Introduction
The trial of OJ Simpson is one of the phenomenological trials in history. The case became the most publicized trial in the history of the US, and the longest ever tried in the state of California. There have been a nu8mber of reviews regarding the trial, some of which have involved the role of the media in covering the case, with some arguing that the media overstepped its ethical mandate in so doing. The purpose of this paper, therefore, shall be to analyze the background of events surrounding the case, and the role that the media played in airing the reporting ion the trial, so as to determine the efficacy of the media in being guided by the media ethics in performing its operations.
Background of Story
The case was about O.J Simpson, who was being tried of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. The trial took place in the state of California and became quite popular because of the hype and controversy that surrounded the case. The trial, which took place in 1995, called for a lot of attention from the public all over the world because of the unique circumstances that surrounded the case. First, it was the longest case ever tried in the state of California, lasting nine months. OJ was represented by 11 lawyers, and another 25 working for the prosecutor’s office. This is one of the largest legal personnel to ever work on a single case in the country, thus calling for the increased attention. Besides this, the case cost over $20 million in prosecuting and defending, one of the highest ever incurred at the time. The case covered whole 50,000 pages of transcripts of trial, and the entire trial saw over 150 people offer their testimonies as witnesses for the case. The case received worldwide attention from all over the world, with even state leaders like Margaret Thatcher and Boris Yeltsin referring to it in their talks. Studies indicate that over 91% of the American population was following the case on TV.
Ethics: Background
The Canadian journalism and media is based on a strong dedication to ethics and ethical behavior in its operations and services. One of the guiding principles of the media is accuracy in the gathering, assessment, and reporting of all news stories. The second premise for the media is fairness in all of its operations. Journalists try in as much as possible to ensure that they capture both and report both sides of a story in an equitable manner that ensures adequate representative and fairness. At the heart of Canadian journalism is also the concept of democracy, where journalists try to be as independent in their reporting as possible. This is one way that the sector ensures that democracy is upheld at all times, and that the weak and mighty as well get adequate attention and are adequately heard. Independency of the media is critical in advancing the public interests, whereby the media presents to the people facts as they unfold to effectively inform their decision making. The media avoids making personal comments as a way of avoiding conflict of interests among the involved parties. To achieve this, it only presents to the people facts as they are, and leaves them to make their own judgment based on these facts. This serves to increase the credibility and fairness of the media to the public and in advancing the public interest. The Canadian media holds the principle of transparency and accountability with high regard, where it stands to account for the sources of its information where necessary. The media also captures the concept of diversity in its operations, so that it covers information on all spheres of life.
The ethical guidelines as listed above, apply to different cases and issues of journalism in a number of ways. While some aspects may apply more in one situation, some may not in another, all depending on the context of the case. The OJ Simpson case appealed to a number of these guidelines as they were employed in the coverage and reporting of the story. The first guideline that applied was that of accuracy. The story contained a lot of details and events unfolding, which needed to be articulated in an accurate manner so as to provide the public with true and factual information. The other guideline that was involved was that of fairness. The story had two sides to it; that which sought to incriminate Simpson, and that which sought to declare him innocent. It was necessary that the media gives both sides equal advantage for both sides. The third guideline involved was the right to privacy. Simpson and the murdered victims all had the right to privacy, so that details about their personal lives that were not important to the case should have been left out. Details that exposed them to any forms of danger or embarrassment also, should have been left out to preserve their dignity. The guideline of accountability was also highly relevant to the case, as the media had to account for all the information it gave regarding the case to spell out malice and ensure that only truthful and factual information was given, which could be attributed to credible sources.
Background: Discussion
Lee, in his article on the Media’s obsession with OJ Simpson points out the manner in which the US media had become so obsessed with trivial matters of the personal lives of persons in society, which it failed to capture and report on important issues that would affect the lives of the viewers. The article points out to how the media and a number of legal personalities were taking advantage of the situation to make themselves a living by playing critical parties to the unfolding stories regarding Simpson. The center of international media ethics also states the manner in which the American media got too engrossed into the Simpson’s case, and how the case served to unearth the fragmentation there was in the American society of race, gender, social class, and celebrity status. The political sector was also realized to be fragmented according to identity politics.
Application and Argument
According to the evidence shown above with regard to the behavior of the media in the case it would be true to generally admit that the media failed. The media gave the case too much sensationalism, not for the facts that there were involved in the case, but for the fame and monetary gains it hoped to make of the case. Many media houses saw this as an opportunity to increase their fame among the public, and as such, went to all lengths to seek and provide to the po0ublic every detail of information regarding the victims and the defendant. These details might not have been connected to the case per se, but because of the hype surrounding the case, they found open ears and eyes ready to watch and see. The media did this at the expense of other more important news that could have more impact on the lives of the viewers than the story of Simpson, which revolved to become a sensational to the public.
If I were reporting the story, I would not make the same decision as the media did then. I would try to treat the case as any other news event and accord it airtime that corresponded with other news events as well. I would, above all, not divulge into the personal issues of the defendant and the victims as a way of creating sensationalism among the public or calling for public attention to the cases so that I maintain fairness and objectivity in news coverage at all times. If the case was to be covered in this way, maybe the outcome of the case would have been different from what it was.
The probable effect it would have had different was that the jury would not have felt so much pressure as to behave in a particular way so as to meet the expectations of the public, based on the information they had got from the media. To a large extent, the media made the case a race issue, so that the verdict awaited was not the verdict of Simpson on the murders, but of the black against the white race in the judicial system.
In spite of the criticism on the manner that the media acted on the case, we should understand the predicament of the media at that time, which might have caused the increased coverage of the case. One of these is the amount of public interest the case aroused among the people of America and other parts of the world. Most media houses indicated increased viewership of their stations of up to10% because of the case, which prompted them to increase their airing of the case.
