Why the Top Stories need to be perverts?
A
powerful underwater earthquake which struck off the west coast of Indonesia
may well have been the main news of the 29th March edition of New
York Times, but it compares poorly with the Michael Jackson
trial story which received almost twice the space in the paper (688 words
as compared to 1200 words). Interestingly, the Jackson story (“In
Jackson Trial, Jurors Can Hear of Other Cases”) had not much to
say apart from what had already been said by the paper on its March 19th
edition (“Judge to Hear About 2 Jackson Accusers in 90's”).
Such is the significance attached to the Jackson trial that despite the
nature of the trial (long and persisting, often tiresomely repetitive),
it has never been relegated to obscurity. Instead, Jackson stories of
“did he? didn’t he?” question has hogged the limelight
in the leading press as one of the “top stories” on invariably
daily basis.
Not just NYT reports frivolously that “one of Jackson’s lawyers
Brian Oxman was admitted to Marian Medical Center, where it was discovered
he had pneumonia in his right lung”, Washington Times goes one step
further and narrates paraphrased accounts of the courtroom on regular
basis.
Repetitions are characteristic of legal stories, but the inferences drawn
of the readers’ legal acumen by the reporters are astounding. In
one news story, Judge Rodney S. Melville was reported to have refused
to “strike the video or the testimony”, without explaining
what it meant. Also surprising is the hard news by the Post (in its 1400
words story) that “Judge Melville ruled that prosecutors can bring
forward evidence of the two multimillion-dollar settlements Jackson reached
with his former accusers, though he said the jury may not be told the
dollar amounts.” The fact though, has been published by press several
times that in one case it was $35m and in the other $2.4m, and the jury
must be aware of this anyway!
Although this straight reporting without contextually examining statements
could be a sensitive matter for an ongoing legal story which is better
left not interpreted by journalists, it may hardly be the case. In proclaiming
it as the Trial of the Century, Eugene Robinson in Washington Post on
March 29th sums it up: “The Jackson case is an unfolding yarn, and
if we weren't the least bit curious about how it will turn out, we wouldn't
be human.” And he goes on an analysis trip to justify his belief.
Looking at the television, one can indeed fathom the depth of such belief.
For instance, E! News channel has been running the MJ trial since the
day one with re-enactments of the courtroom proceedings. The actors resemble
the actual people in the court, except for the accuser. Every night from
9pm to 10pm, the TV show features leading attorneys of the nation, James
Curtis, Rikki Klieman, Shawn Chapman Holley and Howard L. Weitzman, who
analyze the re-enactments.
Of course the striking contrast is the alternative press which has decisively
omitted the trial despite recent claims of MJ that he was victimized the
way Mandela and Muhammad Ali were. The MJ trial, in this sense has made
the division apparent between the types of press, not just the degree
of coverage. To quote Robinson, the division is sharp now between those
who are “human” and those who aren’t since they aren’t
curious enough.
Saswat Pattanayak
blog@saswat.com