PDA

View Full Version : Could Orenthal please die already?



Blimpie
11-15-2006, 08:46 AM
It obvious that he is ready for his deathbed confession, all he needs now is the deathbed. Nice to see that executives at Fox continue to raise the bar in network broadcast ethics.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,229504,00.html


O.J. Simpson to Tell FOX How He Would Have Killed Slain Wife Nicole

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

LOS ANGELES — FOX plans to broadcast an interview with O.J. Simpson in which the former football star discusses "how he would have committed" the slayings of his ex-wife and her friend, for which he was acquitted in a widely-watched trial, the network said.

The two-part interview, titled "O.J. Simpson: If I Did It, Here's How It Happened," will air Nov. 27 and Nov. 29, the TV network said.

Simpson has agreed to an "unrestricted" interview with book publisher Judith Regan, FOX said.

"O.J. Simpson, in his own words, tells for the first time how he would have committed the murders if he were the one responsible for the crimes," the network said in a statement. "In the two-part event, Simpson describes how he would have carried out the murders he has vehemently denied committing for over a decade."

The interview will air days before Simpson's new book, "If I Did It," goes on sale Nov. 30. The book, published by Regan, "hypothetically describes how the murders would have been committed."

In a video clip on the network's Web site, an off-screen interviewer says to Simpson, "You wrote 'I have never seen so much blood in my life.'"

"I don't think any two people could be murdered without everybody being covered in blood," Simpson responds.

Simpson, who now lives in Florida, was acquitted in a criminal trial of the 1994 killings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman. Simpson was later found liable in 1997 in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the Goldman family.

Messages left with Simpson and his attorney Yale Galanter were not immediately returned.

RedsBaron
11-15-2006, 08:59 AM
I realize that FOX News is an all purpose whipping boy for some here, but I have no problem with FOX running a story about one of the most notorious murders in the last several decades. As for O.J. Simpson, wow--just wow. I still cannot believe that I ever cheered for the guy. I find it hard to watch him in the "Naked Gun" film series.

Johnny Footstool
11-15-2006, 09:24 AM
How he would have done it? He wrote a book about an imaginary scenario?

"If I wanted to kill Nicole, I would have found one of them space ray guns the aliens use. I would have snuck up on her while she was in the shower and shot her so she turned into space ashes, which would then be rinsed down the shower drain -- no body. Then I would have jumped on a unicorn and rode away to Narnia."

Reds Freak
11-15-2006, 09:51 AM
I don't get it. I read it over a few times to see if I missed something. He's going to explain the methods he would have used if given the chance to kill his ex wife and friend? That doesn't make any sense at all. Why would he do that?

redsfan30
11-15-2006, 09:54 AM
What else can you say but "wow."

RFS62
11-15-2006, 09:56 AM
. Why would he do that?


$

Blimpie
11-15-2006, 09:56 AM
I don't get it. I read it over a few times to see if I missed something. He's going to explain the methods he would have used if given the chance to kill his ex wife and friend? That doesn't make any sense at all. Why would he do that?To get his enormous, ego-centric cranium in the spotlight a bit longer. For O.J.--being despised worldwide is not nearly as distressing as being irrelevant.

My big questions are: Why would Fox feel that anybody would clamor to watch this mess? Which of their big-ticket advertisers wants to align themselves with network programming that glamorizes a double-homicidal sociopath?

HotCorner
11-15-2006, 09:58 AM
I feel horrible for the Brown and Goldman families. Now he's attempting to profit off of how he would kill Nicole and Ron. Sick!

Blimpie
11-15-2006, 10:00 AM
I realize that FOX News is an all purpose whipping boy for some here, but I have no problem with FOX running a story about one of the most notorious murders in the last several decades. As for O.J. Simpson, wow--just wow. I still cannot believe that I ever cheered for the guy. I find it hard to watch him in the "Naked Gun" film series.This isn't a True Hollywood story "about" O.J. This is his play-by-play accounting of how he "could have" erased the mother of his two children from the Earth.

You DO realize that his children are still alive and able to watch this unmitigated disaster, right?

HotCorner
11-15-2006, 10:01 AM
Could OJ be re-charged or would that be considered double jeopardy? If not has the statue of limitations passed or does one exist for murder in California?

Just curious since he could in theory state he would have killed them in the manner in which they were killed which would be punch to the gut to a lot of people.

dabvu2498
11-15-2006, 10:22 AM
Could OJ be re-charged or would that be considered double jeopardy? If not has the statue of limitations passed or does one exist for murder in California?

Just curious since he could in theory state he would have killed them in the manner in which they were killed which would be punch to the gut to a lot of people.

Double jeopardy.

Dom Heffner
11-15-2006, 10:39 AM
I realize that FOX News is an all purpose whipping boy for some here, but I have no problem with FOX running a story about one of the most notorious murders in the last several decades.

It's still pathetic. Imagine your children being murdered, the guy who did it gets off, and then he writes a book about how he "hypothetically" would have done it if he were the killer, to make some money. And then a network like FOX brodcasts a chat they did with him so they can profit from it as well.

There are a lot of low things to do in this life, but I can't think of a single one lower than what OJ SImpson is doing. And FOX is right there, too, getting in on the action.

Reading some of the posts in the discussion on liability issues as well as this one has convinced me that it is okay to do anything in this world as long as it is in the name of making money.

westofyou
11-15-2006, 10:45 AM
Fox news barely covered the Election last tuesday after all their horses lost, perhaps they are going the way of MTV, ESPN and CMT and entering the "Entertainment" business?

That should make them a more credible source for news- yep, plain as day that should work.

Chip R
11-15-2006, 10:50 AM
My big questions are: Why would Fox feel that anybody would clamor to watch this mess? Which of their big-ticket advertisers wants to align themselves with network programming that glamorizes a double-homicidal sociopath?


That's more disgusting to me than O.J. wanting to do this.

Reds Freak
11-15-2006, 11:09 AM
The more I think about it the more disgusted I get with the whole thing. I never considered their children. I don't know how old they are now, but can you imagine watching a TV show in which your father describes the way he would have killed your deceased mother. "Hey, look so this is how daddy was going to kill mommy.." It's an inexcusable indignation by FOX if this thing actually airs.

But I guess this is what FOX wants. More controversy = more viewers = more cash...

There should be something done. This crap has to stop somewhere.

MaineRed
11-15-2006, 11:18 AM
Fox news barely covered the Election last tuesday after all their horses lost, perhaps they are going the way of MTV, ESPN and CMT and entering the "Entertainment" business?

And you of course know this because you were sitting and watching them non stop, right?

They must be doing something right. Even people who hate them tune in and watch.

Dom Heffner
11-15-2006, 11:42 AM
Even people who hate them tune in and watch.

You haven't seen their ratings lately in key demographics.

BRM
11-15-2006, 12:34 PM
You haven't seen their ratings lately in key demographics.

They are still #1 in the 25-54 demographic according to mediabistro.com. Ratings are provided by Nielsen.

LINK (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/default.asp)

RedsBaron
11-15-2006, 12:53 PM
If anyone believes that ABC, NBC, CBS or CNN wouldn't do the interview with Simpson, you have a higher or different opinion of those networks than I do.
Will I watch the program? No.

BRM
11-15-2006, 12:55 PM
If anyone believes that ABC, NBC, CBS or CNN wouldn't do the interview with Simpson, you have a higher or different opinion of those networks than I do.
Will I watch the program? No.

Good point. They would all show it if given the chance. That said, I will most definitely not be tuning in to this crap.

NJReds
11-15-2006, 01:04 PM
But I guess this is what FOX wants. More controversy = more viewers = more cash...

There should be something done. This crap has to stop somewhere.


Yeah...only Fox would stoop so low. :rolleyes:


SAN FRANCISCO John Mark Karr , a one-time suspect in the slaying of JonBenet Ramsey, was briefly stopped by police when the former schoolteacher was spotted wandering near the classrooms of a school where he briefly worked years ago.

Sgt. Steve Mannina said a limousine carrying Karr, 41, and two producers from ABC's "Good Morning America" TV show was stopped shortly after the reported sighting Friday. Police took the names of Karr and the producers but no one was arrested because no laws were broken.

Police said an employee of the Convent of the Sacred Heart school in San Francisco, where Karr worked briefly as a teacher's aide in 2000, called police when she spotted Karr near the school.

"He stepped out of the limo and stood (outside the school) for two or three minutes, walked down the sidewalk, went up to the door and looked in the window, Mannina said of Karr.

