> The networks create media events such as town hall meetings in order to sustain > an illusion of democracy. As they fetishize the Simpson case <under the guise > of news reporting> the networks further trivialize the social context of > domestic violence and its victims. Could you imagine what would happen if a > fraction of the time and money spent on this case was devoted to a coordinated > national discussion on health care reform? > Allan Siegel Allan Siegel's remarks about the networks' media coverage of the Simpson case made me think of a friend's observation about the same subject: she sees the boundaries between network journalism and the (supposedly more) sensation- alized forms of tabloid journalism (such as "Hard Copy," "Inside Edition," etc.) blurring around the case. I agreed with her, and we began to discuss when and how this blurring began to occur -- the Simpson case seems to both of us to be only the most recent (as well as the most dramatic) example of this phenomenon. Was the Kerrigan/Harding story news or a media event? What about the Michael Jackson/child abuse story? Does the blurring occur only around figures who are already celebrities in arenas with high media visibility (e.g. sports, entertainment), or does it occur around other kinds of figures as well? When, how, and where did the blurring between different forms of television journalism begin? Any thoughts? Alison McKee Department of Film and Television UCLA [log in to unmask]