B-log

This one revisits the infamous story of American juvenile delinquent gets caned. And yet another OJ SImpson trial shout out.

July 5, 1994 Reaction Paper #3

      The entire country took notice when the teenager Michael Fay was sentenced to six swats with a bamboo cane for vandalizing automobiles in Singapore.  The U.S. government stepped in, imploring the Singapore government to not cane the boy.  The press was there every step of the way, getting reaction from Fay’s home town, speaking with Singapore citizens, and even analyzing the caning process by speaking to former caning recipients.

      The sentence was reduced to four hits, and Fay was punished for his crime.  Upon returning to America, Fay and his father both stated that they had no interest in speaking about the situation any further, that they only wanted to put the past behind them.

      Accordingly, I was a bit surprised when I turned on the radio the other night and heard the two men speaking with Rick Roberts of KOA radio.   They were on the air to profess young Michael’s innocence.  He claimed that his confession was coerced after long hours of inhumane treatment.  I was not able to listen to the entire show, but before I turned it off, I heard Roberts promote upcoming segments with allegations of U.S. intervention and the Fays’ plans for marketing this story.

I write all of this to speak about privacy.  It may be naïve of me to say this, but I do believe that the media were willing to grant his privacy after his return to the states.  I am guessing that the Fay family saw a dollar amount that they could obtain by re-introducing this story to the public.  By adding some spice and empty threats (they claim that they are going to sue the Singapore government), they hoped to create some interest in their pathetic situation.  So I suppose we should give them some credit, because they were able to find some.

People may or may not be sick of the story, but I definitely think that the media should not be blamed for an invasion of privacy.  The Fay’s volunteered to give up their privacy for this situation.  Several editors decided that there might be a new angle to this story and covered it.  The press is not at fault for this story. 

What concerns me about all of this is how the private citizen seems to want to forsake privacy for exposure.  Ronald Goldman’s mom recently held a press conference lambasting the press for not giving her more coverage.  She cited the L.A. papers for not even mentioning her presence in the city.  She claimed by not giving her exposure, the press was issuing an “implied” libelous statement that she had no regard for the murder of her own son.

Not only do I think this is ludicrous, but also very scary.

It appears that the press needs to worry about the consequences for respecting an individual’s privacy as well as invading it.  The gray line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior seems to get fuzzier when accepted norms suddenly become inherently “implied” libelous.  If this woman continues to mount the soapbox to criticize the press, how many new situations will appear, claiming that the press’ silence damaged their reputation.

With people like the Fays and Goldman’s mother around, it continues to get more and more risky to be an agent of the press. 

New Discovery: These first papers were a series of “reactions” to the events of the OJ Simpson trial for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson & Ronald Goldman, for the Ethics in Journalism class I was taking.

New Concern: Did I actually believe OJ was innocent? Certainly not…

***

Reaction Paper #2

      With all that seems to be going on surrounding the O.J. Simpson case, I would be remiss if I did not address it.  Since it continues to be a perfect example of many of the ethical issues that we discuss, I will continue to use it to my own advantage.

      We discussed libel in the classroom, and you mentioned that Simpson most likely would not bring forth libel charges if he is found to be innocent.  I definitely understand the logic behind why he would not want to do so, but I think it is a tragedy that the media is not being held accountable for the stories they present as the truth.  The class seemed to determine that it was not viable to fine the offending news source for publicizing faulty reports.  I don’t understand why that cannot be the case, especially in this situation.  If the press is going to the measures that they have, it can be little disputed that it is affecting the public opinion.  If the station that leaked the “existence” of the ski mask were forced to recant its story at the top of the newscast and publicly apologize for their error, then public perception may become more willing to wait until the trial to convict Simpson.

      Surfing over the channels on Friday night, I found myself repulsed to a new depth when I saw one of the tabloid shows dramatizing the Simpson’s saga.  They played heavily on the speculative issues and little on the known facts.  When I got over my shock at what I was watching, I thought about what I had witnessed. When the media produces these dramatizations, the viewer may gain feeling that they are watching reality.  If, in this reproduction, Simpson actually commits the murders, his goose is cooked when it comes to the trial.

      I suppose I am saying all of this to summarize that the media has become the victim of their own manipulation.  In a desperate effort to produce a story, they lost their integrity.  Their desperation may have cost the man his chance and a fair trial.

      Now, though, the defense is using the media to manipulate the public with hopes of fostering sympathy.   The poor ethical decisions of the reporters have resulted in the focus of the story becoming a bit fuzzy.  The prosecuting attorney is now facing backlash because of his release of the 911 tapes.  Because the stations aired the tapes, knowing they would make good ratings, the grand jury was dismissed, possibly turning a small tide in the defenses direction.  If the media is not to be held accountable to a certain degree, then the misdirected stories will continue to be distributed, much to the chagrin of justice and the joy of the American public. 

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.