Karr was released from jail Thursday after Sonoma County authorities lost critical evidence in a 5-year-old child pornography case. He was released a little more than a month after DNA evidence cleared him of suspicion in the slaying of child beauty queen JonBenet, whom he claimed to have been with when she died in Colorado.

Karr was returned to California from Thailand last month to face the five-year-old pornography case.

westofyou
11-15-2006, 01:04 PM
And you of course know this because you were sitting and watching them non stop, right?

They must be doing something right. Even people who hate them tune in and watch.

Actually my brother was, but thanks for asking.

I don't watch Fox News

Got anymore assumptions about me?

Sweetstop
11-15-2006, 01:43 PM
If anyone believes that ABC, NBC, CBS or CNN wouldn't do the interview with Simpson, you have a higher or different opinion of those networks than I do.
Will I watch the program? No.

According to a New York Times story at least one other network (NBC) turned it down due to "questionable taste". ReganBooks, the books publisher is owned by News Corporation, which owns Fox. Judith Regan (ReganBooks) is producing the tv show.

Fox Network is being more base than usual and is covered in any blood money made.

pedro
11-15-2006, 01:46 PM
sounds to me like this will be on the Fox network, not Fox News. Despicable none the less.

And yes, it was me watching Fox news last week. I wanted to see what their reaction to the Election would be.

Chip R
11-15-2006, 01:50 PM
sounds to me like this will be on the Fox network, not Fox New. Despicable none the less.


Yeah. I was going to post something how it was hypocritical for Fox to be doing this when Fox News claims to stand for all that's right and good in this country. But then I realized that Fox News is seperate than Fox entertainment. I'm sure a lot of people at CBS News don't care for Survivor but it's not really their decision to put the show on.

TRF
11-15-2006, 02:29 PM
Yeah. I was going to post something how it was hypocritical for Fox to be doing this when Fox News claims to stand for all that's right and good in this country. But then I realized that Fox News is seperate than Fox entertainment. I'm sure a lot of people at CBS News don't care for Survivor but it's not really their decision to put the show on.

NBC turned it down for "questionable taste". ABC would have done the same as their parent company is Disney.

And I doubt the CBS News people care one whit about Survivor as A CBS morning anchor is also the host of Big Brother.

But a real news organization would see this for what it is: profiting off the death of a mother and a son. I'm betting OJ isn't seeing a dime from the "interview", it's all calculated to increase book sales.

There are a number of Fox shows I like. I love House. I still love the Simpsons. Vanished and Prison Break are pretty good. 24 is great.

But this is debasing themselves. It's potentially a nightmare in the making for the survivors, especially the kids.

A new low in broadcast history.

Dom Heffner
11-15-2006, 02:57 PM
But this is debasing themselves. It's potentially a nightmare in the making for the survivors, especially the kids.

The dude owes the Goldman's millions and hasn't paid them anything because he says he didn't do it, but then he is going to make a mint off of telling people how he would have done it if he were the "real" killer.

Just awful.

Can you imagine if this were your family member he slaughtered? Gosh, my heart goes out to those people.

There was one part of the story where he says he had never seen that much blood in all of his life. Geesh, what an insensitive jerk.

I hope Barry Sheck is happy.

Blimpie
11-15-2006, 03:02 PM
NBC turned it down for "questionable taste". ABC would have done the same as their parent company is Disney.The other networks are not above reproach. It just so happens that Fox is getting hammered now because they WERE currently willing to cross the line in this particular instance.

Do me a favor and Google the Disney movie called "Powder"...

Now, let me know if you find anything intriguing about the director of that film that would fly in the face of all things synergistic at Disney.

Blimpie
11-15-2006, 03:05 PM
The dude owes the Goldman's millions and hasn't paid them anything because he says he didn't do it, but then he is going to make a mint off of telling people how he would have done it if he were the "real" killer.I just heard on the radio that the number being thrown around for both the book and television rights was somewhere in the neighborhood of $ 3,000,000.

Fox should go ahead and make that a 3rd party check requiring a signature from Fred Goldman.

Matt700wlw
11-15-2006, 03:57 PM
I'm all for vigilante justice....

Too bad nobody caught him in the act.

Ltlabner
11-15-2006, 04:07 PM
Reading some of the posts in the discussion on liability issues as well as this one has convinced me that it is okay to do anything in this world as long as it is in the name of making money.

I'm as big of free market guy as you'll find, and yes, I think many people try to use liablity law suits as a get rich quick scheme.

I'll go so far as to share that I tend to side with those nasty evil conserviatives on most issues.

But I agree that Fox is every bit as sick as OJ if they air this. They can try to dress it up as "news" or that they are only passing on the information, but the bottom line is they are using the death of two innocent people to make a buck as much as "slasher simpson" is. Totally sick and dispicable.

I don't have a problem with a ratings grab to boost advertising dollars, but this goes beyond the relms of good judgement and taste.

I have little doubt that all the other networks would try to air the same program if they had the rights. None of the major networks are pure little innocents when it comes to doing tasteless stories/programs to make a buck.

Did anyone else think this was a fake story from the onion at first?

registerthis
11-15-2006, 04:13 PM
If anyone believes that ABC, NBC, CBS or CNN wouldn't do the interview with Simpson, you have a higher or different opinion of those networks than I do.

No, but it just presents a higher level of irony coming from a network that champions the "party of morality."

traderumor
11-15-2006, 04:17 PM
No, but it just presents a higher level of irony coming from a network that champions the "party of morality."Again, this is FOX network, not FOX news. I don't think the FOX network has made any claims to morality considering they run some of the trashiest shows of all the networks.

registerthis
11-15-2006, 04:40 PM
Again, this is FOX network, not FOX news. I don't think the FOX network has made any claims to morality considering they run some of the trashiest shows of all the networks.

Left hand - right hand?

Same body.

westofyou
11-15-2006, 04:44 PM
Left hand - right hand?

Same body.

And we know what they're scratching.

Red in Chicago
11-15-2006, 05:33 PM
Double jeopardy.

there was a lawyer on the radio today that said there are cases similar to this that can be brought to federal court...they in essence go to court with the basis that the dead person's civil rights were harmed by having their lives taken...i have no idea if this is true, but this was a high priced lawyer who was saying this...i'm just too stupid to put what he said into words...

Reds Freak
11-15-2006, 06:43 PM
Yeah...only Fox would stoop so low. :rolleyes:

I never said anything about the other networks. Fox is doing the piece so Fox gets the criticism. None of the other networks are running the interview so I can't say anything about them. Of course all of them want more controversy, viewers, and cash but this goes beyond tasteles. I don't care what station it's on.

traderumor
11-15-2006, 06:59 PM
Left hand - right hand?

Same body.So, FOX Sports = Fox News? In the same way that sports is different than news, so is network entertainment different from a news network. I really am not a FOX news supporter, don't watch it and could care less, but I just think it is not accurate to connect the two.

Falls City Beer
11-15-2006, 07:11 PM
So, FOX Sports = Fox News? In the same way that sports is different than news, so is network entertainment different from a news network. I really am not a FOX news supporter, don't watch it and could care less, but I just think it is not accurate to connect the two.

If you bought a Volkswagen Passat and it fell apart within two years would you then give the Jetta a try?

I didn't think so.

Same company. Same owner. Same zeitgeist. Same overriding philosophy towards the product.

traderumor
11-15-2006, 07:16 PM
If you bought a Volkswagen Passat and it fell apart within two years would you then give the Jetta a try?

I didn't think so.

Same company. Same owner. Same zeitgeist. Same overriding philosophy towards the product.What a pitiful analogy. So, My Name is Earl, the Office, Jay Leno, the Medium, Law and Order and Saturday Night Live and Sunday Night Football tells me something about NBC News? I didn't think so.

Falls City Beer
11-15-2006, 07:19 PM
What a pitiful analogy. So, My Name is Earl, the Office, Jay Leno, the Medium, Law and Order and Saturday Night Live tells me something about NBC News? I didn't think so.

Yes. They do have a philosophical connection (I can't help it if you're not intelligent enough to discern it). Less so than FoxCorp., which has a decidedly conservative agenda.

