This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/17/oj-simpson-trial-cameras-court-justice-culture

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The OJ Simpson case 20 years later: making 'trials into television' The OJ Simpson case 20 years later: making 'trials into television'
(about 4 hours later)
Twenty years ago, football player OJ Simpson was charged with murdering his wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ronald Goldman in Brentwood, California. The eight-month trial that followed became a national obsession. It spawned mottos ("If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!"), reality stars (Cato Kalen, the Kardashian empire) and dinner table arguments across America. All this for one reason: inside the courtroom, cameras were rolling. Twenty years ago, football player OJ Simpson was charged with murdering his wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ronald Goldman in Brentwood, California. The eight-month trial that followed became a national obsession. It spawned mottos ("If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!"), reality stars (Kato Kaelin, the Kardashian empire) and dinner table arguments across America. All this for one reason: inside the courtroom, cameras were rolling.
By the time Simpson was arrested in June of 1994, cameras in the courtroom were still a relatively new development: in 1981, the supreme court ruled that states could pass laws allowing cameras in, which many did in the years leading up to the Simpson case (and all 50 have as of now).By the time Simpson was arrested in June of 1994, cameras in the courtroom were still a relatively new development: in 1981, the supreme court ruled that states could pass laws allowing cameras in, which many did in the years leading up to the Simpson case (and all 50 have as of now).
Paul Thaler, the communications department chair at Adelphi University, has written two books about the impact of those cameras: The Watchful Eye: American Justice in the Age of the Television Trial and The Spectacle: Media and the Making of the OJ Simpson Story. “I was intrigued,” he said. “I thought this was a new genre of television that we had never seen before. The courts were the most conservative of our institutions, and those laws basically opened the floodgates.”Paul Thaler, the communications department chair at Adelphi University, has written two books about the impact of those cameras: The Watchful Eye: American Justice in the Age of the Television Trial and The Spectacle: Media and the Making of the OJ Simpson Story. “I was intrigued,” he said. “I thought this was a new genre of television that we had never seen before. The courts were the most conservative of our institutions, and those laws basically opened the floodgates.”
The debate is ongoing today, as media organisations and legal groups pressure the US supreme court to relieve their own ban on cameras in the courtroom.The debate is ongoing today, as media organisations and legal groups pressure the US supreme court to relieve their own ban on cameras in the courtroom.
Here, Thaler explains how the cameras in the OJ Simpson trial have affected our relationship with justice since.Here, Thaler explains how the cameras in the OJ Simpson trial have affected our relationship with justice since.
What makes a trial open for cameras? Why are we allowed into some courtrooms and not allowed into others?What makes a trial open for cameras? Why are we allowed into some courtrooms and not allowed into others?
It’s really up to the discretion of the presiding judge. The choice for them is compelling: you become celebrated as a judge, and your trial is talked about every day. Just before the Simpson case, [the case’s judge] Lance Ito held a televised hearing on whether or not cameras would be allowed in his courtroom throughout the trial. He was actually very critical of the cameras being there. But, of course, once the cameras were in, Ito got sucked into the media vortex.It’s really up to the discretion of the presiding judge. The choice for them is compelling: you become celebrated as a judge, and your trial is talked about every day. Just before the Simpson case, [the case’s judge] Lance Ito held a televised hearing on whether or not cameras would be allowed in his courtroom throughout the trial. He was actually very critical of the cameras being there. But, of course, once the cameras were in, Ito got sucked into the media vortex.
In a way, he became infatuated with it. He would reportedly go home and turn multiple television sets on to watch the day’s proceedings. I do believe that at the end of the trial, Ito was a broken man in many ways. He realized his case had gotten out of control.In a way, he became infatuated with it. He would reportedly go home and turn multiple television sets on to watch the day’s proceedings. I do believe that at the end of the trial, Ito was a broken man in many ways. He realized his case had gotten out of control.
After the Simpson case, presiding judges became much more careful. Actually, a new adjective arose: no judge wanted to be “Ito’d” by a camera in the courtroom.After the Simpson case, presiding judges became much more careful. Actually, a new adjective arose: no judge wanted to be “Ito’d” by a camera in the courtroom.
Why are people still talking about the Simpson trial 20 years later? What are the important ways in which it affected American culture?Why are people still talking about the Simpson trial 20 years later? What are the important ways in which it affected American culture?
Of course, it awakened us to racial divisions in America. But it also made television trials the new normal.Of course, it awakened us to racial divisions in America. But it also made television trials the new normal.
