Networks Pledge Restraint

NEW YORK - There was a sinking feeling last week when CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC all trained their cameras on a California street to catch Michael Jackson returning from a lunch break during jury selection at his molestation trial. Is this what the next few months are going to be like? (um... I think I posted something here, saying as much) Many in television insist not. While they expect Jackson's upcoming trial to be newsworthy, they don't see it becoming a national obsession, and don't expect to cover it as such. (uh, yeah.... right....)

"It's certainly not going to dominate our air, not the way that O.J. did and not when you think of all the other things that we're dealing with as a nation, like terrorism, the state of the war, the tsunami," said Mark Effron, vice president of news and daytime programming at MSNBC (didn't stop 'em from smashing the Peterson case into our faces each and every day). Jackson may be one of the world's biggest stars, but there are several reasons why TV programmers aren't anticipating a case that will grab interest like Simpson's murder trial, or even Scott Peterson's. One is simple logistics. With cameras not allowed, viewers can't get engrossed in the action themselves, or see compelling characters like Johnnie Cochran or Judge Ito develop. (doesn't stop 'em from talking to the people who were present in the courtroom, like they did in the Peterson case)

"Because there are no cameras in the courtroom, it's going to lack a certain sizzle," said Jonathan Klein, CNN chief executive. "A lot of the buzz is going to be manufactured rather than real. (isn't this normally the case?) Therefore, you might see a dwindling of interest."

While many viewers could relate to Laci and Scott Peterson as personalities, and become engrossed in a murder mystery, that's not the case with the oddball Jackson, he said. (I think because he is an oddball is why the media is all over this case!)

Then there's the "yuck factor." Molestation is repellent, and certainly doesn't promote watercooler talk, Klein said. Since such allegations have long dogged Jackson, there's little shock value. (oh, so is that why we got the play-by-play on what Jackson was wearing on his first day in court?)

"There will be some interest in this case, don't get me wrong, but there will not be the constant national fascination that we have seen in a lot of other trials," Abrams said. (no, the constant national fascination is being manufactured by the networks and other media outlets... constantly jamming it down our throats)

In other words, if there's great public interest in the case, it hasn't manifested itself yet. But things change. Some dramatic testimony from Jackson, a few unexpected revelations, and the spotlight can become brighter. (gee, what a surprise)