal destruction – deftly wielding the tools of bias, insinuation, falsehood, and malevolent sources-for-pay. Her near-manic, decades-long obsession with Michael Jackson might be the longest media-driven assault waged on one human being. Now she emerges with a straight face to consider the lawyers role in justice corrupted. Can we trust this metamorphosis? I would offer Ms. Dimond’s own words in reply, “Be careful who you trust.”

    Consumers must recognize and reject manipulative and exploitative tabloidism whatever its disguise. Journalism, like Justice, is only as honest and responsible as we demand it must be. We assume this responsibility along with the privileges of citizenship. Left unchecked, this Journalism of Personal Destruction will surely destroy us all.

    July 11, 2011 at 2:54 pm | Reply
  66. DLama

    Diane Dimond is right about enough hypocrisy to go around. She is not a "jouralist" and her "training" is from Hard Copy, a tabloid TV program. She claims to be an "expert" in trials, crime and especially about Michael Jackson. She actually withheld exculpatory evidence in the Jackson trial, she wrote articles and even a book full of lies and innuendo and did it all so that she could make a living "covering" Michael Jackson. She and D.A. Tom Sneddon were in collusion during the trial where she leaked damaging information as a media mouthpiece. She is every bit the hack as Nancy Grace. CNN: Please go through the vetting process carefully. People do not appreciated being lied to and manipulated by media. Get Diane Dimond, Nancy Grace, Jane Mitchell and other tabloid darlings off the air. Aren't you watching the Murdoch scandal? Don't you see the handwriting on the wall? People like Diane Dimond are not objective journalists– they ride the coattails of the famous to line their own pockets. The public has had enough. Get a clue or go the way of News of the World. "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore."

    July 11, 2011 at 1:11 pm | Reply
  67. Marie

    Ms Dimond acted as an extension of the prosecution during the Michael Jackson trial...Her "checkbook" practices of journalism...paying for stories from disgruntled employees etc, has become an accepted practice by the mainstream media, as evidenced by the fact that this woman , not only still has a job, but is considered some kind of an expert.....This fake journalist was allowed to hide from her misdeeds, behind the Ca. Shield Law......which is supposed to protect REAL journalists......RIDICULOUS...If she was any kind of investigative reporter, she would have seen through the sham...Instead she didnt mind being used by grifters because it was making her money also.......Fortunately the general public can do their own research on the internet and will no longer be lead like sheep to the slaughter......The media better wake up to the fact people are sick to death of being fed lies and distortions for profit...

    July 11, 2011 at 12:52 pm | Reply
  68. jan

    diane dimond in the words of her mother was too lazy to go to college she is not a trained journalist. she has made a living out of hounding michael jackson. Nancy grace is another who has no shame.

    July 11, 2011 at 12:29 pm | Reply
  69. Patricia Young

    It's truly shameful when a murder trial becomes entertainment for folks. Nancy Grace is disgraceful, but so is Diane Dimond when it comes to honest journalism...it's like the pot calling the kettle black.

    July 11, 2011 at 11:18 am | Reply
    • Melanye

      There was once a time when "honest" and "journalism" meant the same thing, because the pursuit of truth was at the heart of ethical journalistic endeavor.

      "Yellow Journalism", of course, is the exception. It has a very real past and is only too evident in our current state of media anarchy. That we must now discern between "honest journalism" and "dishonest journalism" is both a cause and symptom of our social decay.

      Diane Dimond is nothing more than a yellow journalist, who thrives on bearing false witness against her neighbor and inciting others to do the same.

      July 13, 2011 at 12:51 am | Reply
  70. Irma

    How dare Diane Dimond talk about media bias when she was the queen of bias and lies with Michael Jackson back in 1993 and 2005?

    How dare Diane Dimond call herself "a trained journalist",when she is the worst tabloid abusive prejudiced corrupt journalist that is ever known?

    Did she forget all what she did to Michael Jackson? All the unjust character assassination,all the lies,all the abuse,all the slander.all the fabrications Dimond and her mates did to Michael Jackson an innocent human being which also proved and found innocent in 1993 and 2005?

    How dare she talk about a subject like this with so much hypocrisy?

    What Dimond and all the her tabloids media mates seem or pretend themselves to forget is that Character Assassination is a pure abuse. And Character Assassination is exactly what Dimond and her tabloids mates did to Michael Jackson and God knows who else?

