SCREEN-L Archives

July 1994


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Andy Suhl <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 7 Jul 1994 19:00:23 EDT
text/plain (20 lines)
While I don't wish to avoid the domestic violence issue it seems obvious to
me: OJ is guilty of longstanding, documented, repeated and heinous
abuse.There should be mandatory criminal  sentences, and he should be
imprisoned for it.
The larger question, and perhaps more salient to this group is the media
question: do we want this level of media saturation? When I first saw  OJ's
white jeep from the helicopter's point of view that first nite, vying for
attention with the basketball playoffs on a TV at a bar, I thought my mind
was going. And now, to find the evening news preempted because of the
*pre*trial hearing? What has happened to us?
Do we really want all this coverage or are they telling us what we want? Is
it the classic media imperialism that goes something like: "we're giving them
what they want not what *we* the news guru's know  is important." Without the
end of commercialism of the air waves this problem willnot go away. It will
worsen. And the Orwellian aspects only intensify. As we early cyberspace
neophytes know, there's no end to this's only the beginning.
Would the riots in LA a few years ago have happened in their full intensity
without the presence of video? I suspect that OJ will walk free because there
is not one potential juror who has not been effected by the coverage.