Capital Gazette wins special Pulitzer Prize citation for coverage of newsroom shooting that killed five

Trial TV: Emote control Spectacle: News reports wring every drop of pathos out of the verdict and the aftermath.

THE BALTIMORE SUN

Moments before the verdict was read, NBC anchorman Tom Brokaw told viewers in a hushed voice, "There is nothing we can say that would add to the suspense or drama of this moment."

Then, of course, after only a momentary pause, Brokaw went right on talking, adding yet a few more drops of prattle to an 18-hour tidal wave of television talk that finally washed ashore yesterday with the not-guilty verdict for O.J. Simpson.

The network news cameras were wall-to-wall in Los Angeles, and the big-name anchors were on the air starting at 7 a.m. yesterday. But most of what we saw on our television screens had nothing to do with journalism. To judge the broadcasts by journalistic standards is silly.

What was on display was show business and spectacle.

It was part Oscar night, part Super Bowl, part courtroom thriller, part action-adventure film brought to near-perfect closure, and finally, part legal and racial mud-wrestling. As bizarre as such television events are, in its own way what we saw yesterday was a profound viewing experience.

Most of the day's coverage was framed in the grammar of television's entertainment and sports jargon.

From 7 a.m. (Pacific time) on, for example, CNN and the broadcast networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) started to feature an overhead shot of the crowd outside the Los Angeles County Criminal Courts Building. It was the same shot, with the same treatment, we get outside the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion on Oscar night.

Standing in the center of the phalanx of fans, CNN's Charles Feldman told viewers that the Garveys (Steve and Cindy) and Bruce Jenner had arrived -- in the same way show-biz correspondents report the arrival of stars at awards show.

But when CNN legal analyst Greta Van Susteren followed that with one of the few journalist's questions of the day -- whether Feldman knew if the van carring Simpson had arrived at the courthouse -- Feldman had to admit that he didn't know.

Wasn't she supposed to ask what Cindy was wearing?

Once inside the courtroom, you had the genuine cliffhanger ending that many viewers have been waiting for since June 1994 -- some with their breaths held since Monday night, when Judge Lance Ito said there was a verdict but America would have to wait 18 hours to be told what it was.

And what a perfect development that was -- making the reading of the verdict a television event, with a planned countdown to kickoff, rather than a legitimate news event to which journalists are forced to react instantaneously.

Thank you, thank you

Even after the verdict was read, Judge Ito himself couldn't resist holding the (expected) audience of 100 million viewers for a few extra moments -- to name everyone involved in the trial, from interns to the commissioner of courts, as if it were the closing credits in a television movie.

Then the cameras took us to the winning and losing locker rooms -- the press conferences held by the defense team and members of the Simpson family, followed by Los Angeles District Attorney Gil Garcetti's press session with the devastated Christopher Darden and members of the Goldman family.

You have to admit, it was emotional.

But the television device that worked best yesterday was the split screen that showed us an overhead helicopter shot of a white van traveling on the Santa Monica freeway to take Simpson home, and the defense team's press conference.

It would be hard to imagine more perfect emotional and psychic closure.

For millions of viewers, the Simpson phenomenon started on a Friday night in June 1994, when they turned on the television and saw a white Bronco traveling the same freeway.

That's entertainment

Does anybody care whether the legal analysts hired by NBC News seemed smarter or dumber than those hired by CBS? I watched non-stop since "Geraldo Live" on cable channel CNBC at 9 Monday night, and I didn't see one legal expert who wasn't guessing. In fact, the overwhelming consensus among the experts was that Simpson would be found guilty.

Does it matter whether Dan Rather seemed more subdued or Peter Jennings seemed genuinely tired of the whole Simpson business yesterday afternoon? Does it matter locally that WJZ (Channel 13) ran "Jenny Jones" at 9 a.m. instead of staying with extended news coverage from Los Angeles -- as did WBAL (Channel 11) and WMAR (Channel 2)?

No, it doesn't. This was a television event, not journalism. Even on CNN, the cable news network, didn't try to kid us about traditional journalism. Instead of Bernard Shaw or one of the regular anchors, the coverage leading up to the verdict was anchored by Van Susteren and Roger Cossack, hosts of "Burden of Proof," a new legal affairs show launched by the network this week.

The staging for their show featured the hosts facing a bevy of experts who were seated on bleachers opposite them. It looked like a game show on MTV or, perhaps, the NFL pre-game show on Sunday afternoons on Fox.

It certainly didn't seem like a newscast leading up to an announcement about whether a man would spend his life in jail for double murder.

But it did seem a proper setting for the kind of staged conflict that has replaced rational discourse on television talk shows, with white lawyers and black lawyers mud-wrestling over guilt and innocence, over whether the trial was about Mark Furman or O.J. Simpson. There was too much of that to even start to list it here.

At 4 p.m., the mud-wrestling lawyers were replaced by mud-wrestling guests on a special edition of "Oprah," which featured even more red, hot and racially-loaded arguments about the verdict -- all of it under the phony banner of "finding common ground."

The images

All that was left by dinnertime was for the networks to put together their montages -- images from the murders and trial that many of us will always carry around in our heads, whether we want to or not.

The early packages featured pictures of black people cheering and white people looking angry or stunned. Such pictures are strung together to trigger powerful emotions, not understanding. They make for great spectacle, but they can lead to a deeply confused and troubled populace.

Copyright © 2019, The Baltimore Sun, a Baltimore Sun Media Group publication | Place an Ad
66°