"Lynch-Mob journalism" vs. "Compelling human drama": Editorial responses to coverage of the pretrial phase ot the O.J. Simpson case

Journalism and Mass Communication Quaterly

Volumn 76, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 499-515

  Hindman, Elizabeth Blanks ^a  

^a NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039442898     PISSN: 10776990     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/107769909907600307     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. "The O.J. Media Frenzy," USA Today, 30 June 1994, sec. A, p. 10, col. 1.
2. Kathy Fitzpatrick and Alice Kendrick, "Public perceptions of media coverage of the O.J. Simpson story one week after 'the chase,'" Southwestern Mass Communication Journal 11 (1995): 81-89.
3. The term "news media" here refers to news organizations, including print, broadcast, and cable. The category also includes the various "tabloid" publications and shows that typically deal with news or quasi-news of interest to their audiences. Examples of these include the National Enquirer newspaper and the television show Hard Copy. "Press" refers here to traditional mainstream print news media, usually newspapers.
4. See Elizabeth K. Hansen, "Tabloids, Lawyers and Competition made Us Do It!: How Journalists Construct, Interpret and Justify Coverage of the O.J. Simpson Story" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the AEJMC, Washington, DC, 1995); Michael B. Salwen and Paul D. Driscoll, "Self-Perceived Knowledge and the Third-Person Effect: Media Influence During the O.J. Simpson Trial" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the AEJMC, Anaheim, CA, 1996); Michael B. Salwen and Paul D. Driscoll, "Consequences of Third-Person Perception in Support of Press Restrictions in the O.J. Simpson Trial," Journal of Communication 47 (spring 1997): 60-78.
5. See Elizabeth K. Hansen, "Tabloids, Lawyers and Competition made Us Do It!: How Journalists Construct, Interpret and Justify Coverage of the O.J. Simpson Story" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the AEJMC, Washington, DC, 1995); Michael B. Salwen and Paul D. Driscoll, "Self-Perceived Knowledge and the Third-Person Effect: Media Influence During the O.J. Simpson Trial" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the AEJMC, Anaheim, CA, 1996); Michael B. Salwen and Paul D. Driscoll, "Consequences of Third-Person Perception in Support of Press Restrictions in the O.J. Simpson Trial," Journal of Communication 47 (spring 1997): 60-78.
6. See Elizabeth K. Hansen, "Tabloids, Lawyers and Competition made Us Do It!: How Journalists Construct, Interpret and Justify Coverage of the O.J. Simpson Story" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the AEJMC, Washington, DC, 1995); Michael B. Salwen and Paul D. Driscoll, "Self-Perceived Knowledge and the Third-Person Effect: Media Influence During the O.J. Simpson Trial" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the AEJMC, Anaheim, CA, 1996); Michael B. Salwen and Paul D. Driscoll, "Consequences of Third-Person Perception in Support of Press Restrictions in the O.J. Simpson Trial," Journal of Communication 47 (spring 1997): 60-78.
7. Media Studies Journal 12 (winter 1998).
8. Paul Thaler, The Spectacle: Media and the Making of the O.J. Simpson Story (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1997), 303.
9. William J. Brown, James J. Duane, and Benson P. Fraser, "Media Coverage and Public Opinion of the O.J. Simpson Trial: Implications for the Criminal Justice System," Communication Law and Policy 2 (spring 1997): 269.
10. Thaler, The Spectacle, 118.
11. