O.J. Simpson, Race, And The Free Market
Shay
Today two black moderate bloggers square off about the implications of News Corp.'s decision to cancel the FOX interview with O.J. Simpson and the associated HarperCollins book release of If I Did It, billed as a hypothetical take on the murders.
Angela Winters is glad that the media gurus listened to public outcry: "They just thought somehow they would get away with it and [it] wins November sweeps. Even more than the interview, I'm glad the book isn't going to come out because although I know a lot of people would be too embar[r]assed to buy it in the stores, they would be curious enough to buy it online and it would sicken me to see that book move up the bestseller list. People always think about the saliciousness of a situation and don't really realize what they are supporting. Look at this picture. This is what really happened and there are two children whose continued harm makes this apology after the damage is done, ring weak."
However, Dell Gines asserts that the free market should have determined the success or failure of the book, arguing that everyone else has pimped the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, and it is hypocritical for Americans - more specifically, white Americans - to only have an outcry against Simpson: "Since that time [of the criminal trial], OJ and the murder has been the source of probably hundreds if not thousands of books, television reports and exposes and the like. The public has eaten it up from the beginning. Now, as the man who has right or wrongly been the source of the profiteering of the news media (obviously the covered the case in concentration because of ratings and ratings equals profits) the pundits and participants (Mark Furhman bullied his way onto MSNBC, Marsha Clark as a news commentator, Darden a book Deal, Kato a book deal) and more seeks to profit off his own pariah status HIT THE BREAKS! This my friends is the hypocrisy of America. When a brutal murder is exploited by the news media for big ratings and profits it is ok. When active and passive participants write books and participate in 'special reports' for thousands and dollars the exploiting of the deaths are no problem. When the man who most people is guilty attempts to profit off the infamy the public gave him, hell no. It is obvious to me the American public is less interested about respecting the dead in Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldmen and more interested in hating OJ. If it was about reverence from the dead then this outrage should have occurred from the beginning by the moralistic public. Instead they gobbled up the media and infotainment on the deaths from every source. To me that is not only hypocrisy, but also a sad testament to our society."
My argument: Dell is correct that a ton of other folks have pimped these deaths. However, I disagree with the argument that the (alleged) killer himself should profit - especially when he lost a civil suit and should be paying money to the families anyway. One could also argue that the free market has spoken here. Apparently so many folks - and potential advertisers, in the case of FOX - did an outcry that FOX and HarperCollins evaluated how it could affect their bottom line.
Related Posts (on one page):
- O.J. Simpson, Race, And The Free Market
- Fox slashes OJ project
- OJ Simpson
No. O.J. Simpson did. He's as much as admitted it; a civil jury found him liable for it; a racially-motivated criminal jury gave him a free ride for it. But that he did it, no serious person can doubt any more. So why is it hypocrisy to be offended that a murderer, unpunished already, not also be allowed to profit financially, and legally, from his acts?
Lost me at that point. The color of my skin has nothing to do with this.
And for the record, I am a white male of above average intelligence, (and above average skepticism), and I have serious doubts that OJ committed the crime. Serious enough that I wouldn’t have convicted him on the evidence presented to the jury in the criminal trial. Not sure how I would have voted in the civil case though.
I know so much more about this than I am able to say here and now. It's a tragedy that in my mind has not really begun to unfurl in its true dimensions, because of all the moral thunder.
He "did it," yes.
But that is not where the truth of the matter ends; It is where a much deeper exploration begins.
Don't like that attitude? Then override the United States Constitution, get rid of the amendment that guarantees trial by juries, and let panels of judges determine innocence. As in other legal systems. Or return to the days of law by lynching and the hangman's rope out in the woods.
The fact is, I do not give a damn about these celebrated multimillion dollar cases. For every rich and well-connected guy like Simpson, who could afford the best courtroom legal representation that his money could buy, there are thousands of poor saps who routinely get sent to prisons; where they are turned into hardened criminals even if they were relatively minor offenders when they went into captivity.
Stop howling about justice and learn to live your lives within the context of the contradictions, limitiations and opportunities of the system we now have. Or try tampering with it, and condemn yourselves to live with the almost-always unanticipated consequences.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
The degree and depth of outrage and moral panic is indiciative I feel of a deep seated racism. Nobody ever cares this much about domestic homicides.
But my point, totally oblique, was to say that there is another dimension to the "story" that transcends this whole booble bubble about our legal system. There's something else.
Our legal system is not what is most striking about the times we live in, or this OJ matter. Sorry I am just being more and more oblique. I will write about this. Soon. I will explain what I mean. In the meantime, I am asking only that people think deeply about free will.
And no, Dean. This is a lot more than the gospel according to St Ayn.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Two people die a violent, brutal, bloody, spontaneous death by homicide and all the evidence points where ? booble-bobble ? society ? racism ?
LA police ? Judge Ito ?
Where does the truth of this matter end ? Or did it already end ?
Amen, Father Harris.
So citizen Simpson is as innocent as your or me, and he has the court documents to prove it.
And that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
What do you want, McK? A long and tranquil life that you may well achieve, or a perfect world than can exist only in your dreams?
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Well, other than the fact that you just admitted truth in jurisprudence is just a suggestion decided by the least competent, I would offer:
Excuse me, but one lady juror was asked by a reporter, did you look at the evidence, she responded, yes we did look at it, as it was on the table in big stacks. And we walked around it, I think she said.
So Arnold, did you ever read about the second trail ? Or why, Gerald Uelman, OJ defense attorney, he of "if the glove don't fit you must acquit fame" and Professor of Law at Santa Clara University who once wrote in the San Jose Mercury news why OJ was not guilty in the criminal case and more than properly found guilty in the civil case ?
There was no finding in the criminal trial of innocence which is not the same as not guilty.
Are we getting there or are we getting more oblique ?
Many people committed murders and were either acquitted or never tried. (And McK is right: Acquittal is not a finding of "innocent.") That doesn't mean we can't acknowledge that they're killers. Especially when they admit they are.
I understand completely why OJ was found “not guilty” in criminal court, but “guilty” in civil court. And I agree with the logic.
In criminal court, the test is “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. Not beyond all doubt, but beyond a reasonable doubt. The definition of reasonable is up to each juror.
In civil court, the test is “liable based on a preponderance of evidence.” So 51% guilty/49% not guilty is all it takes. Or maybe even 11% guilty, 10% not guilty, 79% not sure might even work. Talk to a lawyer about that….
Personally, I would not have convicted OJ in criminal court, because I had what I consider to be some reasonable doubts. At least based on the evidence the jury saw. Less so on the evidence we the public saw. And I have leaned more towards guilty more facts came out. But I’m still on the fence.
But in civil court, I probably would have ruled against OJ. Even definitely more so today as opposed to 10 years ago.
I wanted to see this latest interview and read the book, because more info might sway me more in one direction or the other. But maybe that’s just because of my prurient interest.
Ron,
I don’t think OJ has ever admitted to being the killer. Maybe I missed that though.
And I agree that MAYBE we shouldn’t call him innocent. Maybe.
But we definitely shouldn’t call him guilty. Because, by our laws, guilty he is most certainly not.
But maybe we are all just arguing over semantics.