And considerably less demagoguery at NBC versus Fox and Murdoch.

traderumor
11-15-2006, 07:22 PM
Yes. They do have a philosophical connection. Less so than FoxCorp., which has a decidedly conservative agenda....for example? BTW, as I have already stated earlier, the entertainment on FOX is about as opposite conservative philosophy as one could get. That has actually always puzzled me and confused me as to how FOX news could have such a reputation for pandering to conservatives and run the trash they do with their comedy and drama programming. They are complete opposites, yet known liberals are telling me they have similar philosophies. Bizarre.

traderumor
11-15-2006, 07:26 PM
Yes. They do have a philosophical connection (I can't help it if you're not intelligent enough to discern it). Less so than FoxCorp., which has a decidedly conservative agenda.

And considerably less demagoguery at NBC versus Fox and Murdoch.

Ok, so I'll quote your edited potshot version. I'll take your unsubstantiated claims for what they're worth...

Falls City Beer
11-15-2006, 07:27 PM
...for example?

Their MSNBC is a decidedly moderate, slightly right-leaning news--their shows follow suit: no, they aren't conservative enough to show OJ/the Swift Boat movie, but they don't mind pandering to middle American tastes/family values/moderate/unrisky family entertainment.

Fox Network goes for a younger, more libertarian demographic, and their products reflect that.

traderumor
11-15-2006, 07:31 PM
Their MSNBC is a decidedly moderate, slightly right-leaning news--their shows follow suit: no, they aren't conservative enough to show OJ/the Swift Boat movie, but they don't mind pandering to middle American tastes/family values/moderate/unrisky family entertainment.

Fox Network goes for a younger, more libertarian demographic, and their products reflect that.You apparently have not watched any of the shows that I mentioned are on NBC if you think that those shows pander to "middle American tastes/family values/moderate/unrisky family entertainment." Some churches would probably not let me teach SS knowing that I enjoy shows like My Name is Earl and the Office. That is far from moralistic, unrisky family entertainment.

Falls City Beer
11-15-2006, 07:36 PM
You apparently have not watched any of the shows that I mentioned are on NBC if you think that those shows pander to "middle American tastes/family values/moderate/unrisky family entertainment." Some churches would probably not let me teach SS knowing that I enjoy shows like My Name is Earl and the Office. That is far from moralistic, unrisky family entertainment.

We could do this all day: so "24" isn't right-wing machismo heroin for the conservative bloodstream?

My Name is Earl and the Office (a deeply cleaned up version of the crippling pathos of the British version) are pretty innocuous, in all honesty. In the end, they return to many of the middle class folkways that most Americans can relate to.

Reds4Life
11-15-2006, 07:39 PM
This thread is real close to being a political discussion, lets stay on topic folks.

traderumor
11-15-2006, 07:46 PM
We could do this all day: so "24" isn't right-wing machismo heroin for the conservative bloodstream?

My Name is Earl and the Office (a deeply cleaned up version of the crippling pathos of the British version) are pretty innocuous, in all honesty. In the end, they return to many of the middle class folkways that most Americans can relate to.
I can't speak for "24," barely know what its about except that Keefer Sutherland is CIA, I think. Regardless, those are some mighty broad brush strokes. You're right about going back and forth, but I do not see how something as smutty as this OJ has anything to do with "well, isn't that just typical considering the source" in relation to FOX news. I just do not understand the correlation attempting to be made, so, as you've already pointed out, I'm just too ignorant to see the obvious. :rolleyes:

Falls City Beer
11-15-2006, 07:55 PM
I just do not understand the correlation attempting to be made, so, as you've already pointed out, I'm just too ignorant to see the obvious. :rolleyes:

Maybe next time I'll explain it when you don't describe my ideas as "pitiful."

traderumor
11-15-2006, 07:57 PM
Maybe next time I'll explain it when you don't describe my ideas as "pitiful."No, an idea. It was a pitiful analogy. The sensitive guy doesn't work very well with you, BTW.

Falls City Beer
11-15-2006, 07:59 PM
No, an idea. It was a pitiful analogy. The sensitive guy doesn't work very well with you, BTW.

Yeah, you know me.

Tell ya what--next time you want to acknowledge your own role in starting conflicts get back to me.

It's just as I thought: you wanted a fight, not a discussion. I'm done here.

Chip R
11-15-2006, 08:20 PM
NBC turned it down for "questionable taste". ABC would have done the same as their parent company is Disney.

And I doubt the CBS News people care one whit about Survivor as A CBS morning anchor is also the host of Big Brother.

But a real news organization would see this for what it is: profiting off the death of a mother and a son. I'm betting OJ isn't seeing a dime from the "interview", it's all calculated to increase book sales.

There are a number of Fox shows I like. I love House. I still love the Simpsons. Vanished and Prison Break are pretty good. 24 is great.

But this is debasing themselves. It's potentially a nightmare in the making for the survivors, especially the kids.

A new low in broadcast history.

I agree that it's low and debase. I said as much already. My nalogy with CBS News was that I don't think Mike Wallace and Don Hewett sit around and shake their fists at a show like Survivor but I would think they would much rather CBS show hard news shows instead of entertainment and damn the ratings. Murrow used to do Person to Person in order to make See It Now. He would have much rather not did the former show and if he had his way, run shows like See It Now all the time. Obviously, that's quite idealistic and unrealistic. I don't know if guys like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are rubbing their hands in glee over Fox running this show. I would guess not and I would hope not either. If they are serious journalists, they should criticize Fox for that decision. I doubt if they will and it's understandable if they don't.


Again, this is FOX network, not FOX news. I don't think the FOX network has made any claims to morality considering they run some of the trashiest shows of all the networks.

Exactly. Did people stop watching Survivor or Two and a Half Men because of the Dan Rather incident a few years ago? Perhaps a few did but I would guess you could count those people on one hand. If this show was done by someone at Fox News, then they would be fair game for criticism because of the hypocrisy. But they aren't.

traderumor
11-15-2006, 10:40 PM
Yeah, you know me.

Tell ya what--next time you want to acknowledge your own role in starting conflicts get back to me.

It's just as I thought: you wanted a fight, not a discussion. I'm done here.


Yes. They do have a philosophical connection (I can't help it if you're not intelligent enough to discern it).The record shows otherwise.

Yachtzee
11-15-2006, 10:55 PM
So if O.J. confesses, do you think Bud Selig will let him into the Baseball Hall of Fame? :evil:

Sea Ray
11-15-2006, 11:22 PM
If anyone believes that ABC, NBC, CBS or CNN wouldn't do the interview with Simpson, you have a higher or different opinion of those networks than I do.
Will I watch the program? No.

This is not Fox News doing this. It is the ordinary Fox (channel 19 here in Cincinnati) doing this and tonight Fox News made it very clear that they are not at all connected to Fox Entertainment. They also reported Simpson was getting $3.5mill for this fiasco. Let's hope the Brown and Goldman family get it.

Sea Ray
11-15-2006, 11:27 PM
Does anyone out there still think OJ didn't do it?

traderumor
11-16-2006, 12:14 AM
Does anyone out there still think OJ didn't do it?Is his mother still alive?

registerthis
11-16-2006, 09:22 AM
So, FOX Sports = Fox News? In the same way that sports is different than news, so is network entertainment different from a news network. I really am not a FOX news supporter, don't watch it and could care less, but I just think it is not accurate to connect the two.

Owned by the same parent company, same name, same brand.

So one branch of it promulgates raunchy, trashy TV shows and another is the mouthpiece for the self-annointed "party of values."

Like you, I don't watch Fox News either, but the irony of the Fox brand being on both their news channel and their trashy network does not escape me.

registerthis
11-16-2006, 09:26 AM
Fox News made it very clear that they are not at all connected to Fox Entertainment.

Wikipedia:

The Fox Broadcasting Company, usually referred to as just Fox (the company itself prefers the capitalized version FOX), is a television network in the United States. It is owned by Fox Entertainment Group, part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.

The Fox News Channel (FNC) is an American cable and satellite news channel. It is owned by the Fox Entertainment Group, and is a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.

Looks connected to me.

traderumor
11-16-2006, 12:29 PM
Owned by the same parent company, same name, same brand.

So one branch of it promulgates raunchy, trashy TV shows and another is the mouthpiece for the self-annointed "party of values."

Like you, I don't watch Fox News either, but the irony of the Fox brand being on both their news channel and their trashy network does not escape me.I suppose I would see the irony also if this was not a conglomerate we are talking about, which means different people making different decisions about different things. To see irony there entails oversimplifying an organization, sort of like the logic that produces such gems as "Bush is an oil man, Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia, Bush and the Saudi Arabian leaders go way back, therefore his extended family being flown out of the country after 911 proves a conspiracy." I'm not saying that is a point you have/would make, but it is similar logic.

dabvu2498
11-16-2006, 12:33 PM
Does anyone out there still think OJ didn't do it?


