“I think the media has done the country a disservice. They were given a certain autonomy by our forefathers to be the watchdogs of the system. Now they’re running the system. We have this trial by media now – you’re guilty then they’re going to give you a fair trial.”
Those were the words of O.J. Simpson in an interview with Market News First (www.mn1.com) Tuesday, July 31, 2007, in which he relived the emotions he felt, and still feels, throughout his trial for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Fighting the anger toward the premature label of a killer is one thing. Swallowing the anger toward the media for its spin is another.
Though we’d all like to believe in the common phrase – innocent until proven guilty – it may be just that – a phrase. History repeats itself – from the trials of Dr. Sam Sheppard, to Kobe Bryant and O.J. to Michael Vick, already dubbed guilty by much of the public for his alleged association with dog fighting. The mainstream media is a hungry giant waiting for something to hit its plate. When high stakes media events hit the front page, the media outlet has the ability to sculpt the words into any shape it wants, launching accusations paired with facts to produce a conclusion of someone guilty before they hit the courtroom.
It’s not that the media always stretches and warps the truth, but rather when that truth gets into the hands of the wrong outlet, it is forever tainted. When used correctly, as the tool our forefathers intended it to be, the media can prompt justice, act as the people’s voice, and call out government officials – demanding answers for the people.
In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
While the media is unarguably a necessary tool to keep a sort of unofficial checks and balances system, if used unethically it can damage the reputation and life of anyone.
In 1954, Sam Sheppard was found guilty of murdering his wife. The case made headlines before the trial even began; the media swarmed the Ohio courtroom, pronouncing Sheppard a killer before the opening arguments were presented. Though evidence and Sheppard’s testimony claimed otherwise, a jury found Sheppard guilty of murder on Dec. 21, 1954.
After Sheppard served 10 years in prison, criminal defense lawyer F. Lee Bailey came to his aid – taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court on the platform that Sheppard was denied his Fifth Amendment right of due process. Bailey accused the media of prejudice against Sheppard before he set foot in the courtroom, picking up negative media coverage himself. He claimed the case was poisoned by the “carnival atmosphere” of the trial, created by the media frenzy in the courtroom resulting in slanderous publications. The judge’s failure to sequester the jury resulted in a “not guilty” verdict from the Supreme Court on Sept. 8, 1966.
Having wasted 10 years of his life in prison, emerging to a destroyed career, reputation and personal life, Sheppard took to the bottle and died of liver failure in 1970.
Forty years later, history repeated itself. It wasn’t the first time, but it was one to hit the headlines with as much vigor as the Sheppard case had. The media had a field day when, just after noon on June 13, 1994, the bodies of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were found in Los Angeles. Though no arrest was made at the time – when news of the murders hit the wires, O.J. was done for.
You know what happened from there on out. If you’re old enough, you remember the headlines, the courtroom, the verdict, the media’s response, and the public’s response – some enraged and some relieved.
Fast-forward 13 years – O.J. sits on the set of Dallas-based MN1, given an outlet to project his voice to whoever will listen, to those who still care, and to those holding on to their opinion that he was the murderer. It’s a no holds barred interview, but it’s also an unbiased interview.
“Sometimes you want to have a voice – I’m tired of people talking for me or saying things that I said or purported that I said things,” O.J. told MN1’s Kate Delaney. “When I spoke to you guys I got the impression that finally I could go on TV and not be cross examined and talk about a lot of things that have happened over the years and give me the opportunity to explain some things and give people an idea about what’s really been going on.”
Though he was acquitted of the murders, O.J. carries the baggage of a media frenzy – never quite granted the right of “innocent until proven guilty,” though acquitted of the crime, in a majority of the public’s eyes, he is. While some passerby’s circle O.J. for autographs and a friendly handshake – others stare him down with an intensity that could burn holes right through him.
Today the headlines surrounding O.J. have shifted focus to the still unpublished book, “If I Did It.” Though O.J. told MN1 that his intentions were to work with writers to publish a “hypothetical” book, the stigma of a killer followed him through the pages.
O.J. told MN1 that after feeling the weight of taxes and bills, needing the income, he agreed to help write the book on the basis that it would be “purely hypothetical.” O.J. said he had doubts the book would ever even make it to the shelves and said the book wouldn’t be published if he and the writers couldn’t agree on the content, especially the last chapter portraying the murders.
“I will not justify the evidence that they had that didn’t work then,” O.J. recalled, speaking of his thoughts and doubts about the book.
Though the book was never published, Newsweek published a report of the final chapter in which the two characters were infamously killed. The media ate it up and there was widespread public outrage that he would have the audacity to take part in such a controversial plot.
The outcome didn’t sit well with O.J. Though he’d worked with the writers to come up with a hypothetical scenario for the murders, he said the series of actions leading up to the murders couldn’t have happened at the real scene of the crime. Then again, he couldn’t correct the writers because he didn’t do it and didn’t want to sound too accurate.
“The next time I talked to the writer I said ‘You did it. You did it cause you’re the one that wrote this crap,'” he lightly joked.
Despite media condemnation, O.J. said the public normally receives him well. Briefly touching on the Kentucky Derby Steakhouse incident where the owner of the restaurant refused to serve him, O.J. said the people in the steakhouse were friendly, it was only the owner who found distaste in O.J.’s presence.
Being asked to leave didn’t bother O.J. as much as the media’s spin after the fact. O.J. said he was shocked when he saw all the media coverage the owner received as the told his part in what O.J. called the “biggest non-event ever.”
“I’ll show you how the media will take a nothing event and make it a big deal,” he said.
O.J. explained how the media would contact someone he was slightly associated with and bring them on national TV to answer intimate questions about O.J. and his family – using that person with no authority or knowledge to talk about such just to make headlines.
He continued to comment that people in general receive him well, that the media skews news to a negative angle, referencing Michael Vicks’ premature label by many as guilty for dog fighting, as well as the publicity surrounding Kobe Bryant and the rape charges that followed him.
When asked about his attempts to find Nicole and Ron’s killer to clear his name once and for all, O.J. said that clearing unsolved crimes is easier said than done, but it’s definitely something he feels should happen. After investigation attempts that only lead to corners and slammed doors – he’s moving on.
“I think nobody’s going to help … nobody’s going to help – I feel in some areas they don’t even want to. They’re happy with the way it is now. But your hope springs eternal.”
For now O.J. said he focuses on his children and his future, attempting to put the anger and the past behind him and working toward his own future, continuing his journey through life.
“For the first time in a lot of years I’m thinking about possibly doing something. I don’t know what – but doing something.”
O.J. reminded his audience yesterday that while the media zoomed in on the negative points of his trial and his life from that point on, there were a lot of people happy he was found innocent. Still, there’s a mass of people who hate O.J. – who post blogs and fill chat rooms in response to every interview to further bash his name. We’re a people thirsty for violence and hatred – we’re the feeding force behind the media with a fascination for greed, evil, corruption and war – as long as it doesn’t have to do with us.
The public needs a voice, the media gives it to them; O.J. needed an outlet, MN1 gave it to him. The loosely used slogan, “If it bleeds it leads,” rings true to most media networks – though it should be the voice of the victims, the voice of the accused and the search for justice that leads.
While O.J. stands behind Thomas Jefferson’s words, “The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers,” he’s also aware of Judge Roy Bean having said, “Hang ’em first, try ’em later.