    They all hide under the skirt of what is called "Freedom Of Speech" but again it seems like they want to forget the true definition of the term,and here is the true definition of Freedom Of Speech-
    "The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."

    Yes,everyone who abuses this right will be responsible for that abuse by the law.

    Dimond abused this right with the most worse cruelly way that is possible with Michael Jackson.

    Michael Jackson sued her for her unjust abusing Character Assassination but thanks to Tom Sneddon a proven corrupt obsessive DA,she got away with a punishment.

    However her mate Victor Gutierrez didn't and Michael Jackson won the lawsuit against Gutierrez ,and Gutierrez was demanded to pay around 2 millions of dollars to Michael Jackson for all the defamation Gutierrez did to Mr.Jackson.

    Michael Jackson never agreed to pay any money to the Chandlers.
    It's the insurance company who paid against Michael's wishes without his knowledge.

    What Dimond and the rest of the tabloids media don't want you to know is that the settlement didn't prevented the Chandlers to testify against Mr.Jackson in a criminal court. They could have testified against him and keep the money. But they didn't,they took the money and run away!

    Michael Jackson always maintained his innocent in the settlement. The Chandlers agreed to drop their false molestation claims and settled for negligence and NOT for claims of child sexual abuse.

    Michael Jackson called the Chandlers liars and they agreed with that,took the money and run. Because it was all about the money from the very beginning!

    The Chandlers filled a CIVIL lawsuit against Michael Jackson,not a criminal compliment,which means that no matter who wins,MONEY is what the winner is going to get,

    Nobody goes to prison when a civil lawsuit is filled! Civil lawsuit is all about money.

    Dimond obtained illegally the confidential settlement documents,and she obviously didn't like what she saw.
    And instead of reading from the settlement itself in one of her tabloid shows,she read the original compliment.

    What also Dimond and the rest of the tabloids media don't want you to know is that settlement didn't prevented a criminal investigation of Michael Jackson.

    The FBI,the Department of Child and Family Services,the LAPD.the SBPD,the DA,they all were involved and investigated this case.

    They interviewed over 100 children who were related to Michael Jackson and all the children said that Michael Jackson never molested them.

    They were so desperate and so biased against Michael Jackson, that the police tried to intimidate these 100s of children into falsely accusing Michael Jackson but they all who refused to accuse him of a crime he never committed!

    The DA Tom Sneddon and the FBI went all over the world looking for "victims" and found none-Nothing!

    TWO grand juries investigated every piece of evidence,every piece of testimony that prosecution presented them for months.But the two grand juries agreed that there was no evidence no case against Michael Jackson and were disbanded in 1994 without issuing an indictment for the singer.

    Instead of reporting this-the truth as they are obligated,Dimond and her mates paid for former employees of Mr.Jackson to tell lies about him. These employees were fired because they were stealing from him.

    In 2005,The jury found Michael Jackson not guilty on all the 14 counts he was unjustly accused-again by greedy ungrateful people who Mr.Jackson kindly helped their child to overcome the cancer.

    Dimond reported pure lies and fabrications during the whole 2005 trial.

    She doesn't want you to know that The Arivzos never stopped to praise Mr.Jackson,also during the so called molestations period.

    She also doesn't want you to know that in the so called Imprisonment days in Neverland,Janet Arvizo had shopping sprees on the cost of Michael Jackson's money. She had all the chances to call to the police for help during those sprees ,but she never did that. Instead she spend huge amount of money on the cost of Michael's money.

    She also didn't report that the Department of Child and Family Services investigated the matter,plus they interviewed the Arvizo family and they all denied that Michael Jackson ever harm them.The Department of Child and Family Services found the case to be "Unfounded".

    What also was unknown to the people is that the Arvizo family had a large rich past of frauds like what they did with JC Penny.
    Janet Arivzo was accused of welfare fraud and was found guilty in 2006.
    Also,The Arvizo family used to stalk celebrities,abusing the fact that Gavin Arvizo had cancer claiming that they had no money for the medical bills. Even though that they had to pay absolutely nothing because they had insurance from their father,David Arvizo.

    They stalked celebrities like Chris Tucker,George Lopez,Azja Prayor. People who felt sorry for the Arvizo family and just wanted to help. The Arvizo family abused all those celebrities,asked them for money,abused their trust for their own profit.

    All these celebrities,by the way,were brought to the court and they all told how the Arvizo family were abusing them.