Some jurors, somewhere in LA County.

registerthis
11-16-2006, 01:38 PM
I suppose I would see the irony also if this was not a conglomerate we are talking about, which means different people making different decisions about different things. To see irony there entails oversimplifying an organization, sort of like the logic that produces such gems as "Bush is an oil man, Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia, Bush and the Saudi Arabian leaders go way back, therefore his extended family being flown out of the country after 911 proves a conspiracy." I'm not saying that is a point you have/would make, but it is similar logic.

A far more apt analogy would be a Congressman who votes against legalized gambling while being a part-owner of a Vegas casino.

I am quite certain that if Mr. Murdoch disapproved of programming being run on the Fox Network, it would be immediately removed. I can only assume that Mr. Murdoch either has no problems with what is being aired, or is willing to put aside whatever personal convictions he may have in the name of generating ratings (and $$$) for his media empire. He's conservative when it's convenient to be so, but that never stops him from milking the cash cow.

traderumor
11-16-2006, 01:44 PM
A far more apt analogy would be a Congressman who votes against legalized gambling while being a part-owner of a Vegas casino.

I am quite certain that if Mr. Murdoch disapproved of programming being run on the Fox Network, it would be immediately removed. I can only assume that Mr. Murdoch either has no problems with what is being aired, or is willing to put aside whatever personal convictions he may have in the name of generating ratings (and $$$) for his media empire. He's conservative when it's convenient to be so, but that never stops him from milking the cash cow.I assume that we know about this program and he may still not know about it. All of your conjecture assumes that his initials appear somewhere in the corner of a programming authorization form, mine assumes that owners of such organizations are not hands on and will probably only hear about this if it becomes a huge issue.

registerthis
11-16-2006, 02:22 PM
I assume that we know about this program and he may still not know about it.

You're probably right. A 2-part interview with O.J. Simpson where he talks about how he WOULD have committed the murders probably just slipped right by him unnoticed. Perhaps one of his staffers should alert him, I'm sure he'll be appalled.

traderumor
11-16-2006, 02:37 PM
You're probably right. A 2-part interview with O.J. Simpson where he talks about how he WOULD have committed the murders probably just slipped right by him unnoticed. Perhaps one of his staffers should alert him, I'm sure he'll be appalled.Mock all you want, reg, but folks in his position don't spend much time fighting for little niblets of corn with the rest of the chickens.

NJReds
11-16-2006, 02:49 PM
I am quite certain that if Mr. Murdoch disapproved of programming being run on the Fox Network, it would be immediately removed. I can only assume that Mr. Murdoch either has no problems with what is being aired, or is willing to put aside whatever personal convictions he may have in the name of generating ratings (and $$$) for his media empire. He's conservative when it's convenient to be so, but that never stops him from milking the cash cow.


Rupert Murdoch...Publisher of the NY Post (tabloid trash at its finest). This is right up his alley. No way he'd be against it.

Dom Heffner
11-16-2006, 03:29 PM
Mock all you want, reg, but folks in his position don't spend much time fighting for little niblets of corn with the rest of the chickens.

TR, this is Rupert Murdoch we are talking about. He isn't running an auto garage where the chief mechanic can waive the price of an oil change without approval.

He signed off on it.

registerthis
11-16-2006, 04:06 PM
TR, this is Rupert Murdoch we are talking about. He isn't running an auto garage where the chief mechanic can waive the price of an oil change without approval.

He signed off on it.

Not good 'ol Rupert, Dom. His hands are clean--surely, if he knew about such a distasteful thing, he'd pull it off the airwaves immediately. Clearly, he's just not "in the loop" with what his media empire is up to. Why, he just found out that his network had been carrying NFL games last week. How's he supposed to know that his network is now helping OJ Simpson cash in on his murders?

Perhaps one of us should attempt to alert him?

traderumor
11-16-2006, 04:38 PM
Dom and Reg,

Just to make myself clear, I really don't know squat about Murdoch and how involved in the daily operations of his business he is. But then, I don't think I need to simply because this is a micromanagement issue, and the likelihood of the owner of a conglomerate being involved at the level you all need him to be to make this conspiracy work is very, very low. A particular program that a network is airing is a micromanagement issue that the owner of a very large organization is not likely to be involved in the decision.

So, I could care less if his hands are clean, that means nothing to me, and I have no reason to defend him. But I do know how large organizations work, and while ultimately the owner of a company, even a conglomerate is responsible for the output of the organization, that doesn't mean that he is involved in the day to day decisions at the level of a TV program.

And honestly, Dom, I see this issue, relatively speaking, being on about the level of your analogy. This program is to an oil change as Murdoch is to the president of GM.

registerthis
11-16-2006, 05:15 PM
the likelihood of the owner of a conglomerate being involved at the level you all need him to be to make this conspiracy work is very, very low.

There's no conspiracy here, just amusing hypocrisy.

Redsfaithful
11-16-2006, 07:59 PM
Some jurors, somewhere in LA County.

I really doubt they even think OJ's innocent. That verdict was more about punishing Mark Furman and a racist and corrupt LAPD than anything else.

Dom Heffner
11-16-2006, 08:52 PM
They are still #1 in the 25-54 demographic according to mediabistro.com. Ratings are provided by Nielsen.

What you are failing to mention: the second quarter ratings for 2006 revealed a drop in viewers for every show on the Fox News Channel, including an 8 percent drop in total viewers for The O'Reilly Factor and an 11 percent drop in Factor viewers in the 25-54 demographic.

RedFanAlways1966
11-16-2006, 09:43 PM
I really doubt they even think OJ's innocent. That verdict was more about punishing Mark Furman and a racist and corrupt LAPD than anything else.

If true... those jurors should be ashamed. They never-ever should serve as jurors again. They have done an injustice to all races of human beings on this planet. If true, it is sad and pathetic. It allows a murderer to walk free.

Personally I feel that the Dream Team had more to do with the verdict than any juror. Moving the trial... a great job in getting a double-murderer off and getting the jurors that were needed. Putting Furman on the stand and turning the murder of an ex-wife and an innocent man into a racial-thing... great job of getting a double-murderer off.

I understand the legal process in the United States and think it works pretty well. But I wonder how Dream Team types can sleep at night when they do things like the afore-mentioned in an effort to release a murderer. Perhaps the million$ they reap helps with their sleep, but I am not sure I could live happily doing these things... regardless of the money.

George Foster
11-16-2006, 09:44 PM
I feel horrible for the Brown and Goldman families. Now he's attempting to profit off of how he would kill Nicole and Ron. Sick!

If he was trying to make money after killing my son or daughter, I'd put a piece of lead in him. Could you, if on the jury, convict me?

Dom Heffner
11-16-2006, 09:48 PM
But I wonder how Dream Team types can sleep at night when they do things like the afore-mentioned in an effort to release a murderer.

Especially people like Barry Sheck, who is Mr. Innocence Project- oh, except for that double murderer he got off.

His cross-examination of Dennis Fung was an example of too many logial fallacies to name. Mr. Big shot lawyer beats up city employee who helped catch a true murderer.

How noble.

Sheck spends his life getting people wrongly convicted of murder out of jail and apparently he keeps true killers out of jail, too.

Dom Heffner
11-16-2006, 09:49 PM
Could you, if on the jury, convict me?

I honestly don't know.

George Foster
11-16-2006, 09:53 PM
TR, this is Rupert Murdoch we are talking about. He isn't running an auto garage where the chief mechanic can waive the price of an oil change without approval.

He signed off on it.

Bill O'Riley tonight on his show said that Fox made a big mistake and no one should watch it. In fact he said he would do a piece on all the sponsors of the show, and start a public boycott. He's got a good following, sponsors will listen.

Getting to the heart of the case which I followed everyday.....If you throw out all the blood evidence, which is damning, you still have blooding foot prints, size 13 Bruno Maglia's. Back in the mid-90's theses were $200 + shoes. The prosecution produced a credit card receipt for a purchase of a pair of size 13 Bruno Maglia's. Where are the shoes? OJ said he lost them traveling.....GUILTY. The jurors will have to answer for their decision one day. Karma is either a bad or a good thing.

Dom Heffner
11-16-2006, 09:58 PM
size 13 Bruno Maglia's

He originally said he wouldn't ever wear "those ugly a** shoes."

The shoes were also featured in a photograph of the Juice from his NBC football days (and as well showed him in the gloves he said he never owned).

