Casey Anthony thread: for those who didn't get to participate in the original thread

Discussion in 'The Barber Shop' started by California Cajun, Jul 7, 2011.

  1. I had spent considerable time writing a thoughtful post about this, then hit Reply, then bloop! Thread Closed. This is my first major criticism of this forum. Delete the offending posts, not the thread.

    I was going to say that I thought the Headline News Network (HLN) coverage was the worst part of it because it was like a pep rally, with overt bias toward opinions they thought were popular. It was an unprofessional free for all, with the one interrupting and yelling the loudest getting his/her say in.

    At what point did the media quit reporting and started telling us what to think?
     
  2. Right about the time that Cronkite, Brinkley and Huntley retired. They were journalists not entertainers. It's not about the news these days. Like everything else it's about entertainment and sensationalism and profit. I am afraid that a "real" news program would not fair well in the ratings in today's America. What a shame it is.
     
  3. ouch

    ouch Moderator Contributor

    You're spot on regarding HLN. In Session's coverage was better, but still nowhere near what the public deserves from a network given the opportunity to cover such a high profile and important case.
     
  4. professorchaos

    professorchaos Moderator Emeritus

    Bias in the media? Who'd have thunk it? I've pretty much given up on the television as a source for news.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2011
  5. franz

    franz Moderator Emeritus

    I don't get news from TV anymore, but the working principle seems to have evolved from "report the truth" to "report exactly two sides of every story" to... it's hard to describe without using naughty words. :lol:

    For a more jaw-dropping story involving the relationship between journalistic practices (to use the term journalism is an insult to real journalists) and the law, see the phone hacking scandal developing in England. Now that is something to make your hair curl.
     
  6. I stopped watching TV a few years ago. The only information I have had from this trial is blurbs I saw while checking out Google News. Otherwise, I'm ignorant. I do not feel deprived, though. I have seen Nancy Grace on the screen, briefly, while walking by my son's room.

    Good riddance.
     
  7. You pretty much restated what I said in the closed thread.

     
  8. The old news is the new news. Watch Ace in the Hole with Kirk Douglas. It's all just a circus. Freedom of the press has turned into freedom to manipulate the truth and steer public opinion.
     
  9. i stayed away till tonight... all i can say is,, its hard to prove murder with no solid evidence. noone really even knows HOW she died. hard to prove anything at that point.
     
  10. Good to see you start a new thread. Care to share the post you originally prepared?

    Thanks,
    Mike

     
  11. What you quoted is pretty much what I had intended to say. The worst part of the trial was the opinionated and unprofessional coverage by HLN. Juries are going to surprise people from time to time, that's part of the process. I had wondered how the case looked to a juror that didn't watch the coverage on HLN, which is what I wanted them to provide. As someone who works when most of the trial took place, I wanted a synopsis of what happened, not a campaign to convict the defendant.

    In addition to having the biases of the hosts forced upon me, I didn't like the other funny business that was going on during the programming. In the lower right-hand corner of the TV screen, they kept alternating JUSTICE FOR CAYLEE with her picture, and on the lower left-hand side highlighting BREAKING NEWS along with another message. The HLN logo is like a quotation and the point on the lower left-hand side of it kept revolving around the rest of the logo. They also kept showing footage of Caylee playing with Mom and swimming with Grandma over and over again. Nancy Grace kept referring to Casey Anthony as "Tot Mom" in a condescending manner. The talking and the visual antics added up to one big distraction. It was like the network was trying to manipulate me toward a conclusion for fear I might not be able to think for myself.

    I think the network got what it wanted. They tried to raise the emotions of the viewer to a fever pitch during the trial, and when it was over, held the viewers a few more days to re-hash what went wrong when things didn't wind up the way they expected.
     
  12. It's very sad to me folks in this country care more about a trial then they do about the situation this country is in right now.
     
  13. I never really understood why this trial was much of a news story. Tragic murders take place in this country all too frequently. Was it because the accused was somewhat attractive and, dare I say, Caucasian? Or because the prosecution took the giant step of seeking the death penalty without more conclusive evidence? As for the verdict, none of us was in the courtroom to see the admissible evidence through the eyes of the jury, without the "help" of big corporations that were making big bucks off of the trial.
     
  14. I first saw this and asked myself why if one was closed do we open the can of worms again? Then, I see the OP's "complaint" about not deleting the offending posts only and I must agree that'd be a good solution.

    I haven't ready this thread, nor the other so not sure why it was closed. Don't particularly care either.
     
  15. I tend to agree with the last few posts. I'm not sure why this particular case made the news. I am even more confused by Nancy Grace, who seems to make a great deal of money by means of exploiting tragedy. She has also been wrong about many of the things she has criticized (Duke lacrosse scandal, Jennifer Wilbanks' disappearance, etc.) She is a loudmouthed person whose existence on television confounds me.
     
  16. The only one I liked from the next generation was the Late Peter Jennings.
     
  17. I thought only meteorologists got paid to be wrong that many times. Apparently it's OK in the world of sensationalism. I find this type of programming most despicable. It is the modern day lynch mob. The only thing worse are the people who gobble this stuff up.

    It is frightening to hear people say stuff like, "She doesn't even deserve a trial!" These are the type of comments I hear from fans of sensationalist programming. OF COURSE SHE DESERVES A TRIAL!!! What the heck are they thinking? This was one of the founding principles of the United States. She also deserves the consequences of the trial if found guilty. The trial of public opinion is a very scary thing, as it all depends on who is telling and twisting the story.

    The whole purpose of having a trial is to remove some of the irrational emotions from the verdict and focus on the facts. Even Charles Manson deserved a trial and was rightfully found guilty.
     
  18. ouch

    ouch Moderator Contributor

    I still think the schmuck who flipped the finger to the prosecutor received a proportionately harsher sentence than Casey did.
     
  19. With all deference, I wouldn't assume that the OP and other posters care more about the trial than our current economic situation (I'm guessing that might be what you are referring to), but I can see that the co-opting of the press by entertainment media and business is one of the most pressing problems we as citizens face. I'm OK with the OP's post as he brings up an important point.

    Take care.
     
  20. Thank you for your post. My interest in this topic was the level media attention it received and the type of media attention it received. It also crossed my mind that it is more difficult to conduct a fair trial when you have talking heads fanning the flames and riling people up.

    I think this case was selected for airplay for ratings purposes. No doubt there are similar cases that don't receive anywhere near this kind of attention.
     

Share This Page