A. J. Hammer on Showbiz Tonight to the Jodi Arias on Showbiz Tonight discussed ten reasons why our nation is obsessed with this case in particular. I haven't paid attention to ratings, and furthermore, if self-reporting of viewing and/or Nielsen ratings are the only gauges available as to just how obsessed America is with this case, I question their reliability and validity. I'm not sure I believe that the American public is as engaged in this trials as are the talking heads of the media. Furthermore, a. J. Hammer hosts Showbiz Tonight. Neither Jodi Arias nor the man she killed were show business personalities prior to the murder. What is it about committing or being accused of having committed a murder that warrants qualifying a person to the distinction of "show business personality"? It was bad enough when the media chose to try to pass off Kate Gosselin or any of the Kardashians to the rest of us as bona fide celebrities. But accused murderer Jodi Arias? What's next? Should she have a star on Hollywood's walk of fame?
The case and the trial are not without sensational elements. Anything that features much sex -- kinky sex in particular -- will inevitably attract an element of the public. Still, is this trial a water-cooler or copy machine conversation topic? It seems a stretch to assume that it is. Even though I'm a bit out of the loop in what's happening in my classes since I'm skyping versus showing up in the flesh, the skype kicks in almost ten minutes before class starts each day. I hear other students as they talk, and they occasionally even include me in their conversations. The only reference whatsoever that I've heard about this case from my university peers is how tired they are of it and how they wish it was over already. They don't seem to care about the outcome. And they're not out of the loop. The dorms are provided with free cable access. The university students have as much opportunity to watch the coverage as anyone else, and they are tired of it. My suspicion is that they're not alone.
I admit to having been obsessed with other true crime cases, from the Jonbenet Ramsey Casey to the Chandra Levy case to the Lacy Peterson case to the Elizabeth Smart case to the Caylee Anthony case. Nothing about this case, however, intrigues me or piques my curiosity in the least. If other regular members of the public feel differently about this, however, and are grateful for the extensive media coverage, such is their right to feel theway they do. If A.J. Hammer, Dr. Drew. Nancy Grace, Jane Velez-Mitchell, and others like them are truly catering to the interests of the American public, they are doing their jobs.
If, however, what they are doing is trying to inject themselves into the news itself - trying to make news of a topic that isn't really newsworthy -- trying to create news for the purpose of creating ratings for their programs, what they are doing is reprehensible. Just because this apparently has been a slow news month doesn't mean the talking heads have any right to attempt to make a story more newsworthy than it is simply by highlighting the titillating aspects of it. Such is reprehensible.
And, as a final note, the semi-regular segment of Nancy Grace's program where she is shown conversing with herself about the day's issue, framed in a totally blacked-out background with only her head visible, looking at God knows what but certainly not at the camera, is odd to the point of preternaturality.
The case and the trial are not without sensational elements. Anything that features much sex -- kinky sex in particular -- will inevitably attract an element of the public. Still, is this trial a water-cooler or copy machine conversation topic? It seems a stretch to assume that it is. Even though I'm a bit out of the loop in what's happening in my classes since I'm skyping versus showing up in the flesh, the skype kicks in almost ten minutes before class starts each day. I hear other students as they talk, and they occasionally even include me in their conversations. The only reference whatsoever that I've heard about this case from my university peers is how tired they are of it and how they wish it was over already. They don't seem to care about the outcome. And they're not out of the loop. The dorms are provided with free cable access. The university students have as much opportunity to watch the coverage as anyone else, and they are tired of it. My suspicion is that they're not alone.
I admit to having been obsessed with other true crime cases, from the Jonbenet Ramsey Casey to the Chandra Levy case to the Lacy Peterson case to the Elizabeth Smart case to the Caylee Anthony case. Nothing about this case, however, intrigues me or piques my curiosity in the least. If other regular members of the public feel differently about this, however, and are grateful for the extensive media coverage, such is their right to feel theway they do. If A.J. Hammer, Dr. Drew. Nancy Grace, Jane Velez-Mitchell, and others like them are truly catering to the interests of the American public, they are doing their jobs.
If, however, what they are doing is trying to inject themselves into the news itself - trying to make news of a topic that isn't really newsworthy -- trying to create news for the purpose of creating ratings for their programs, what they are doing is reprehensible. Just because this apparently has been a slow news month doesn't mean the talking heads have any right to attempt to make a story more newsworthy than it is simply by highlighting the titillating aspects of it. Such is reprehensible.
And, as a final note, the semi-regular segment of Nancy Grace's program where she is shown conversing with herself about the day's issue, framed in a totally blacked-out background with only her head visible, looking at God knows what but certainly not at the camera, is odd to the point of preternaturality.
Nothing gets the media juices flowing like a celebrity murder case. Brings to mind OJ Simpson. Not sure how the Oscar Pistorius case is playing out over in the US but its a media frenzy over here. None of which will bring justice any swifter for Reeva Steenkamp.
ReplyDeleteOn an unrelated topic what do you make of Dennis Rodman's tour of North Korea?
ReplyDeleteWhat I have to say about Dennis Rodman and about Kim Jong Un is not very nice, but since when have I let a little thing like niceness get in the way of what I say? Anyway, I think they're both idiots. One's a totalitarian idiot who happened to inherit a government and an entire nation which is scarcely livable except for Kim Jong Un himself a nd a chosen few. (I wonder if he has evolved, as had his father before him, to the point of no longer urinating or defecating? i assume it must have been, in combination of other things, exploding bowel and kidney failure that killed the old man.
ReplyDeleteIfdennis rodman tinks someone who hogs his nation's meagre resources and reserves them for his family and close friends sis such a stand-ip guy, perhaps Rodman should move to North Korea.he would probably be one of the privileged few. Does Rodman have any actual intelligence or skills beyond those used in basketball? If so, maybe he could help Kim Jong Un with the production of nuclear weapons. I wonder how Rodman would feel if the weapons actually were successful and hit someone near and dear to him?
Dennis Rodman and Kim Jong Un are both tools. Kim Jong Un does not even have the comedic factor working in his favor as did his father before him.