*Editorial Opinion*
Chicago, IL, (ENN) January 25, 1995 --"Live from Los Angeles"...are words that we hear most often these days. A virtual "feeding frenzy" of publicity and coverage of a murder trial involving a fallen football star, his estranged wife, and her friend seems to have captured the imagination of the media, if not the American public. As this report is written, all four of the major television networks have chosen to preempt everything else that is going on in the world, to hear the opening statements of several highly paid lawyers, as they discuss the merits of a case against an accused murderer.
No real substantive issues, that concern the rest of America, are being discussed in that court room. The outcome, in acquittal or conviction, will have little effect on poverty, crime, prejudice, war, pestilence, disease, or any of the other ills that affect our everyday society. Were it not for the notoriety of the accused former football star, many journalists agree that this case would be worthy of a day or two on page three of their local paper and then relegated to page thirty-six for the duration of the case...if it were covered at all. Cases of this kind happen almost everyday, somewhere in America. Yet, somehow, there it is...the O.J. case, at the lead of every newscast, live in the middle of the afternoon, commandeering my television set.
I admit I am at a loss to explain the real significance of this case, other than to observe that it may have provided an open forum for the discussion of the burgeoning and troublesome issue of domestic violence. I'm afraid, however, that the publicity surrounding the case may have made it so important to the careers and pocketbooks of lawyers, TV reporters, writers, networks, advertisers, book publishers, and others with a monetary interest, that the facts of the case have become secondary to a mad rush for the "all mighty buck".
During the past five (5)days, ENN has conducted an informal news poll of approximately one hundred (100) people from across the country. A majority of these people work in either an emergency service agency or for the media. Although not scientific in the least, and with an accuracy of +/- 50%, this study unequivocally shows that the American people are really tired of the O.J. Simpson case and feel that the coverage is being vastly overdone. 83% said that it wouldn't matter to them if the coverage of the trial were to end tomorrow.
When asked about the importance of the O.J. Simpson trial, many were heard to exclaim, "who cares?" Others said that were it not for their occupations that they wouldn't pay any attention to this story. Still others questioned the merits of the extensive coverage. At least one firefighter wanted to know when the "Soap Operas" would be back on. All in all, most said that there were far more important and pertinent issues that should be covered by "the press".
One California newswriter was even courageous enough to admit that he didn't feel that the current level of coverage was journalisticly justified, but that the O.J. trial produced viewers. The viewers produced ratings. And...the ratings produced his salary. Therefore, he concluded, he would cover the trial twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a year, if that was what his boss decided was important.
In closing, an interview with a real television pollster revealed that it is likely that the networks will experience a "brief blip" in the ratings because of the exhaustive O.J. coverage, but that they will then probably also experience a number of complaints regarding their discontinuance of normal programming. He concluded by predicting that many Americans, already tired of the "theatrics" in Los Angeles, would rebel and there would eventually be a ratings backlash against the "gavel-to-gavel" coverage.
We at ENN agree and hope that, somehow, America's professional newspeople will come to their collective sense and return to the journalistic ethics that have been the hallmark of popular literature in the United States. The current coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial simply panders to the most purulent interests of us all. It doesn't contribute to the betterment of society or to a better understanding of ourselves or the world. We hope it will be over soon.
(Electronically Republished; appeared in Chicago Sun-Times, Editorial Page - Thursday, Jan. 26, 1995)
Chicago, IL, June 12, 1995 -- Monday is the first anniversary of the Nicole Simpson/Ron Brown slaying. It has received recognition and publicity that far exceeds most mass murders of the 20th century. Most media watchers will admit that the coverage of this case exceeds the national coverage of that of the twenty-six (26) people killed by John Wayne Gacy, and maybe meets or exceeds the coverage afforded to the Hillside strangler and "Son of Sam" killer combined. Some would even suggest that the O.J. Simpson trial will soon equal that coverage given to the Holocaust and the entire Korean War.
While admittedly, the later of these statements may be facetious...how can this situation exist? How can a simple murder trial of an former Afro-American football player continue to lead the news on any number of television channels and some national newspapers, everyday, for more than a year? What possible significance can be attached to this trial that would warrant such extraordinary attention and analysis? How can our vested heroes of journalism have become this enamored with the speculation and the easy sensationalism of the O. J. Simpson trial?
