People have *always* been interested in court cases! Not a new phenom!

[Lex]

Leopold and Loeb

Sacco and Vanzetti

Lizzie Borden

Fatty Arbuckle

Scopes Monkey Trial


Hell, trials in Roman times were a big deal for public consumption. The talk of the forum--hell, riots ensued in some circumstances.


These cases, and many, many more caused intense public interest. It's not a new thing.


Now is no different--just more media, but people will *always* interested.

[seabeyond]

1. after oj, i have refused to watch all others n/t

[Lex]

2. I think that many

feel the same way.

However, many people are acting like intense public and media interest in trials is some sort of new phenomena.

[downwitbush]

3. i see your point...

but that doesn't change the fact that thats why we get so much useless coverage of these court cases.

[Lex]

4. I'm not saying it's good or bad, but it is the same as it ever was.

Particularly with celebrity trials.

But not even with celebrity trials--other trials through history had extraordinary press (for their time), people fainted, people listened at the windows of the courtroom, etc. etc.

[crispini]

5. You are correct.

It never ceases to amaze me how people will come on DU and scold, scold, scold people for ... well, for behaving like PEOPLE. There are an awful lot of folks on here who have this vision of the ideal which they'd like to see everyone conform to, instead of, well, just realizing that people are people.

[Bluebear]

9. You are so wise.

[zeemike]

6. Why is it "always" necessary

To point out that people are always interested in salacious gossipy news?
Does it make you feel better about yourself to know that the people in the past have done it too?
It is just an excuse to fill the air waves with such crap that no one can ever find out what in the world is going on that is really important.

[Lex]

7. Does it "make me feel better about myself"

for pointing out that the public throughout all of history has been interested in court cases?

Umm, no.

I was providing some historical perspective on the intense public and media interest in the case. But thank you ever so much for your armchair analysis.

[zeemike]

11. No offense intended

But I was pointing out that the media uses things like these to avoid the controversial things that they could cover if they had the balls.

The story that 1700 are dead and 10,000 more of our troops are dead and wounded gets not a fraction of the media attention as did MJ.
And there excuse is that this is what you the public want.
Well is it?

[Lex]

12. I don't disagree that the media focuses on trivial stuff right now

but I don't think it should be an "either" "or" proposition.

If the media was doing its job, it would be able to report on many topics at once from the most important ones (Iraq) to the sensational court ones (Michael Jackson).

I think unfortunately the public has bought the into the media's laziness thinking that it (the media) is only capable of focusing on one story at a time.

The public wants both the Iraq news and the Jackson trial news and a whole host of other news and there's no reason (other than a lazy press) that we can't have that.

The fact the media ignores the Iraq War is the media's laziness and even their complicity, but has nothing to do with the fact that people want info on big name trials, particularly on verdict day.

[crispini]

8. Why is it "always" necessary

for a bazillion people to come on DU and post and whine and bitch about WHATEVER is topping the news at the moment if it's not political? The holier-than-thou Posting Police, all for Purity of Thought and Expression on DU.

[Orsino]

10. In the latest Trial of the Century of the Week...

...we can hope to see what sort of justice we might receive.

Money has so clogged up the works, though, that the resemblance is faint. None of us can afford a Johnny Cochran. We can't buy as much reasonable doubt as MJ.

I am heartened, however, to see that jurors still get a very different picture from what is visible to the public.