Given that both men inspire mixed emotions for me, I still do not condone the media using them to mire the inequality and lopsided justice being given to Ms. Hilton.
To the credit of Mr. Simpson I must state that he too feels the media is failing in its purpose. In a recent interview Mr. Simposn states,
”In this day and age, when someone not serving me in Kentucky, with no argument, is a story and we don't know that someone is going up in space and we know more about Paris Hilton going to jail, something is wrong”>
Mr. Simpson is right. This is a farce, made worse by the media whether or not it is something the Hilton family desires or promotes. Seriously what does Mr. Simpson or Rev. Al Sharpton have to do with the legal system? What possible connection could they have to this case? There is none.
While Rev. Sharpton has taken this case to promote his cause in highlighting the injustice in the jailing policies of this nation and California in particular, he is not part of the issue at hand. Whether Rev. Sharpton succeeds or not, the fact remains that Ms. Hilton has been treated preferentially and there is no question that ANY other woman would not be treated in a similar manner. This is obvious and to involve him beyond this point is not reporting the news but molding it. When the media molds news we get ‘yellow journalism’ and false reporting.
That is part of the reason Mr. Simpson has held back from discussing this case. It has nothing to do with him. He just happens to be the favorite ‘whipping boy’ of the media. Since the start of the overly-publicized trial, in which he received representation equal to that of many notable celebrities, entertainers and rich individuals, the media has been beating up on him. To this day, cable news (I will single out Fox News as I watch it predominantly) often finds ways of mentioning the OJ Simpson trial on virtually every trial from Phil Spector to this case with Paris Hilton. It makes no sense.
Beyond the fact that many in this nation cannot accept the verdict in the OJ case, virtually a decade later, there is no cause for this. Mr. Simpson had a case where the benefit of high priced lawyers worked for African Americans, something that rarely occurs in our legal system. All the benefits that the price-tag of such lawyers provide were bestowed upon Mr. Simpson and he prevailed. How often has that happened before? Too many to count, just not for Black defendants.
But I digress. Why do the media want to focus this case on Mr. Simpson? To bring his name into a discussion of injustice? Odd since his trial is a clear example of justice on a fair and level playing field. I would again state that it is a manner in which to obfuscate what is happening with Ms. Hilton. It is an example of soundbite news that has proliferated every aspect of the news. Here is an example of what I mean,
“I have friends all over the country, none of them heard a word about the latest events in the Sean Bell Case. I’m in New York State, barely any comment in the last 24 hours. I do watch a lot of cable news, but I’m not glued to it so there may have been somewhat more coverage. But I can say that in 4 hours I saw 2 mentions of the case for 45 seconds each. In the same time I saw 5 minutes of Anna Nicole Smith, and 6 mentions and 12 minutes on the woman shot by unknown individuals in her bed. There was no less than a half hour of information about the Boy Scout that was in the woods. Seem fair?
Concluded in Part 3...
No comments:
Post a Comment