Do you see a media bias? - 3.20.2007.1

Did anyone hear the news about the Sean Bell case? I doubt if most did. 51 shots fired at 3 men in a car leading to a death, all those men unarmed and fired upon by 5 police officers, and I only noticed 7 minutes of coverage all day yesterday between CNN and Fox News. 3 of the officers were indicted; charges included reckless endangerment of the public as shots hit buildings and other structures where other innocent people were. Anyone surprised?

I have friends all over the country, none of them heard a word about the latest events in the Sean Bell Case. I’m in New York State, barely any comment in the last 24 hours. I do watch a lot of cable news, but I’m not glued to it so there may have been somewhat more coverage. But I can say that in 4 hours I saw 2 mentions of the case for 45 seconds each. In the same time I saw 5 minutes of Anna Nicole Smith, and 6 mentions and 12 minutes on the woman shot by unknown individuals in her bed. There was no less than a half hour of information about the Boy Scout that was in the woods. Seem fair?

I recall that back when the Duke rape case started, there was hours of information. Most of that information was instantly in defense of the lacrosse team, there were questions on the defendant immediately. The fact that some of those questions came to be found as true is immaterial to the way the media reacted. Anna Nicole Smith and news relating to her death and paternity of her child has had more coverage than the death of President Ford, the death (and 2 month non-burial) of James Brown, The Sean Bell Shooting, and the Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident; even if you doubled all of them and combined the times you would still have more coverage on Anna Nicole Smith. Honestly the case is worth almost no time.

And now I see that Mr. Bill O’Reilly is going to do a segment on despicable villains and their body language. One of the featured individuals appears to be Mr. O.J. Simpson along with Kim il Jong and Saddam Hussein. The O.J. trial remains the most commented and reported item in the last decade. At every turn the media takes a moment to reflect on how similar, or impacting, or some other vague connection a current event has to that case. Mr. Simpson has not helped himself, but the nation and the media cannot get over the fact that the Justice system found him innocent of the charges placed against him just as dozens (perhaps hundreds) of other rich, famous, non-minorities have done for decades before and after him.

So in each case there seems to be a disparity. Lead by the media there is an emphasis. Black American men shot to death, in a style of overkill usually only found in action movies, minor news. Black man with contribution to the arts for decades, unburied for 2+ months, not important. African American wins a trial by using high priced lawyers and reasonable doubt, bad charges, and evidence planted by the police is unforgettable. Cute blonde gets daily coverage. An argument between celebrities, daily coverage. Offensive, demeaning comments by a celebrity against a religious or ethnic group, minor coverage. Defensive coverage of accused rapists, prior to a trial or Grand Jury, prior to any actual facts being found – daily coverage. As facts are found, huge recaps of the case, furthering the defense especially if anything leads to defending the accused. Coverage of a bank robbery by ‘cute teens’ huge coverage, the fact that the charges were lessened from federal offenses? 2 minutes.

Do you see a trend? I do. If I or my friends were to commit any of the above acts I’d be in jail and barely get noticed. I’d get no defense by the media. I’d never be referred to as ‘cute’ or innocent. My attackers would have the presumption of innocence or cause. Were I to win, I’d be hounded for life.

Is it racist? Well you tell me. When was the last time you saw a non-minority shot more than 10 times? Did you know that James Brown wasn’t buried for 2 months, and when did you learn about it? A week later, a month, just now? If I were to rant racial or ethnic slurs in a public forum or on tape, would it be forgotten in a week? If there was video of the event would it be discarded in a few hours of the event, or even make it to the news? Would there be newscasters and news consultants defending me on accusations of rape, robbery, assault, defamation or other events? If you think I would get a treatment different than some of the above cases, what makes the difference? Is that racist?

I leave you with this thought. Right now there is as much news on a hockey player that high-sticked another player as all the news on the Sean Bell shooting combined.

This is what I think, what do you think?

James Brown getting buried, Anna not yet - 2.21.2007.1

Well there are 2 things I can say today. The first is the good news that Mr. James Brown is finally being laid to rest. You may not have noticed the news on Mr. Brown, or the fact that he has not been buried for 2 months, as the main media seems to have found it unimportant. It definitely did not deserve as much coverage as the multiple hours of news dedicated to the death of and trials about Ms. Anna Nicole Smith, if the time dedicated to the story is the criteria determining worth. I feel it needed more attention.

The fact that Mr. Brown, the Hardest Working Man in Show Business, has been prevented from finally getting rest should have been mentioned. But not unlike my comments on the last stupid waste of time dedicated to a worthless cause (the battle between Rosie and Trump) I see that the current waste of time (about Ms. Smith) is far more important than any other news. Even news about Iraq, Iran and its nuclear ambitions, and the presidential hopefuls are all supplanted. It’s a shame that the news media is chasing the money no less than Mr. Howard K. Stern, in my opinion.

I must note that there is a major bias here. Like the Smith case, there was a dispute over where the deceased may be buried. There was, and is, a contest over the estate and the wealth that goes with that estate. There is also a child who may or may not benefit from the estate. And lastly there is a test of paternity that will be done with DNA being collected from the deceased.

Yet I notice that there are differences that count. Ms. Smith was a beautiful woman, but contributed little to the whole of entertainment or society. Mr. James Brown recorded records for decades with many being considered classics that continue to be heard even by the hip-hop generation of today. Anna Nicole made some money as a model and a bit more for a television ‘reality’ show, but the bulk of her wealth is tied to her marriage to an elderly billionaire. Mr. Brown, the Godfather of Soul, made his wealth from being an entertainer and was performing until the time of his death (he was scheduled to perform on New Year’s Eve in New York City). The estate of Mr. Brown has a value and is a known quantity, Ms. Smith’s estate may or may not be worth roughly $400 million dollars depending on court cases. Mr. Brown is known by millions world-wide, of all ages and races, and had thousands attend his viewing. Ms. Smith has become popular to millions and is well known to younger generations, mostly for the aforementioned lawsuit and reality television show.

Considering the commonalities and differences, and noting that former President Ford died at nearly the same time yet almost as much time was spent on the death of Mr. Brown, I am befuddled at the attention given to Anna Nicole Smith. What special happenstance is there where the delays in burying Mr. Brown warranted no attention?

The only differences that I am aware of are those I mentioned above (which would lead one to think that more attention was due to Mr. Brown’s estate) and the facts that one was a Black American, one was definitely on drugs, one had a child die recently, and one was old. What does this lopsided (actually I’d say one-sided) media attention say about the media and us as a society? How can any of us feel good that in both cases, the desire for wealth precludes the ability of celebrities (or anyone for that matter) to be laid to rest. Are a couple, or even millions, of dollars worth the indignity of allowing people to decay while the living bicker over the pennies that are left behind. Isn’t it obvious that the children demand the satisfaction of security and they should be left with a legacy that does not involve money-grubbing. Imagine the life you might have if one of the most vivid memories you have of your deceased parent, and public photos of them, pertain to the battle for the money they had.

I cannot imagine that either child will have a ‘normal’ life. Even considering how far from the norm celebrity’s children’s lives generally are. If for no other reason (beyond the fact that this news is not important) the charade should end for the benefit of those children. I have a simple solution to it all.

If there is no will giving the estate to a parent it goes to the children. The money and estate are placed in a trust that cannot be touched until the child is 21. The executor of the trust is picked by the court and cannot be a parent, also the executor must file the status of the estate with the court every year to ensure it is not being wasted. No money goes to the parent or anyone else. If you want the child, get a job and raise them.

This is what I think, what do you think?