Focusing our attentiong, setting the agenda...

TV NEWS HYPER-COVERAGE AND THE REPRESENTATION OF PLACE: OBSERVATIONS ON THE O.J. SIMPSON CASE

By Derek H. Alderman

I found Alderman's piece on the hyper-coverage of the Simpson case to interesting, though admittedly incomplete, as he openly admits at the conclusion of the paper. As a journalism major, and a sociology minor, the idea of hyper-coverage by the media and the over-saturation of stories is nothing new. I have examined it from both a sociological and as well as a journalistic perspective, and I find flaws with this type of reporting from both angles.

First, from a sociological perspective, I see the danger focusing our attention on one story, and one story only, and fear that this type of extreme agenda-setting, which is a powerful tool of the media and other institutions, sometimes leads us a astray. As Alderman points out in this piece, coverage of the O.J. Simpson case made up nearly 30% of network broadcasts. It took away time from other international and domestic stories. While there are reasons why this case was so appealing, - it involved a celebrity, was very controversial, had a race element to it - in the grand scheme of things, there were other incidents and issues that demanded further attention. For example, as Alderman mentions, the Oklahoma City Bombing. The Simpson case beat out an act of mass murder and terrorism, one that should have been on every one's minds. But who has the control over that? The media.

I am equally disappointed with the Simpson coverage from a journalistic perspective. We know that there are issues in the media, that we tend to over/under-simplify stories, or that ethical issues are often brought up by the ways in which we report the news. It is scary to see how much of an influence we actually have on the world around us, how much we are able to control what's on the public forum. Bringing national stories to the local or regional level for instance, is a tactic that is widely used in the media, and one that Alderman identifies in this piece. And while oftentimes it is useful tool for explaining a national incident in local context, the way in which it was used during the Simpson case was sensational, and continually brought our attention back to O.J. and Los Angeles. This hyper-coverage is perhaps the scariest because although it is a way to segue from one story to another, it is also a way of keeping the viewer's thoughts on a certain piece, on a certain story, preventing the audience from thinking about other more important issues.

When it all comes down to it, the O.J. Simpson case was not that significant - it was not really an issue of social/public importance. But the media made it into one. And that's the power, and the responsibility of being a journalist.