    Dimond doesn't want the public to know is that Gavin Arvizo and his brother changed their alleged "molestation" story all the time. When the Arivzo brothers took the stand they always contradicted themselves,they changed their stories all the time and they were proved lying. Why? Because they are liars and because nothing happened. Friends of Michael Jackson who the prosecution wanted the jury to believe that they all were molested by Mr.Jackson.
    All three men were brought in and they all said that Michael Jackson never molested them and how wonderful person he is.

    The prosecution wanted to bring Jordan Chandler to testify. And even though that nothing prevented him to testify,Jordan refused to testify and threatened that if they are going to insist he is going to sue them. He also said that "He has done his job". But of course Dimond doesn't want you to know this.

    Mr.Tom Mesereau also said that he had witnesses that confirmed him that Jordan told them that Michael Jackson never molested him.

    Instead for Dimond is more important to report about that Michael Jackson came to the court with pajamas.As always missing a very important part.That Michael Jackson was injured when he came out of the shower and was rushed to the hospital. That the judge threatened to put him in jail if he won't be present in the court in 45 minutes.

    What Dimond doesn't want you to know is that Sneddon fabricated evidence against Michael Jackson. He fabricated phone calls and gave Gavin Arvizo to hold a magazine so his fingerprints will be on it.

    Instead what Dimond reports are about former employees who were paid by her show to slander Michael Jackson because they wanted to get a revenge on Michael Jackson for firing them.

    These same employers were also brought in,and they all testified.But guess what they all were proven as liars. They all were proven lying by Mr.Mesereau!

    But did Dimond report it? No.

    So how Dimond can talk about media bias and ethics when she knows NOTHING about ethics.morals and Justice.

    It's called hypocrisy and lack of self awareness,Dimond.

    July 11, 2011 at 5:01 am | Reply
  71. VeteranTeacher

    I am completely outraged. The hypocrisy here is palatable. How can CNN consult Diane Dimond, a tabloid reporter, who has built her career on biased, tabloid coverage, as a commentator of media ethics. Ms. Dimond claimed, three times, that she is a "trained journalist." She has never attended any journalism school or program. She is merely a tabloid reporter. At least a journalism program would have required her to complete an ethics in journalism course to graduate. Ms. Dimond is unethical and unscrupulous, to say the least, and is notorious for fabricating her facts and sources. Does anyone remember her one sided, pro-prosecution coverage, in which she worked alongside Nancy Grace, during the Michael Jackson Trial of 2005? The two of them, along with several other talking heads and legal "analysts" convicted Mr. Jackson of child molestation before he ever went to trial. They not only convicted him but vilified and dehumanized the man. Amazingly, this jury, who was NOT sequestered as in the Anthony Trial, was not swayed by the frenzied media coverage. I did not hear Dimond claim that Nancy Grace was "just a lawyer" and she a "trained journalist" then. Now she is turning on someone she claims to be her "friend!" Ms. Dimond was fired from Court TV after the Jackson Trial. Does anyone remember that? She received just as much backlash after the Jackson Trial as Grace is now receiving after the Anthony Trial. Shame on CNN for consulting someone who has shown herself to be a tabloid hack that is well known for her one sided reporting for entertainment and ratings. Bringing this woman on and allowing her to lie is exactly why we have this media bias problem in the first place. If Diane Dimond is the best CNN can do on a show that discusses journalistic ethics then we are all in trouble.

    July 11, 2011 at 5:01 am | Reply
    • Melanye

      Amen!

      July 13, 2011 at 12:31 am | Reply
  72. Jay L.

    It is ironic that you would invite Diane Dimond, a woman who has made a career of sensationalistic, biased "reporting" through the years. Having her comment is like the "pan calling the kettle black". She is a prime example of yellow journalism IMO. She is no more a "trained" journalist than I am. She is right up there with all the others who go on TV and spout their opinions as fi they were facts without one shred of knowledge or proof.

    Our society is sick when the media feeds on the lives and reputations of those accused like vultures. They have no conscience in taking it upon themselves to decide who is guilty and who is not. They seem to forget that these are HUMAN BEINGS. I'm not saying Ms. Anthony is guilty or innocent. The jury heard the evidence and followed what the judges told them to do in making their decision. Why have a "trial by jury" system in the US if we refuse to accept the verdict? How many people have been totally vindicated in court, only to continue to be villified in the media? It is time for the media to report responsibly; as it has been said, "Only the FACTS, mam" – not salaciousness and innuendo.

