FOX gets wise with OJ

Fox finally realized there are lines that can’t be crossed.
News Corp., the conglomerate that owns Fox and Fox News, said Monday it would cancel a planned TV special and book from O.J. Simpson called "If I Did It," where the former football player explained hypothetically how he would have committed the slayings his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman in 1994.
In the brief amount of time that has lapsed since the project was announced, just about everybody in the world has come forward to say this was a terrible idea. The families of the victims were shocked and outraged that they were going to be dragged through this horrifying experience, again, and news pundits from around the globe were screaming, ‘What is Fox thinking?’
Obviously, they were thinking about ratings.
The special was set to air during the last three days of November sweeps, at a time when Fox is without it’s ratings winners American Idol and (place name of hot reality show here). They needed a hit, and they were willing to pay for it.
The deal with O.J. was worth an estimated $3.5 million for the book and television special (and yes, Simpson does get to keep the advance he received for the project). When you’re willing to spend that kind of cash on a 12-year-old story, you expect a payout.
But it backfired. The backlash alone has hurt Fox, not permanently though because it didn’t air.
There have been worse ideas that have actually aired on television (Remember Geraldo’s primetime journey into Al Capone’s vault where he found NOTHING?).
And Fox is already doing spin control.
In a statement, Rupert Murdoch, News Corp. chairman, who isn’t exactly known for speaking out against anything on his networks, said, “I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project. ...We are sorry for any pain that this has caused the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.”

I usually applaud Fox for pushing the boundaries — especially with its Sunday night lineup. But this time, backing off was just the right thing to do.

Editorial: It’s always television’s fault, isn’t it?

It’s a wonderful lie to blame things that have no relation to the actual problem. That’s what people are doing when they blame television for the ailments of the world.
I say this in response to an editorial that appeared in Tuesday’s editorial section of The Sheboygan Press, “Entertainment TV promotes acceptance of violence,” written by syndicated columnist Cal Thomas.
In it he talks about the recent brutal murder of several schoolgirls at a one-room Amish school in the usually peaceful Lancaster County, Pa. Charles Carl Roberts has been accused of pulling the trigger.
While Thomas accurately described the horror experienced in this sleepy community and rightfully concludes that life is uncertain, he for some reason decided to take a swipe at television—that glowing box of evil in everyone’s home.
In his column Thomas wrote: “As one who watches less and less TV, I observe a growing acceptance and promotion of violence in network “entertainment” programs,” and then went on to describe how CSI attempts to capture the necrophilia demographic by having autopsies of naked bodies (no I’m not kidding) and how local TV news “is drenched in crime and blood.”
While he stops short of actually linking it to Roberts’ actions, he quickly jumps on another television fear factor, saying: “the danger now is that other unstable people will see this horror on television and think they can replicate the carnage in their towns...”
First of all, his observations on television don’t make any sense. By applying the basic principles of logic: If you are watching less TV, and you are seeing more and more violent acts, then it’s the handful of shows you are watching.
As a person who watches, and has watched, a generous amount of television, I have seen a lot of television violence (not to mention a lot of sexual situations, innuendo, drug use, comedy, laughter, tragedy and smoking). But I have yet to see this escalating amount of violence I have been hearing about.
Maybe it’s the shows I’m watching. I’m only regularly watching two of the three Law and Orders and none of the three CSIs.
I do watch the news from several stations, including local, national and cable news coverage, and while I have seen reports on homicides in the Milwaukee area and the current nuclear unrest in Korea, I am not seeing any violent acts (plenty of aftermath though).
I would be lying to say television hasn’t changed. It has—it’s gotten better.
While I’m not a fan of CSI, the show has increased the public’s awareness of criminal investigations, and even though it has given viewers an unrealistic expectation when it comes to actual investigation techniques, it is opened up people’s eyes to the rapidly growing science of police work (let’s see Hill Street Blues do that!)
The same can be said for ER and Law and Order.
What these shows haven’t done is increase the public’s acceptance of violence, and any argument that it has is pure and simple Right Wing banter.
When the Twin Towers came down on Sept. 11, did any TV viewers laugh? Did they show no emotion? Did they feel safer? NO! It was horrifying, tragic, terrifying and sad, and still it is! And these events at the Amish school and schools across the country in the past three weeks, including Wisconsin, are not being seen as minor events. There has been no desensitization toward real events because of television.
And television has nothing to do with these tragedies.
At least when Columbine happened, people quickly blamed Marilyn Manson, The Matrix and KMFDM, because the Trench Coat Mafia seemed to enjoy these things. Has anyone linked Roberts to a television? NO. Did he even watch TV?
I know that many people wish television could go back to a simpler time, when “Leave it to Beaver” and “My Three Sons” were on the tube, but realistically those weren’t exactly great times. African Americans couldn’t vote, women earned way less than men doing the same job (if women were allowed to work—many were forced to quit working when they got married) and situation comedies lacked realistic situations and comedy (plus much, much more).
But to even bring television up and half-heartedly connect TV to events it has no relation with is appalling. I’m not saying television is the solution to all of the world’s problems, but it surely isn’t the cause of them either.

The views expressed in this editorial are mine and mine alone.