The motives of televising "Trials of the Century"

Tonight while working on a razor I was watching the ending testimony of the Jodi Arias trial and was struck by the similarities in TV coverage of the O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony trials.

The TV hosts want a guilty verdict and throughout their coverage incite the viewers to want the same thing.

Then the verdict is not guilty.

Then the TV hosts cry foul and take calls from viewers who want to vent.

I think the combination of leading viewers to want a guilty verdict and not getting it is precisely what the TV network wants for ratings purposes.

What I'm beginning to wonder is if this coverage somehow influences the outcome because it has become so predictable.

Was she found not guilty?

She was way to hot to go to prison. :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sinnfein

Was she found not guilty?

---

I don't think so, the closing arguments are today. Double O

I'm not convinced that televised coverage influences outcomes. My understanding is that jurors are kept from viewing coverage of the trial so as not to influence their decision.

But with this, I think the combination of an arguably attractive young woman, murder, and a sexual undercurrent make this as marketable as it is. Remove any one of these, and the tabloid TV stations wouldn't have touched it.


Just the fact that I find her oddly attractive is... disturbing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaliforniaCajun

Tonight while working on a razor I was watching the ending testimony of the Jodi Arias trial and was struck by the similarities in TV coverage of the O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony trials.

The TV hosts want a guilty verdict and throughout their coverage incite the viewers to want the same thing.

Then the verdict is not guilty.



Then the TV hosts cry foul and take calls from viewers who want to vent.

I think the combination of leading viewers to want a guilty verdict and not getting it is precisely what the TV network wants for ratings purposes.

What I'm beginning to wonder is if this coverage somehow influences the outcome because it has become so predictable.

---

What's the big deal?

Politicians have been doing this kind of stuff for years now. They lie and exaggerate and make things up and get their gullible followers to believe anything they say and use an army of mouthpieces on T.V and radio and internet and in print for influence so they hate the other side and all they represent and vote as ordered. That's why the country is in the state it's in now so why shouldn't this spill over to other parts of society?

The greatest thing about both T.V. and radio is the OFF switch.

Ratings drive everything tv does. So they find what is going to bring in the most viewers and use it.

That is why the news is not to inform you it's to entertain you.

The real question is why are you watching it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Castel33

Ratings drive everything tv does. So they find what is going to bring in the most viewers and use it.

That is why the news is not to inform you it's to entertain you.

The real question is why are you watching it?

---

It's like my Uncle Jethro used to say, "It may be poor but it's all I got"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaliforniaCajun

Tonight while working on a razor I was watching the ending testimony of the Jodi Arias trial and was struck by the similarities in TV coverage of the O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony trials.

The TV hosts want a guilty verdict and throughout their coverage incite the viewers to want the same thing.

Then the verdict is not guilty.

Then the TV hosts cry foul and take calls from viewers who want to vent.

I think the combination of leading viewers to want a guilty verdict and not getting it is precisely what the TV network wants for ratings purposes. No wonder that the media drive towards a given outcome. I'm willing to be that the Trayvon case will be handled just the same.

What I'm beginning to wonder is if this coverage somehow influences the outcome because it has become so predictable.

---

The US doesn't have news reporting.
It has opinion editorials and spindoctors, catering to the people who tune in because they enjoy being told what they want to hear.

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.

Any different 2000 yrs later?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 94Terp

I'm not convinced that televised coverage influences outcomes. My understanding is that jurors are kept from viewing coverage of the trial so as not to influence their decision.

But with this, I think the combination of an arguably attractive young woman, murder, and a sexual undercurrent make this as marketable as it is. Remove any one of these, and the tabloid TV stations wouldn't have touched it.


Just the fact that I find her oddly attractive is... disturbing.

---

Although the jurors are kept from the coverage, the other folks participating in the trial are in the camera's eye all day. As a result, they are concerned about the perspective the TV coverage is showing the public rather than the case they are presenting to the jury. The epitome of this was the OJ Trial. I recorded and watched every minute of the trial and used it for training detectives on how testify and how not to testify. For example, the glove should have never been allowed to be removed from the evidence bag. Once removed, the trace evidence is changed as referred to by Locard's Principle which is on of the foundations of forensic science. There should have been an immediate appeal to the next higher court by the prosecution. This would be a significant issue if there were a mis trial and OJ had to be tired a second time. Instead, they were too busy pandering to the cameras day after day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

The US doesn't have news reporting.
It has opinion editorials and spindoctors, catering to the people who tune in because they enjoy being told what they want to hear.

---

I agree....."the masses are asses."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnus

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.

Any different 2000 yrs later?

---

There are big differences in how it is brought.
US news shows try to tell you how you should feel about Obamacare, or gun control, or whatever. The anchors defend or attack, based on the political affiliation of their network.
Belgian news shows just report what is going on, without doing such. Networks don't have a political affiliation, and to get the news it really doesn't matter which newsshow I watch or which paper I read. The main differences between shows are areas of coverage (more sports, or national news, or financial news, etc).

I did watch much of the trial in the latter stages because I wondered if a jury could penalize someone who already confessed and was convicted of a crime. The answer was No, do it again.

The defense counsel tried to get taken off the case twice, and still managed to lock up the jury. Court took Fridays off. The jury wasn't sequestered. There were other delays that dragged this out.

Now they get to do the penalty phase all over again. It really was not impressive in so many ways.

Have we forgotten how to do this? My final conclusion is that the system hiccupped without TV's help.