On a side note, I have a pair of Bruno Magli shoes that my mother calls my "ugly a** shoes."

RedFanAlways1966
11-16-2006, 10:08 PM
On a side note, I have a pair of Bruno Magli shoes that my mother calls my "ugly a** shoes."

Dom... please let us know that you DO NOT wear a size 13!! ;)

Dom Heffner
11-16-2006, 10:17 PM
Dom... please let us know that you DO NOT wear a size 13!!

Actually- I do. Really.

RedFanAlways1966
11-16-2006, 10:25 PM
Actually- I do. Really.

Wow... lucky 13! Now that this info is public the conspiracy types might be targeting you. :D

Yachtzee
11-16-2006, 10:48 PM
Actually- I do. Really.

Hey O.J.! Over here! I found the real killer. Here he is! ;)

Seriously though, the prosecution should have never let him try on those gloves in court. They should have known that leather gloves that get wet can shrink.

And they should have objected when Johnny Cochran put on the Chewbacca Defense

Redsfaithful
11-17-2006, 05:24 AM
If true... those jurors should be ashamed. They never-ever should serve as jurors again. They have done an injustice to all races of human beings on this planet. If true, it is sad and pathetic. It allows a murderer to walk free.

I certainly agree.

Ltlabner
11-17-2006, 07:22 AM
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1jr.htm

Here's a link to a "statement" by Judith Regan, famous book publisher. It sounds like she both published a book on the topic "IF I did it" along with interviewing him.

Anyway, it's a long, and somewhat convoluted read.... Basically she says she was abused by a man years ago so she wanted to interview OJ. Because murders guilt sometimes causes them to confess after doing a "hypothetical situation" she feals this is a way to trip him up. One line is "What I wanted was closure, not money." :help: Not sure I understand any of that mess.

Here's just one excerpt....


In the past few days, since the announcement of the forthcoming book and televised interview If I Did It, it has been strange watching the media spin the story. They have all but called for my death for publishing his book and for interviewing him. A death, I might add, not called for when Katie Couric interviewed him; not called for when Barbara Walters had an exclusive with the Menendez brothers, who killed their parents in cold blood, nor when she conducted her celebrated interviews with dictator Fidel Castro or Muammar al-Gaddafi; not called for when 60 Minutes interviewed Timothy McVeigh who murdered hundreds in Oklahoma City, not called for when the U.S. government released tapes of Osama bin Laden; not called for when Geraldo Rivera interviewed his dozens of murderers, miscreants, and deviants.

Sounds like she's doing the Texas Two Step to back away from this mess, and is throwing out the "I was abused too" and "other people do tacky things for ratings/money" excuses.

Anyway, if you are in the mood for some clasic frontier gibberish, take the time to read Judith's statement.

Sea Ray
11-17-2006, 08:35 AM
Some jurors, somewhere in LA County.

With all the money to be made on books and all I'm surprised there hasn't any books written by former jujors rethinking their verdict...How we were duped by OJ or We Blew the Trial of the Century

Sea Ray
11-17-2006, 08:38 AM
Hey O.J.! Over here! I found the real killer. Here he is! ;)

Seriously though, the prosecution should have never let him try on those gloves in court. They should have known that leather gloves that get wet can shrink.



The jurors should have known that too. The prosecution later had OJ try on a new pair of those gloves and they fit perfectly. Remember there are pictures of OJ doing NFL games where he was wearing those IsoToner gloves and those same unusual shoes that left prints at the scene.

registerthis
11-17-2006, 09:26 AM
Bill O'Riley tonight on his show said that Fox made a big mistake and no one should watch it. In fact he said he would do a piece on all the sponsors of the show, and start a public boycott. He's got a good following, sponsors will listen.

Every once in a blue moon, Bill O'Reilly says something I actually agree with. I suppose this would fall under that category.

registerthis
11-17-2006, 09:28 AM
More feces being thrown at OJ, Judith Regan, Rupert Murdoch and the Fox Network:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111601360.html

Blood Money

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, November 17, 2006; Page A25

O.J. Simpson's forthcoming book, "If I Did It," could launch a profitable new series for publisher Judith Regan and her parent company, Rupert Murdoch's media empire. Let me suggest that she follow up with another snuff book, maybe "If I Shot My Wife in the Head," by Robert Blake, and then diversify into non-capital crimes with "If I Molested All Those Kids," by Michael Jackson.

Anyone who thinks I'm kidding probably clings to the illusion that Regan and the Fox television network have a morsel, a crumb, a mote, an iota of residual shame in what's left of their souls. Sorry, but the evidence shows otherwise.

Of course, many people thought the evidence showed that Simpson was guilty as hell. But Johnnie Cochran isn't around anymore, so maybe Regan and Fox will be showered with the opprobrium they deserve for letting the Juice do this booty-shaking end zone dance on the graves of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

Suppose you were put on trial for butchering your ex-wife and her lover in a blood-soaked frenzy -- not that you'd ever do such a thing, of course, but going hypothetical is all the rage -- and a brilliant lawyer managed to get you acquitted, despite copious evidence of your guilt. Wouldn't you withdraw permanently into quiet obscurity? Whether your life was a burning hell of remorse or a sunny stroll up manicured fairways, wouldn't you want to live it out of the public eye? Maybe, say, raise horses in deepest Paraguay?

Instead, Simpson has interrupted his lonely, relentless search for "the real killer" to write and promote "If I Did It," which reportedly gives a detailed, gory, ostensibly fictional account of the murders he says he didn't commit.

I'm sure he needs the money. It's not as if he's going to be invited into the "Monday Night Football" booth anytime soon or offered a cameo in the next Ben Stiller movie. But this abomination goes beyond exploitation of a brutal crime for financial gain. This is pathological.

Only a narcissist of the first order would be compelled to revisit the scene of the crime and walk us through the butchery, knowing that no one would take his use of "if" or "would have" as anything but a mocking formality -- knowing that everyone would read the book as a true confession of his sins. Only a textbook narcissist would have such a warped need to bask once again in the limelight.

Memo to the Juice: Please go away. And take Regan with you. A former "reporter" for the National Enquirer, Regan became a sensation in the publishing world by satisfying humanity's bottomless appetite for slickly packaged trash. Her imprint, ReganBooks, is a division of HarperCollins, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. "If I Did It" will be featured on Fox, also owned by Murdoch, for two nights later this month (after NBC, to its credit, turned Regan down). Fox plans to air a two-night "interview" in which Regan converses with Simpson about his contribution to literature and his theoretical prowess as a psycho killer. It is no coincidence that the "interview" comes amid the November sweeps period, when ratings translate into cold cash.

For those keeping score, that's money for Simpson from the book, money for Regan from the book and lots of money for Murdoch, from both the book and the expected big TV ratings.

It has been reported that Regan paid Simpson $3.5 million for "If I Did It," though she declines to reveal how much she shelled out. Whatever the amount, how does Simpson hope to keep and spend that money without having to surrender it to the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, who won a $33.5 million judgment against him in civil court but have yet to collect? I have to assume that Murdoch's lawyers are too smart to engineer some dodge, such as paying the money to a third party or wiring it to an offshore account. I also have to assume that somehow, whatever machinations are necessary, the Juice intends to get paid.

The saddest aspect of this travesty is that Regan knows the book will sell and Fox knows the Simpson "interview" will score huge ratings. They have studied our weaknesses and calculated that sensation always trumps honor.

Please join me in not buying the book or watching the Fox infomercial. We'll feel cleaner for it.

NJReds
11-17-2006, 09:47 AM
I'm not a big Mike Lupica fan. But here's his take on this fiasco.


New low for the hyena of books

Once, Judith Regan's taste in men was Bernard Kerik. Now her taste in authors is O.J. Simpson. She was much better off on Kerik's side of the law. To have a reputation decline faster than hers, you have to be on a bobsled run.

Soon, Regan publishes a new book from Simpson that is supposed to hint at how he might have stabbed two people to death, one of them his ex-wife. Regan also interviews Simpson next week on the Fox network. Regan says what she gets out of Simpson amounts to a "confession." The truth is, she is the one who reveals herself. She was better off sneaking around with Kerik in the old days.

Oh, sure. You want to start understanding Regan? Start at a building known as Liberty View, at Battery Place and West Thames St., Battery Park City. It is a couple of blocks from Ground Zero, and apparently it was here, in those first months when the cleanup of Ground Zero had begun in 2001, when it wasn't just toxic fumes in the air. It was love as well, between Kerik and Regan, frisky publishers.