    The days of reputable journalists who vett a story before putting it out into the public, seem to be a thing of the past. "The News of the World" scandal shows just how far journalists have drifted from their code of ethics and the public is outraged. Perhaps this is sign that society has had enough and will be finally begin to hold journalists to a high degree of professionalism. "Lies run sprints, the truth runs marathons."

    July 11, 2011 at 12:42 am | Reply
  73. MarthaMMD

    Mr. Kurtz, I must say I am disappointed that CNN and you, a journalist, allowed a second-rate gossip-monger such as Diane Dimond the voice to pass herself off as a journalist! Having an high school diploma, an opinion, a writing gig and a stint on the TV tabloid Hard Copy, do not qualify someone to proclaim themselves a member of the profession of journalism. I always thought the label "journalist" required at minimum: 1) an education, 2) a grasp of, and commitment to journalistic ethics, and 3) experience in applying these standards to one's work. Dimond represents the worst of modern infotainment, and everything that is wrong with the media today: Questionable motives and ethics; sensationalism for ratings, whether the "news" is true or not, and talking head "experts" with nothing substantial to say.

    July 11, 2011 at 12:37 am | Reply
  74. June

    Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black – Dimond dissing Nancy Disgrace? Nancy is an attorney, although a fairly opinionated screechy biased one, but at least she has some credential to back her up. Diane Demond calls herself a "journalist"? I, personally, run as fast as I can from anything she "reports", as I am aware from her past commentating that she is NOT a journalist, just a lying hack willing to compromise her remaining moral ethics for a story and a pocketfull of change.

    July 11, 2011 at 12:03 am | Reply
  75. ChrisB

    The media should not proclaim themselves judge, jury and prosecution. Nancy "Disgrace" is only one of those in the media who rammed the publicity for this case down our throats for 3 years. Report the facts, don't judge and let the court system do its job.

    As for Diane Dimond, she is just another media hack with no journalistic credentials but her career as a tabloid style reporter. She has engaged in the same behavior as Nancy Grace during her career. It is laughable that she presumes to judge nasty Nancy. Diane Dimond just keeps trying to reinvent herself and wipe away her history of irresponsible and opinionated reporting nowhere near factual. She would have been right at home at Murdoch's News Of The World.

    July 10, 2011 at 11:58 pm | Reply
  76. SeptSpirit

    I was pleased to witness the real journalist, Lauren Ashburn, set Dimond straight. And to witness Kurtz forbid Dimond from talking over Ashburn. Dimond lacks objectivity, manners and professionalism. I have found nothing to confirm that she is a "trained" journalist. Dimond's refers to her tabloid style as Populist Journalism (tongue in cheek) which is nothing but salacious story-telling, peppered with opinion. We all watched her build her career, beating a horse to death for 10 years with speculation, rumors, and outright lies; then continue to beat the horse after it died. The Casey media frenzy pales in comparison.

    July 10, 2011 at 11:57 pm | Reply
  77. 111HV

    Kurtz and Dimond both share space on “The Daily Beast”? I guess Kurtz is mindful about Diane’s unprofessional stunts, schemes and lies and just doesn’t give a damn about having her on his show. She contributes nothing but a bad taste in the mouths of millions of people on a global scale.

    Really? These major networks can’t be that senseless, blind and desperate that they don’t know about the absence of integrity that circles around Diane. I cringe every time I see or hear her opening her mouth about anything. She was born a tabloid reporter (not a journalist) she’ll die a tabloid reporter. It’s in her blood. She’s been sued for slander, she’ll break the law to get a story, and she’s filled with nasty, bias innuendos. I see her, I see Hard Copy. She needs to be thrown out with The News of the World rubbish.

    July 10, 2011 at 11:49 pm | Reply
  78. Pthomas

    I think they missed something very very important when discussing the media and the trial. Casey Anthony and her attorneys benefited greatly because of the intense media coverage. I do not think if this had been a local case with little to no media attention that the jury would have acquitted her. There are people everyday convicted on nothing but circumstantial evidence (take the microwaved baby mother). But I think this jury was influenced by all of the media attention and press. They seem to have expected an episode of Law&Order with a video of Casey killing the baby or some other such evidence. But in the end Casey Anthony may have been convicted by the general public and cable talking heads, but she got lucky with the jury and I think the media helped allot.