The Simpson trial coincided with the birth of a new courtroom television network called Court TV (which is now TruTV). It was run by Steven Brill, who looked at his network as a kind of CSpan of trials. But it just wasn't. It wasn't a camera pointing at an event and letting viewers draw their own distinctions. It acted in ways that CSpan doesn't.The Simpson trial coincided with the birth of a new courtroom television network called Court TV (which is now TruTV). It was run by Steven Brill, who looked at his network as a kind of CSpan of trials. But it just wasn't. It wasn't a camera pointing at an event and letting viewers draw their own distinctions. It acted in ways that CSpan doesn't.
Court TV made trials into television – surrounding them with commentary, sidebars, and anything else to add hype. It positioned the viewer as the thirteenth juror: we all became jury members watching that trial, and we thought we knew more than those people on the stand.Court TV made trials into television – surrounding them with commentary, sidebars, and anything else to add hype. It positioned the viewer as the thirteenth juror: we all became jury members watching that trial, and we thought we knew more than those people on the stand.
When I would debate Brill, he would say: “We’re trying to educate people on the judicial system,” which was a bit disingenuous. What he saw was incredible commercial value. This was the start of cable news making the justice system into a profit making commercial property.When I would debate Brill, he would say: “We’re trying to educate people on the judicial system,” which was a bit disingenuous. What he saw was incredible commercial value. This was the start of cable news making the justice system into a profit making commercial property.
You suggest in your book on Simpson that the media really hijacked American culture – that they weren’t reporting the story, they created the story. In what ways did you see that?You suggest in your book on Simpson that the media really hijacked American culture – that they weren’t reporting the story, they created the story. In what ways did you see that?
This trial was intended to be a two-week murder trial, but it ended up being the longest trial, with the longest sitting sequestered jury, in the history of California. Amazing, right? The jury members had fewer rights than Simpson had during that trial. Simpson could watch television and read newspapers, but those jurors went back to a hotel room with access to none of that.This trial was intended to be a two-week murder trial, but it ended up being the longest trial, with the longest sitting sequestered jury, in the history of California. Amazing, right? The jury members had fewer rights than Simpson had during that trial. Simpson could watch television and read newspapers, but those jurors went back to a hotel room with access to none of that.
In retrospect, it doesn’t surprise me that they came to an immediate decision on the case. Take away a readback and a lunch break, and the jurors came to a decision on a year trial in just over two hours.In retrospect, it doesn’t surprise me that they came to an immediate decision on the case. Take away a readback and a lunch break, and the jurors came to a decision on a year trial in just over two hours.
I once served on a jury and was sequestered for two days. It seemed endless. I just cannot imagine what it would have been like for these jurors.I once served on a jury and was sequestered for two days. It seemed endless. I just cannot imagine what it would have been like for these jurors.
So you think the length of the trial affected the jury’s decision?So you think the length of the trial affected the jury’s decision?
I have to believe this had some effect on their evaluation of the evidence and testimony before them. Also, those members had to go back to their communities. Jurors aren’t allowed to be televised, but what is it like for jurors to go home after coming up with an unpopular verdict? Are they looking over their shoulders? I don't have an answer, but the question matters.I have to believe this had some effect on their evaluation of the evidence and testimony before them. Also, those members had to go back to their communities. Jurors aren’t allowed to be televised, but what is it like for jurors to go home after coming up with an unpopular verdict? Are they looking over their shoulders? I don't have an answer, but the question matters.
Do you think the cameras in the courtroom, and the media frenzy, made the case last longer than it otherwise would have?Do you think the cameras in the courtroom, and the media frenzy, made the case last longer than it otherwise would have?
There's no question. A witness that could have taken an hour to testify was on the stand for days. There were endless hearings about all sorts of legal issues, and every lawyer took their time before that camera. Judge Ito lost control. He knew he was being observed by a huge public audience, and was trying to be open-minded.There's no question. A witness that could have taken an hour to testify was on the stand for days. There were endless hearings about all sorts of legal issues, and every lawyer took their time before that camera. Judge Ito lost control. He knew he was being observed by a huge public audience, and was trying to be open-minded.
So the cameras really affected the course of justice. They affected the behaviour of lawyers, jurors, trial participants, and even witnesses themselves, who had to go back into their communities after giving live testimonies.So the cameras really affected the course of justice. They affected the behaviour of lawyers, jurors, trial participants, and even witnesses themselves, who had to go back into their communities after giving live testimonies.
They also affected the media. No media organization could escape – to not cover Simpson was to be out of the cultural loop. I asked an editor from Dog World Magazine who was at the trial every day why she was covering the Simpson case. Her rationale? Nicole Simpson’s Akita dog Kato, who had discovered the bodies of her owner and Ron Goldman, gave her readership an interest in this case.They also affected the media. No media organization could escape – to not cover Simpson was to be out of the cultural loop. I asked an editor from Dog World Magazine who was at the trial every day why she was covering the Simpson case. Her rationale? Nicole Simpson’s Akita dog Kato, who had discovered the bodies of her owner and Ron Goldman, gave her readership an interest in this case.