Originally, some of the apartments at Liberty View were donated by the Milstein real estate people as places where rescue workers and Red Cross staffers could rest. Later, though, Kerik wanted to rent a two-bedroom apartment for himself. With good reason, now that we know what catnip he was to the ladies. If all the stories from that time are true, and nobody has ever denied them, Kerik was probably more tired than a whole downtown block of rescue workers.

Kerik - Rudy Giuliani's hand-picked police commissioner and later a truly wretched nominee as Homeland Security director - was still police commissioner at the time, still married and living in Riverdale. In addition to those duties, he had Regan, who had published his best-selling autobiography, as a girl on the side, along with a female Correction Department officer.

"A very close relationship," is the way Kerik described his relationship with Regan, back in the news now with another author who used to be somebody: O.J. Simpson.

We know all about him. There is nothing Simpson won't do for attention or money. Now he writes this book for Regan called "If I Did It," in which he is supposed to hypothetically tell how he would have stabbed his ex-wife Nicole along with a kid named Ron Goldman, who wandered into the dark alley that is Simpson's brain one night in Brentwood, Calif., 12 years ago and ended up bleeding to death on the sidewalk along with Nicole Brown Simpson.

In those 12 years, during which O.J. was acquitted in his murder case but was hit big in a civil case filed by the Brown and Goldman families, he has revealed himself to be as dumb as the dumb cop he used to play in the "Naked Gun" movies.

You bet we know all about him. But know something else: He does not get back into play now, get a $3.5 million book deal and two hours of television time on the Fox Network -- owned by the same company that owns ReganBooks - without help. The help comes from Judith Regan.

Once she held hands for real with Kerik. Now she takes the hand of O.J. Simpson and walks him back into the spotlight. As she does, here is the question for her and about her:

If she will do this, with a bottom feeder like O.J. Simpson, what won't she do? If this isn't her own bottom, then what is?

Of course Simpson was going to write a book like this someday, when he ran out of money, again. He's sold everything else, including the Heisman Trophy he won at the University of Southern California as one of the great running backs of all time. You knew he would finally sell himself, some version of the real truth of that June night in 1994 when Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman ended up dead at 875 South Bundy Drive. When he was ready to sell, Judith Regan was buying. You don't talk about O.J. from now on without talking about her.

When Regan moved her business to California, she was quoted as saying she wanted to "bring a different idea of culture to Southern California." Now here it is, with O.J. Simpson. You read back on her, an old article written about her in Vanity Fair by Judith Newman, and see a former employee at ReganBooks, Kristin Kiser, quoted as saying Regan considered herself an advocate for "women who have been victimized. She looks at it as a calling."

You would think Nicole Brown Simpson would qualify in this area, dead of multiple stab wounds at 875 South Bundy Drive.

Regan has been a huge success in publishing for a long time, and not just with the kind of trash she gives us now, under the idiotic guise of getting a "confession" out of Simpson, as if anybody needed one. She has published everybody from Gen. Tommy Franks and Wally Lamb to Rush Limbaugh and Jenna Jameson, who wrote "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star" for her. She once got hysterical because Monica Lewinsky took her book to another house. Maybe she was just offended that Lewinsky went into the room with Bill Clinton for nothing.

Regan is another, then, who will do anything to be rich and famous. In that way, maybe it is as inevitable that she would end up in a room with O.J. Simpson, doing this interview, as it was that she would hook up with Bernie Kerik at Liberty View.

It turns out Regan only thought she had reached Ground Zero in those days. Finally, with O.J., she makes it all the way.

Sea Ray
11-17-2006, 09:49 AM
What you are failing to mention: the second quarter ratings for 2006 revealed a drop in viewers for every show on the Fox News Channel, including an 8 percent drop in total viewers for The O'Reilly Factor and an 11 percent drop in Factor viewers in the 25-54 demographic.

True, but all cable news ratings declined and Fox still has more viewers than all the other cable news combined

Sea Ray
11-17-2006, 09:59 AM
Why does Lupica think we care about Regan's boyfriends? Way too much Bernard Keric in this article about OJ.

registerthis
11-17-2006, 01:11 PM
True, but all cable news ratings declined and Fox still has more viewers than all the other cable news combined

Do you have a source for that?

pedro
11-17-2006, 01:15 PM
BTW- NPR says it's FOX NEWS that will air this.

registerthis
11-17-2006, 01:18 PM
BTW- NPR says it's FOX NEWS that will air this.

Someone had better notify Rupert that his News channel is getting sabotaged.

BUTLER REDSFAN
11-17-2006, 01:30 PM
Everyone if you dont like fox dont watch it...kinda simple...where are you all when cnn is showing snipers shooting at our troops

traderumor
11-17-2006, 01:52 PM
BTW- NPR says it's FOX NEWS that will air this.
Well, someone is confused
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,229778,00.html

The fact that Regan Books and FOX Broadcasting (both owned by FOX News parent company News Corporation) are in bed with Simpson in this despicable venture is only somewhat Grrring, given that there will be a huge audience for this sicko's story.

It appears their may be some cognitive dissonance going on in the ranks at FOX, but I would imagine that they know which production arm is doing what.

pedro
11-17-2006, 01:57 PM
Well, someone is confused
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,229778,00.html


It appears their may be some cognitive dissonance going on in the ranks at FOX, but I would imagine that they know which production arm is doing what.

It does seem more like the kind of "reality TV' BS that Fox TV would air. I was kind of surprised that any "NEWS" organization would touch it.

registerthis
11-17-2006, 02:05 PM
It does seem more like the kind of "reality TV' BS that Fox TV would air. I was kind of surprised that any "NEWS" organization would touch it.

I think another installment of "World's Wildest Police Chases" would make a perfect backend to the Simpson crapfest.

registerthis
11-17-2006, 02:06 PM
Everyone if you dont like fox dont watch it...kinda simple...where are you all when cnn is showing snipers shooting at our troops

:confused:

BUTLER REDSFAN
11-17-2006, 02:10 PM
Register,just a ton of fox complaints....they can always turn to something else...i was just commenting a few weeks back cnn showed footage from iraq-snipers shooting at our troops...yet no complaints there...

registerthis
11-17-2006, 02:14 PM
Register,just a ton of fox complaints....they can always turn to something else...i was just commenting a few weeks back cnn showed footage from iraq-snipers shooting at our troops...yet no complaints there...

...because it was news? We don't like to see the true costs of war, that much is true.

And, FWIW, I have no intentions whatsoever of watching this farce, but I find it personally sickening that someone like OJ is now being presented with an opportunity to not only profit from his crimes, but to essentially mock the families of the victims. And Fox is the conduit here, they deserve all of the scorn they are receiving.

Dom Heffner
11-17-2006, 02:22 PM
registerthis- no worries. FOX could be clubbing baby seals live on the air and, you know, if you don't like it, don't watch it! :)

NJReds
11-17-2006, 02:28 PM
registerthis- no worries. FOX could be clubbing baby seals live on the air and, you know, if you don't like it, don't watch it! :)


Good Morning America took a pedophile to the school where he once taught. Serial killers and murderers get interviews on 60 Minutes and 20/20. None of this is new. Fox bashing is fun, but all the other channels do the exact same thing. News is a ratings business.

And if clubbing seals could bring in ratings and ad revenue...the networks would be lining up to do it. Up next on NBC...Clubbing Animals with the Stars!

Ltlabner
11-17-2006, 02:32 PM
...because it was news? We don't like to see the true costs of war, that much is true.

And, FWIW, I have no intentions whatsoever of watching this farce, but I find it personally sickening that someone like OJ is now being presented with an opportunity to not only profit from his crimes, but to essentially mock the families of the victims. And Fox is the conduit here, they deserve all of the scorn they are receiving.

Unfortunatly, hypocracy can be found on all of the news outlets no matter what political bent they may have or be alleged to have. The plain fact is that all of them have gotten away from reporting facts and run towards reporting polls as news, pushing adgendas (either subtley or otherwise) and generally being sloppy. All of the anchors on the networks (epecially the three that just left their chairs) can be accused of the same arrogence that is often thrown Bill O'Rileys way (I don't care for Bill, BTW).

Far too often "news" reporters tend to repeat the quotes of a given person without ever refuting them even if there are obvious flaws in the statement. Far too often reporters try too hard to be the next Sam Donaldson and focus too much on the abraisveness and forget the insightfull questions. Again, this applies to all parties in the process.