    July 10, 2011 at 8:21 pm | Reply
    • LibelFreeZone

      Please review this insight by Brian Dickerson of the Detroit Free Press. He explains how Nancy Grace assured Casey Anthony's acquittal.

      http://www.tinyurl.com/BrianDickerson

      July 13, 2011 at 1:15 am | Reply
  79. Priscilla Eger

    Casey Anthony suffers from PTS avoidance- avoidance. This whole problem will go away if I do not think about it. This may explain her behavior. She was not a responsible mother. If she was she would have had the 911 call the minute this happened. The problem here is her mind set. It went out the window. No one is talking about this situation

    July 10, 2011 at 7:48 pm | Reply
  80. KIlburn Hall

    Biased and prejudiced and incompetent talking heads saying what it would be and how it would be. I can tell you that my colleagues from coast to coast and border to border have condemned this whole process of lawyers getting on television and talking about cases that they don’t know a thing about, and don’t have the experience to back... up their words or the law to do it,” he said. “Now you have learned a lesson.” ~Cheney Mason.

    Directed towards our journalist colleagues especially Nancy Grace, Jane Velez Mitchell, and Judge Jeanine Pirro.

    July 10, 2011 at 7:33 pm | Reply
  81. LibelFreeZone

    BTW, I appreciate Howard Kurtz's willingness to discussed out in the open the media's excesses. Mr. Kurtz is, in fact, a trained journalist. Diane Dimond is not.

    July 10, 2011 at 7:30 pm | Reply
    • Brian

      Hi there i’m therefore joufyl I discovered this site, I really famous you by way of mistake, even though I became looking Inquire for something more important, At Any Rate I'm in this article at this moment and might same as to convey thank you for the distinct commenting on blogs and a many spherical intriguing net (I additionally be nuts about the theme/design), I don’t contain time to learn the whole thing in the correct right now yet I’ve added to my favourites and healthy info, this in reality of happiness helpful for me. There is nothing to reason around.

      November 13, 2012 at 12:42 am | Reply
  82. LibelFreeZone

    Diane Dimond being consulted on whether DisGrace is a biased hack? Dimond says, yes, DisGrace is biased because, unlike Dimond who claims she's a “trained journalist,” DisGrace is a lawyer.

    Yes, folks, Dimond said three times that she, Dimond, is a “trained journalist.” Good thing I had not yet had my breakfast when I heard Dimond claim that, yes, she also has a syndicated column where she offers her opinion, but that she is a “trained journalist” first.

    Obviously, Howard Kurtz doesn't know that Dimond never attended an accredited university where she might have received a degree in journalism, including at least one course in media ethics and media law. She’s a high school graduate who never worked for a sustained period of time for a news outlet with even a modicum of prestige or reputation for thorough, fair and balanced reporting.

    Dimond is a hack, too. Takes one to know one, I guess.

    July 10, 2011 at 7:28 pm | Reply
  83. Paul Smith

    Those media outlets who's coverage was balanced, without opinion and without prejudice did a good job of reporting. You know who you are. HLN did a good job with wall to wall coverage only to be drugged down into the gutter of sensationalism by one self proclaimed advocate of missing and exploited children. One who advocates: once charged always guilty. One who will censor defenders of a defendant's constitutional rights with a resounding "Woah Woah Woah" and cutting off their microphone. One who "danced with the devil" all the way to the ratings bank under the guise of seeking justice for Caylee. SHAME ON YOU! You are dis"Grace" to your profession and I can only hope Cheney Mason makes good on his promise: "We will be talking to you".

    July 10, 2011 at 4:51 pm | Reply
  84. Guest

    Why should the media be ashamed for what this NUTCASE has done?

    July 10, 2011 at 2:49 pm | Reply
    • LibelFreeZone

      Because mainstream media also has a long history of tabloid journalism. We need a new word to describe media's predilection for frenzy: medialoid. There are MANY examples of medialoid gone berserk, and not just Nancy DisGrace. She is, however, today's poster child for a malicious medialoid hell bent on personal destruction. For the good of society and democracy, she should be fired immediately.

      Medialoid ruined the life of Michael Jackson who was for nearly 20 years the target of the snarling jackals of medialoid.

      http://www.mediatenor.com/newsletters.php?id_news=260

      July 10, 2011 at 10:49 pm | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.