CNN could see a dip in their ratings when they went off Simpson. It’s interesting looking at the stories cable news didn’t cover in any great way during that year: one was the death of North Korean dictator Kim Il-sung, the father of Kim Jong-il. The Simpson case wiped out a lot of news at that time.CNN could see a dip in their ratings when they went off Simpson. It’s interesting looking at the stories cable news didn’t cover in any great way during that year: one was the death of North Korean dictator Kim Il-sung, the father of Kim Jong-il. The Simpson case wiped out a lot of news at that time.
You say that the media actually altered the outcome of the Simpson case. Can you explain that?You say that the media actually altered the outcome of the Simpson case. Can you explain that?
One way for the media to extend the trial is to create different narratives along the way, to give it long legs. The story started off as the trial of the celebrated athlete, the Shakespearean idea of a great man thrown to the floor, bloodied. Then it became a story about spousal abuse, and then race. What was once a murder trial eventually evolved into a debate about race in America.One way for the media to extend the trial is to create different narratives along the way, to give it long legs. The story started off as the trial of the celebrated athlete, the Shakespearean idea of a great man thrown to the floor, bloodied. Then it became a story about spousal abuse, and then race. What was once a murder trial eventually evolved into a debate about race in America.
I was in a college community room when the verdict came out, where there was a large television set. African American students jumped for joy at the verdict, and white students kind of hung in their seats, their mouths open. That microcosm really played out everywhere across the nation. Ironically, a technology we incorporated into the courtroom to show us how justice works ultimately divided America. I think we lost sight of the case as a murder trial – it became a reflection of deep-seated issues in our country.I was in a college community room when the verdict came out, where there was a large television set. African American students jumped for joy at the verdict, and white students kind of hung in their seats, their mouths open. That microcosm really played out everywhere across the nation. Ironically, a technology we incorporated into the courtroom to show us how justice works ultimately divided America. I think we lost sight of the case as a murder trial – it became a reflection of deep-seated issues in our country.
Is there a formula for these attention grabbing criminal trials? What trials tend to stick? And who decides?Is there a formula for these attention grabbing criminal trials? What trials tend to stick? And who decides?
I think the choices television stations make for trials are the same choices they make for most of their stories. Television is a visual medium, so first of all: do they have visuals? How do those visuals play on television? Look at the people who are chosen: Casey Anthony, the Menendez Brothers, Lorena Bobbitt, Simpson himself, a celebrity. Think about how often you see poor, immigrant defendants on trial on the news in these horrible cases.I think the choices television stations make for trials are the same choices they make for most of their stories. Television is a visual medium, so first of all: do they have visuals? How do those visuals play on television? Look at the people who are chosen: Casey Anthony, the Menendez Brothers, Lorena Bobbitt, Simpson himself, a celebrity. Think about how often you see poor, immigrant defendants on trial on the news in these horrible cases.
If Casey Anthony was of a different demographic and had a different look, maybe wasn’t as photogenic, how much media attention would be paid to such a horrible case? What are the images that we remember?If Casey Anthony was of a different demographic and had a different look, maybe wasn’t as photogenic, how much media attention would be paid to such a horrible case? What are the images that we remember?
Sometimes they’re chosen because they reflect larger societal issues – I’d say that was the case with George Zimmerman. Either way, cases are chosen for their ratings appeal. If the stations see people are watching, they’ll keep going with it. If people stop watching, they’ll let it drop. It boils down to that.Sometimes they’re chosen because they reflect larger societal issues – I’d say that was the case with George Zimmerman. Either way, cases are chosen for their ratings appeal. If the stations see people are watching, they’ll keep going with it. If people stop watching, they’ll let it drop. It boils down to that.
Simpson had all the ingredients that television trial experts look for in whether to choose a case: a celebrated athlete, racial elements, Hollywood, that infamous Bronco chase that cut into all networks that June day – everything. It was a made for television event.Simpson had all the ingredients that television trial experts look for in whether to choose a case: a celebrated athlete, racial elements, Hollywood, that infamous Bronco chase that cut into all networks that June day – everything. It was a made for television event.
If there were any lessons learned from Simpson, it’s that judges have become more wary about allowing cameras into the courtroom. I'd also like to believe that the media themselves have learned lessons from the Simpson case, that they have a greater responsibility not just to their audience, but to a public discourse.If there were any lessons learned from Simpson, it’s that judges have become more wary about allowing cameras into the courtroom. I'd also like to believe that the media themselves have learned lessons from the Simpson case, that they have a greater responsibility not just to their audience, but to a public discourse.