Back When I Knew Everything: Ethics & Media
The many posts to follow are papers I wrote while I was in college and seminary. I’m posting them here primarily as a means of digital archiving. Please forgive any immature expression of thought. I was pretty impressed with myself back in the day. Many years later, recognizing that it’s taking me 20 minutes to cut & paste these old documents…well, let’s just say I’m slightly more humble.
***
After watching all of the events surrounding the apprehension of O.J. Simpson, I decided that our discussion would apply nicely to his situation. His arrest, manhunt, and arraignment have all been the focus of the media. Every half-hour on the radio I hear the latest details of the case, whether it be the search for the murder weapon or the “discovery” of another incriminating piece of clothing.
This case is already on questionable ethical ground because of the leaks and “unnamed sources” used by the various papers. Simpson has either been convicted or exonerated by the majority of our entire country. If every person on this campus were asked, only the smallest percentage of people would not have an opinion regarding his guilt or innocence. Since the press has raised so many incriminating issues relating to Simpson, I believe that his guilt has already been assumed by a large proportion of this country. Because of the extent of reporting and use of questionable facts, Simpson may find it exceedingly difficult to obtain an impartial jury in his case.
When the press found out that charges would be brought upon O.J. for the murder, the television and radio stations all flocked around the courthouse waiting for his surrender.
As time passed, we viewers were privy to speculation on validity of the charges brought forth by the prosecution, as well as deliberation on the application of the death penalty to the special circumstances of this case. While some of these ponderings by the media were boring but effective time-killers, I think a question of ethics should be raised concerning the right of the journalists to analyze this case to the extent that they have.
If Simpson is innocent (which I myself hope but do not believe), the media as a whole has gone beyond the boundaries of ethical reporting. While the camera shots of his flight down the California freeways certainly made for good television, I found myself waiting for him to tire of the pursuit (of the press, not the police) and shoot himself. Since he did not commit suicide, the media themselves dodged the bullet of ethics.
Though I think Simpson’s attorney, Robert Shapiro, uses the media to manipulate the viewing public, I can justify his actions. I think that they feel like their manipulative tactics are necessary to assuage all of the negative press he has received thus far.
Because of this, the issue is raised concerning the purpose of the press. I think that in this situation, the press is not the vehicle to transport the cold, hard news, but instead is the soapbox upon which both sides profess the guilt and/or innocence of this man.
I look forward to the upcoming days, weeks, and months of the O.J. Simpson story. I know I will see further misuse of ethics by the press and I know that it will be justified in the name ratings and revenue. May the best stations and periodicals win.