While admittedly rhetorical questions, these issues speak directly to state of the current philosophy and ideology within some newspapers, television stations, and radio outlets in the United States. A far larger and more important question looms; is the O.J.Simpson trial more important than the situation in Bosnia, the breakup of the Soviet Union, the suffering in Rawanda, terrorism in the United States, child abuse, teenage crime, or any number of other ongoing situations that are currently occurring? This author and other knowledgeable citizens would respectfully suggest that the answer is no... O.J. is not as important as many of the other issues that are on-going in the world. Yet, that is the coverage that we see and hear, all day, everyday, on many our most trusted news outlets.
One can only hope that the backlash of the general public will, at some point...occur...and visibly revolt against the easily covered and extremely profitable sideshow that is the O.J. Simpson trial. Then, and only then, do we have any chance of learning more about the issues that concern the "real world" outside of that now famous Los Angeles courtroom.
Editorial Opinion
By Clark Staten, ENN Executive Editor
Chicago, IL, October 3, 1995 -- The months of waiting are over. The "circus" in Los Angeles has ended with the acquittal of Oranthal James Simpson. The question remains, however, of who were the real winners and losers. Obviously, Mr. Simpson was a winner. But it is less evident who are the losers.
Shortly after the verdict, Mr. Fred Goldman and the Goldman family expressed their extreme remorse regarding the verdict. Mr. Goldman, in a press conference immediately following the jury announcement, said that "Justice was not served". The L.A. County District Attorney's office also says that they do not feel that the outcome reflects the evidence and that they are "Profoundly disappointed". And...anger is being expressed, throughout the country, by seemingly disenfranchised Caucasian-Americans.
The primary issue being discussed involves the so called "race card" that was allegedly played by defense attorney Johnny Cochran. The focus of concern surrounds the issue that Mr. Simpson was found innocent because of allegations of racial discrimination and conspiracy on the part of police officers and not on the evidence. The issue of "check-book justice", bought by Mr. Simpson's millions, has also been raised by legal experts and scholars.
In a larger sense, some (like Mr. Cochran) will say that it was the entire criminal justice system that was on trial, not O.J. Simpson. They maintain that it is inherent racial prejudice in police departments, DA's offices, and in juries that allegedly convicts a disproportionate number of African-American defendants. In the system described by Cochran and others, it is impossible for a black Americans to be given a fair trial, even when judged by a jury of their peers. Others will disagree and point to the Simpson verdict as an example of how the system actually does provide equal justice.
On a national basis, it is society as a whole that could suffer the after-effects of the O.J. Simpson verdict. While black and other minority Americans may find some solace in the decision, white majority Americans may feel that they were "short-changed" by the verdict and lose even more faith in a seemingly irrational criminal justice system. Some will undoubtedly lose faith in the viability of the system as a whole, and a "white-backlash" may result.
Realistic concerns continue; the verdict may serve to widen an already deep division between black and white Americans. As the debate goes on about affirmative action, quota hiring, and reverse discrimination, some Americans will undoubtedly view the O.J. verdict as a case of "unequal treatment" for a black man accused of killing two white people. Others may feel that he was acquitted only because he was a black man judged by a predominately black jury.
Women's rights advocates and the Brown family are also reportedly upset about the verdict, although they refused immediate comment on the verdict. One woman wearing a NOW (National Organization of Women) T-shirt, seen outside the courtroom, reportedly was quoted as saying that the O.J. Simpson verdict "sends entirely the wrong message about spousal abuse" and that it could "set back women's rights by ten years".
One thing is certain. The O.J. Simpson trial and acquittal will fuel debate for many months to come. It may serve to exacerbate racial tensions, although probably not as much as a O.J. conviction would have. It may undermine the public confidence in police officers and their racial attitudes and actions. And, it will raise serious questions about the very foundations of the American justice system. One would hope that this reflection will serve to bring about positive changes that will lead America to a point where color or ethnic origin are not a legal issue, and that the facts of any dispute speak louder than the racial overtones.
(c) Emergencynet NEWS Service, 1995
May be re-distributed in whole or part, with permission
Emergency Response & Research Institute
6348 N. Milwaukee Ave., #312, Chicago, IL 60646
(312) 631-ERRI - Voice/Voice Mail
(312) 631-4703 - Fax
(312) 631-3467 - Computer/Modem-EMERGENCY BBS-14,400bps
Internet: enn@emergency.com
Return to the Management/Computer/Future Page