Partly this is a result of the 24-news cycle. Partly this is a result of those who came of age in the Viet Nam/Water-Gate era now being in charge. Partly it's a backlash against those who came of age in the Viet Nam/Water-Gate era.

In any event, I'm not a real fan of any of the news outlets, print, radio, tv or internet. I guess I try to absorb information from all of them to try to get a more ballenced view, but still I find them all lacking.

registerthis
11-17-2006, 02:34 PM
Good Morning America took a pedophile to the school where he once taught. Serial killers and murderers get interviews on 60 Minutes and 20/20. None of this is new. Fox bashing is fun, but all the other channels do the exact same thing. News is a ratings business.

Not to serve as propaganda to push the sales of the murderer's book, which is essentially nothing more than making jabs at the victim's families, they don't.

And, FWIW, no all news channels do NOT behave this way. NBC, for example, turned down this "opportunity." Perhaps the producers went to Fox because they knew that Fox would accept it?

registerthis
11-17-2006, 02:39 PM
Unfortunatly, hypocracy can be found on all of the news outlets no matter what political bent they may have or be alleged to have.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fSDUQoM8G1k

traderumor
11-17-2006, 02:39 PM
registerthis- no worries. FOX could be clubbing baby seals live on the air and, you know, if you don't like it, don't watch it! :)The "don't watch it" argument seems to work just fine when used toward someone who is considered "religious" or a "moral conservative." Been told that a number of times. If I don't like soft core porn or hear expletives on the public airwaves, then I just don't need to watch it. I wonder why it doesn't work going the other direction? Who are you to tell someone that airing programs and watching the clubbing of baby seals is wrong? Isn't that telling certain people how to live their lives according to your own personal moral imperatives that everyone in the world might not share? Just wondering :evil:

traderumor
11-17-2006, 02:42 PM
Not to serve as propaganda to push the sales of the murderer's book, which is essentially nothing more than making jabs at the victim's families, they don't.

And, FWIW, no all news channels do NOT behave this way. NBC, for example, turned down this "opportunity." Perhaps the producers went to Fox because they knew that Fox would accept it?Then do tell why they do air such things? What altruistic reason is there for such programming? It's fine if you don't like FOX airing such a thing, but your personal bias against the network is showing pretty clearly.

NJReds
11-17-2006, 02:46 PM
Not to serve as propaganda to push the sales of the murderer's book, which is essentially nothing more than making jabs at the victim's families, they don't.

And, FWIW, no all news channels do NOT behave this way. NBC, for example, turned down this "opportunity." Perhaps the producers went to Fox because they knew that Fox would accept it?

So it's okay to take John Mark Karr to an elementary school as long as he's not promoting a book?

Ltlabner
11-17-2006, 02:55 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fSDUQoM8G1k

Wow...worth the watch. Stewart lays it out there....and I don't think Begallia or Carlson were too thrilled about it. A nice shot about Tucker's tie, by the way.

registerthis
11-17-2006, 03:14 PM
Then do tell why they do air such things?

$$$


What altruistic reason is there for such programming? It's fine if you don't like FOX airing such a thing, but your personal bias against the network is showing pretty clearly.

Oh, I severely dislike Faux News. I've got a pretty substantial bias against the network, and I find the irony here highly amusing, even if the subject matter of the show in question most certainly is not.

But, sure, all of the news networks do this--like Eugene Robinson says, I'm just waiting for CBS to air Robert Blake's tell-all interview, "How I Would've Shot My Wife in the Head." I heard that it's coming in March.

Ltlabner
11-17-2006, 03:15 PM
And, FWIW, no all news channels do NOT behave this way. NBC, for example, turned down this "opportunity." Perhaps the producers went to Fox because they knew that Fox would accept it?

No, NBC only rigs the results of tests to achieve a certian result. From wikipedia....


In 1993, Dateline NBC broadcast an investigative report about the safety of General Motors (GM) trucks. GM discovered the "actual footage" utilized in the broadcast had been rigged by the inclusion of explosive incendiaries attached to the gas tanks and the use of improper sealants for those tanks. GM subsequently filed an anti-defamation lawsuit against NBC. NBC publicly admitted the results of the tests were rigged and settled the lawsuit with GM. As a result of the controversy, several Dateline producers were fired.

registerthis
11-17-2006, 03:17 PM
So it's okay to take John Mark Karr to an elementary school as long as he's not promoting a book?

You mean the un-aired interview?

"A limousine carrying Karr and two producers from ABC's Good Morning America was stopped and questioned by police but they determined that no crime was commited. Karr was apparently giving the producers a tour of the neighborhood where he used to live and work when he suddenly exited the limo and approached the school. According to Jeffrey Schneider, senior vice president of ABC News, "his behavior gave us serious pause, and ABC decided not to proceed with the interview".

registerthis
11-17-2006, 03:18 PM
No, NBC only rigs the results of tests to achieve a certian result. From wikipedia....

A 13 year old rigged crash test?

You're right, my bad. No sense pointing fingers at Fox here, they all do it.

Ltlabner
11-17-2006, 03:22 PM
A 13 year old rigged crash test?

You're right, my bad. No sense pointing fingers at Fox here, they all do it.

I figured you'd try to dance out of that. It's ok....they were slimey back then, but not now! Yeaaa...right.

Hey, if you don't want to admit that all the news orginizations are flawed that's your business. But to imply that all the orginizations are virtious and only Fox is flawed is pretty silly.

BTW - nice job ignoring my previous post where I said what Fox is doing with the OJ thing is sick. Fox should be body slammed for airing such tripe. But lets not pretend that Fox is the only hypocrites out there.

traderumor
11-17-2006, 03:25 PM
$$$



Oh, I severely dislike Faux News. I've got a pretty substantial bias against the network, and I find the irony here highly amusing, even if the subject matter of the show in question most certainly is not.

But, sure, all of the news networks do this--like Eugene Robinson says, I'm just waiting for CBS to air Robert Blake's tell-all interview, "How I Would've Shot My Wife in the Head." I heard that it's coming in March.

So it would seem that comments such as "they knew Fox would do it" is little more than a personal bias based on severe dislike of another entity. I think the word is called "bitterness" in the vernacular.

registerthis
11-17-2006, 03:27 PM
I figured you'd try to dance out of that. It's ok....they were slimey back then, but not now! Yeaaa...right.

Nope, not trying to dance out of anything, I'm just waiting for an example that actually correlates with the topic at hand. If you *truly* believe that a rigged car crash test is on par with the OJ interview, be my guest. We'll just have to disagree there.

I have no problems slinging criticisms towards Fox because their news channel's smug "We Report, You Decide" tagline is about as far from reality as one can get. Their attempt at moral arrogance with people like Hannity, O'Reilly and Coulter just sets them up to be ridiculed for things like this, and I am more than happy to oblige. All I know is that the interview was apparently too distasteful for NBC, so off to Fox it went. How fitting.

registerthis
11-17-2006, 03:29 PM
So it would seem that comments such as "they knew Fox would do it" is little more than a personal bias based on severe dislike of another entity. I think the word is called "bitterness" in the vernacular.

"They knew Fox would take it" because of Fox's track record, which consistently sets the bar lower and lower. I notice a lot of people are upset that the interview is going forth, yet NO ONE is surprised that it's Fox whose airing it.

NJReds
11-17-2006, 03:34 PM
You mean the un-aired interview?

"A limousine carrying Karr and two producers from ABC's Good Morning America was stopped and questioned by police but they determined that no crime was commited. Karr was apparently giving the producers a tour of the neighborhood where he used to live and work when he suddenly exited the limo and approached the school. According to Jeffrey Schneider, senior vice president of ABC News, "his behavior gave us serious pause, and ABC decided not to proceed with the interview".

They gave this creep a free limo ride around his neighborhood. After the backlash that occured from reports that surfaced after this guy was peeking in the school window, causing a lockdown and call to police, they thought better of running with it. Wow, they are really ethical down there at ABC.

I get it. You hate FOX. Everybody else is just jim-dandy fine.

Falls City Beer
11-17-2006, 03:37 PM
Fox is the lowbrow, anti-intellectual, libertarian omphalos of network television--guided very clearly by ONE particular ideology. It's either naive or stupid to think otherwise.

All of the other networks are ALSO guided by a fairly singular ideology--but those ideologies are just less extreme on their face.

