It's Wrong to Censor O.J.

When news broke on June 12, 1994 that Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson had just been killed in the Brentwood section of Los Angeles, countless media organizations began to cover this double-murder relentlessly. Although the reportage has since become less ubiquitous, it never completely stopped, even though much of the attention has probably been very upsetting to the next of kin. So nobody should believe News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch’s claim that it was out of respect for the Brown and Goldman families he squashed “If I Did It,” the television/book combo which was to have been marketed as O.J. Simpson’s confession. The notorious mogul reversed his plans only to remedy a public relations crisis, and because he realized a flight of sponsors and affiliates would financially impair his Fox Broadcasting Company if Judith Regan’s interview with Simpson were to air. Murdoch’s decision, a shrewd response to a barrage of shallow complaints by influential elitists, indicates no new trend toward excellence in journalism.

It would be nice if the masses weren’t so obsessed with O.J. and his worldview, but those who crave constant Juice shouldn’t be deprived of their fix simply because the dictators of decency are offended. Yes, Fred Goldman and Denise Brown endured a terrible tragedy. No, their grief does not entitle them to be gatekeepers of public information. Likewise, celebrity commentators who for years profited from this ongoing soap opera, possess no moral authority to shriek in indignation over a book based on the leading man’s perspective. Nonetheless, now that he has entered their field, pundits who gladly accept generous wages for producing sordid infotainment and sensationalism, are openly conspiring to deny Simpson a livelihood, as if he is beneath them, and they are official stewards of an honorable profession. What could be more unctuous than Geraldo Rivera, who conducted an infamous TV interview with convicted murderer Charles Manson, calling for O.J. to be silenced in the name of good taste?

Like it or not, O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder charges. The judgment in a subsequent civil lawsuit obligates him to pay $33.5 million to the Brown and Goldman families, but it does not authorize anyone to blacklist the famous defendant or suppress his speech. Even so, self-appointed arbiters of propriety have managed to severely restrict Simpson’s mass communication options, citing his receipt or potential receipt of cash as the factor that somehow distinguishes “If I Did It” from lowbrow material deemed acceptable. Of course the financial terms of O.J.’s book deal are mostly unknown, but vague rumors about an unusual payment scheme are enough for disparagers to insist this project is where the line should be drawn.

Those who now advocate blocking Simpson’s revenue source haven’t bothered to articulate a standard that could be applied to other situations. Without revealing how the former star might be eligible for income, detractors have announced only their disapproval of him making money from one particular book most of them haven’t read. Apparently, these vigilantes are holding him accountable for breaking a rule, but it’s not clear what the rule is, or what Simpson needs to do to be in compliance. May he receive funds for labor performed under some circumstances? May he discuss his criminal and civil trials in any way? For whom may he work?

The stifling of “If I Did It” is nothing to cheer. No matter how much the relatives of murder victims engender sympathy, it is not the role of media professionals to censor or otherwise punish O.J. Simpson, especially when the cognoscenti aren’t even forthright about the code of conduct they wish to enforce. -- Jeff Norman

BBC Claims CIA Involvement in RFK Assassination

"New video and photographic evidence," reports the BBC, "...puts three senior CIA operatives at the scene of Robert Kennedy's assassination."

The evidence was shown in a report by Shane O'Sullivan, broadcast on BBC Newsnight. It reveals that the operatives and four unidentified associates were at the Ambassador Hotel, Los Angeles in the moments before and after the shooting on 5 June, 1968.

The allegation has been distributed on the internet at least since Monday, when The Guardian published an item on O'Sullivan's findings. But even after being picked up by such widely read alternate news services as AlterNet and The Huffington Post, carried on YouTube, and discussed on dozens of blogs, as of today, there is no reference to the story in any of the major U.S. media.

If three Mafia goons had been potentially implicated in Kennedy's murder, it seems likely we'd have heard of it by now. And, for sure, if three of Sirhan Sirhan's fellow Arabs were being accused, it would be big news. But, whether or not the charges turn out to be true, at the very least, isn't it news that the BBC thinks it's news?
CIA role claim in Kennedy killing (BBC)
Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy? (The Guardian)

The 25 Most-Censored News Stories of the Year

Project Censored is a media research group out of Sonoma State University that tracks the news published in independent journals and newsletters. Each year, from 700 and 1000 stories submitted by journalists, scholars, librarians, and concerned citizens, Project Censored compiles a list of 25 news stories of social significance that have been overlooked, under-reported or self-censored by the country's major national news media (This year: #1 Future of Internet Debate Ignored by Media; #2 Halliburton Charged with Selling Nuclear Technologies to Iran; #3 Oceans of the World in Extreme Danger; #4 Hunger and Homelessness Increasing in the US; #5 High-Tech Genocide in Congo; and #6 Federal Whistleblower Protection in Jeopardy). The university community chooses the 25 stories from among the submissions, and they are then ranked in order of importance by a national panel of judges that this year includes Noam Chomsky, Susan Faludi, George Gerbner, Sut Jhally , Frances Moore Lappe, Norman Solomon, Michael Parenti, Herbert I. Schiller, Barbara Seaman, Erna Smith, Mike Wallace and Howard Zinn. The 25 stories are published on line and in the organization's yearbook, Censored: The News That Didn't Make the News.

Mystery Beef

Media activist Josh Silver’s Huffington Post commentary (“Air America’s ABC Blacklist: The Real Story”) takes censorial companies to task for stemming the free flow of information. After claiming “90 major corporations demanded that their ads be pulled from radio stations that run Air America programming,” Silver suggests the unidentified cartel made this move because Air America “gives airtime to reports that are critical of corporations and the powerful politicians they keep in Washington.” Maybe he’s right, but Silver’s pontifications are a bit hard to take seriously when he doesn’t bother to say exactly how the corporate command he’s denouncing went down, or if the culprits have given any explanation for whatever it is they did. Silver never even reveals why ABC is referenced in the headline. Why would he assume readers are already familiar with the details he leaves undisclosed? -- Jeff Norman

UPDATE (11/3/06 10:30 AM PST) Josh Silver emailed me to acknowledge his “oversight” and point out he has now added a link to a leaked memo ABC Radio Networks sent to its affiliates instructing them not to air the 90 sponsors’ spots on any Air America stations. The sponsors are named in the memo. A Media Advisory issued by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) contains additional information Silver’s commentary lacks: The memo was somehow obtained by radio talk show host Peter B. Collins, who provided it to FAIR. None of the corporations have apparently given a reason for blacklisting Air America, nor does it seem that anyone has asked.