Yesterday Annie turns on the financial news, and as usual, puts on CNN in the picture-in-picture (PiP). On CNN they are announcing that within half an hour the verdict in the Michael Jackson trial will be announced. She watches her program, switching to CNN during the commercials. At the end of the hour, still no verdict, but we had many shots of Jackson's motorcade.
An hour later she puts on another program, with CNN in PiP. The verdict has come in and now CNN is devoting the entire hour to talking about it. The next hour came Paula Zhan who announced a special program on the verdict, starting with a "legal defense analyst". At that point we turned off the TV for the evening.
We know that CNN devoted at least four hours, and probably more, to this piece of news. And I do not think it is all that bad. After all, he is a well known person, and people are interested. Also, these high profile trials, with their attendant news coverage, give Jane and Joe Public a glimpse of the legal process. Not a bad thing.
But is it too much to ask that CNN devote the same amount of coverage to important Supreme Court decisions, such as Raich?
Can you imagine it:
"This is Wolf Blitzer with breaking news at the Supreme Court. We hear the Justices have a ruling in the medical marijuana case. Now over to John X our reporter at the court. John, what can you tell us?"
"Wolf, the Justices have ruled six to three that Federal law takes precedence over state law in this case. The interesting thing is that Justice Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, used the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to justify the ruling."
"John, you say six to three, who dissented and why?"
"Wolf, dissenting were Chief Justice Rehnquist and justices O'Connor and Thomas. Justice Thomas' opinion is that the court has opened to door to unlimited federal power."
When they get to the "analysis" part, they have the pro and anti marijuana folks condemning and praising the decision. They do interviews with the court clerks and the attorneys that argued the case. On Larry King Live they have Angel Raich and her husband on for the call in.
All great entertainment. All which will draw good ratings, especially if they pumped it like they pumped the Jackson trial.
Is it too much to ask that they give real news, that has a serious impact on the lives of all inhabitants of the US, the same treatment they give to a celebrity trial?
The CNN circus
Jorge says:
I have not believed "conspiracy" type explanations, preferring to find other motives. It almost impossible to maintain that position now.
Before, in cases such as airbags or Hibel, I would rationalize it in terms of "low of public interest", therefore the MSM would only give it minor coverage. I cannot make that argument for marijuana. The majority of the population, including the previous and current presidents have tried marijuana. This is something that interests the people. This is something that would sell, and sell very well, in term of news.
I agree, if the news item has the potential to get people thinking in terms that would not be beneficial for the rulers, it is ignored by the MSM.
At least there are blogs. There is hope.
Trevor says:
I think you're being too easy on the "news" pundits.
Michael Jackson can't even properly enslave a single family, based on what came out at the trial. Congress and the Justices could make all of us slaves with a mere declaration if they wanted.
What they spend their day doing impacts everyone. It should always be the top story.
Sunni says:
Yes, it apparently is too much. I've been doing an informal survey of health-related material I see at EurekAlert and its coverage at Google's news page. (The recent item about airbags is a good example.) Many times, this important information isn't picked up by the MSM (mainstream media). It seems to me, more often than not, that the stories not covered are those that run counter to the state programming we're supposed to hew to.