These companies are hunting a demographic--and you don't win a demographic by trying to please everybody, and Murdoch knows this: thus, his target audience is males between 25-60, with educations between a high school diploma and a BA/BS degree, suburban or rural, largely white (with a handful of exceptions).

Ltlabner
11-17-2006, 03:39 PM
Nope, not trying to dance out of anything, I'm just waiting for an example that actually correlates with the topic at hand. If you *truly* believe that a rigged car crash test is on par with the OJ interview, be my guest. We'll just have to disagree there..

I wasn't making the case that the rigged crash test was on par with the OJ thing. I was making the case that all of the news orginzations are flawed and restort to tacky things to get ratings. There is no moral relativity scale here. Both actions by both companies are wrong.


I have no problems slinging criticisms towards Fox because their news channel's smug "We Report, You Decide" tagline is about as far from reality as one can get. Their attempt at moral arrogance with people like Hannity, O'Reilly and Coulter just sets them up to be ridiculed for things like this, and I am more than happy to oblige.

Yes, because nooooone of the other news networks have any moral arrogence. Not Dan Rather claiming the world has to prove his Bush records are false not that he has to prove they are true. Not Sam Donaldson going on about tax breaks to the rich when he is both a millionare and recieves subsides for his cattle ranch. Not any of the news folks who rail on about the environment as they ride around town in limos and fly on chartered jets.

As I said, there is plenty of arrogence from all sides in todays news departments. And that is sad.

registerthis
11-17-2006, 03:40 PM
They gave this creep a free limo ride around his neighborhood. After the backlash that occured from reports that surfaced after this guy was peeking in the school window, causing a lockdown and call to police, they thought better of running with it. Wow, they are really ethical down there at ABC.

I get it. You hate FOX. Everybody else is just jim-dandy fine.

Yep, you'll grasp at straws to defend the network's decision. We get it.

registerthis
11-17-2006, 03:44 PM
I wasn't making the case that the rigged crash test was on par with the OJ thing. I was making the case that all of the news orginzations are flawed and restort to tacky things to get ratings. There is no moral relativity scale here. Both actions by both companies are wrong.

Of course all news channels do stunts to pump up viewership, the name of the game is ratings, after all. I've never said that the others are perfect, not at all. But I'll also point out that some networks are a bit less hesitant to go down the ratings-for-shock-value path than others.


Yes, because nooooone of the other news networks have any moral arrogence....As I said, there is plenty of arrogence from all sides in todays news departments. And that is sad.

Perhaps, but when I see another network that so clearly pushes a singular agenda so blatantly attempt to advertise that it does not, I'll get back to you.

Ltlabner
11-17-2006, 03:50 PM
Perhaps, but when I see a network that so clearly pushes a singular agenda so blatantly attempt to advertise that it does not, I'll get back to you.

Yet an agenda can been seen on the other networks and they try just as hard to pretend they are objective and unbiased. Their slogan may not be "we report, you decide" but when you don't agree with their bias it's pretty clear to see.

It's only natural that you see Fox as hypocritical and arrogent because their "views" conflict with your own. Well, that goes both ways.

I'm trying to dance around political issues, but the plain fact is all humans are pretty concerened with assuming their view is the correct one and trying to convince others they are in the wrong. To believe the humans in these news orginizations (except Fox, of course) are immune from this is nieve.

NJReds
11-17-2006, 03:55 PM
Yep, you'll grasp at straws to defend the network's decision. We get it.

Wow. That's a leap. I'm not defending Fox. I'm saying TV news for the most part is a wasteland. This might be the lowest of the low. But I'm not throwing out props to other networks, because at some point, someone will surpass this.

registerthis
11-17-2006, 03:57 PM
Yet an agenda can been seen on the other networks and they try just as hard to pretend they are objective and unbiased. Their slogan may not be "we report, you decide" but when you don't agree with their bias it's pretty clear to see.

It's only natural that you see Fox as hypocritical and arrogent because their "views" conflict with your own. Well, that goes both ways.

Somehow, I knew the old "liberal media" slant would rear it's head here.

CNN and MSNBC are as leftwing as Fox is right? Sure. I just need to add, I love this line of thinking--one media outlet/politician/pundit sayd/does something enormously stupid,a nd is rightly chastised for doing so. Only others jump to media outlet/politician/pundit's defense with the "they all do it" line. Much like the Abramoff/Republican ethics scandals from the past year, they *all* do it, so it's unfair to portray any one individual/group as worse than another. They're all above reproach (or under it), if you will.

Well, to that I merely respond with http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067 .

Take it for what it's worth.

NJReds
11-17-2006, 03:59 PM
Before this gets locked down for being a political thread...

I wonder if the advertisers will back away from this. And with everyone in agreement that this is vile, I wonder what rating it will pull in.

registerthis
11-17-2006, 04:00 PM
Wow. That's a leap. I'm not defending Fox. I'm saying TV news for the most part is a wasteland. This might be the lowest of the low. But I'm not throwing out props to other networks, because at some point, someone will surpass this.

Who's throwing props to other networks? I merely pointed out that NBC declined to air the interview, and Fox has only been more than happy to promote it.

And saying that "They're no worse than anyone else" is a defense, albeit more of the backhanded compliment variety.

registerthis
11-17-2006, 04:01 PM
Before this gets locked down for being a political thread...

I wonder if the advertisers will back away from this. And with everyone in agreement that this is vile, I wonder what rating it will pull in.

Public reaction has been pretty negative...heck, it's been ALL negative. Perhaps it will continue, and no advertiser will want their name associated with this thing.

pedro
11-17-2006, 04:01 PM
In other news Britney Spears songs and stage persona have no sexual undertones.

savafan
11-17-2006, 04:08 PM
Hey, is this the thread about O.J.?

dabvu2498
11-17-2006, 04:09 PM
In other news Britney Spears songs and stage persona have no sexual undertones.

Hmmm... who knew???

Ltlabner
11-17-2006, 04:13 PM
Somehow, I knew the old "liberal media" slant would rear it's head here.

CNN and MSNBC are as leftwing as Fox is right? Sure. I just need to add, I love this line of thinking--one media outlet/politician/pundit sayd/does something enormously stupid,a nd is rightly chastised for doing so. Only others jump to media outlet/politician/pundit's defense with the "they all do it" line. Much like the Abramoff/Republican ethics scandals from the past year, they *all* do it, so it's unfair to portray any one individual/group as worse than another. They're all above reproach (or under it), if you will.

You can cling to the idea that I am defending Fox all you want. They are clearly wrong and my first post from the get go made no bones about it. I don't care for Fox's approach as much as I don't care for CBS, etc.

If you can listen to/read most any news cast today, from most any medium and honestly say you can't hear some form of bias one way or the other, IMO you are either not listening closely, not a student of politics/current events or are plainly nieve.

I'm not excusing any of them. I'm indicting all of them. While you take particular glee at pointing out Fox's arrogence (presumidly because their bias conflicts with yours) I am disgusted that the days of reporting facts and letting me make up my mind are long since gone from any news outlet.

I don't know when those days changed. Maybe it was when Kronkite came out against Viet Nam. Maybe it was the combined effect of the Watergate/Nixon/Viet Nam era. Maybe it was the advent of 24 hour news. Maybe it was all of them. EDIT: Of course, "jouralnalism" at different periods of our history has been pretty shady so I'm not making a case for a golden age.

Fox is biased in one direction. Yep. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, LA Times, NY Times, AP, Reuters and Newsweek are all biased in other directions. Maybe not the same direction, or to the same degree but they are baised none the less.

I'm not commenting at all on how much they do it and which one is better. I'm saying that any of them do it is bad for society.

M2
11-17-2006, 04:24 PM
I thought the civil suit against O.J. prevented him from profiting from books and the like about the murder of his wife and Ron Goldman.

As for Fox News, it's wretched. That's got nothing to do ideology. It's made itself into the propaganda arm of the administration. I don't care who the administration is or what party is in power, a news organization has the responsibility to hold its feet to the fire.

Now, other TV, radio and print news organizations have committed a multitude of sins over the years, but most of them at least hold to the principle that they shouldn't be governmental yes men. It's the news equivalent of throwing a baseball game. It's the unforgivable sin of the industry. Fox literally lifted the Bush administration's talking points and built newscasts around them. It willfully abdicated the responsibility of investigating the veracity of the administration's claims and the results of its efforts. Instead it sought to marginalize anyone who didn't get in lockstep behind the government. Truly hoffifying when you think about it.

paintmered
11-17-2006, 04:27 PM
And this thread has now become too political. Take it elsewhere folks.