CNN: Michael Jackson: Does anyone care?

[dubyaD40web]

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- If the Michael Jackson trial had been televised, the public would have gotten more civics and less circus.

Gone would be MSNBC's puppet theater, the E! Entertainment trial re-enactments, the dependence on analysts eager for airtime -- all displaced by a daily dose of the sober machinery of justice.

But would people have watched?

For legal and media experts, it's arguable whether the case's failure to grip the public like other celebrity trials -- or even the Scott Peterson murder case -- would have been changed by courtroom cameras.


http://edition.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/06/09/jackson.whatiftv.ap/index.html

[Ravenseye]

1. I'll check out the verdict

simply out of morbid curiousity, but I really don't care.

When I've been in groups lately and peopel have mentioned the runaway bride or the michael jackson case I go off. "Who cares! Don't you understand we're losing troops every day because our President lied and nobody is covering it because we'r emore interested in some stupid skank who left her man at the altar!?"

It's amazing how many people just hang their heads, literally, in shame when I bring it up. they know.

Still we americans love building people up, simply so we can watch them fall. We're disgusting in that regard. I'll watch the verdict.

[MADem]

2. Yeah, NOW they ask, once it is over!

I think they should tape these trials, where they don't want to show them live and sequester the jury. Then, afterwards, they can run them on Court TV if they want. It would probably rachet down the horseshit if people knew that they could see them at some point, even if not contemporaneously.

[Karmakaze]

3. Is it just me, or do they sound a bit peeved?

It almost reads like they saying "hey we tried our best, but no one seems interested!"

Maybe they should think less about what they could do to get people interested and think more about why they should be interested in the first place. Maybe they'll find some answers that will save them a whole lot of wasted airtime.

[distantearlywarning]

7. Or maybe they could consider

maybe covering some real news for once. Things that don't involve perverts, celebrities, or cute missing blond girls in Aruba.

But that's probably too much to ask for.

[midnight armadillo]

4. HA!

The trial footage would have merely displaced some of the idiocy, not prevented it. This CNN article is pathetic.

So is Michael Jackson - there was a WSJ article on how he's on the verge of bankruptcy, has a constantly changing cast of advisors, etc. Has any human being ever been so utterly ruined by fame as this guy?

[hatrack]

5. Didn't the media do this "agonizing reappraisal" bullshit after OJ?

And what changed? Nothing. Not a Goddamned thing.

[ailsagirl]

6. Not one whit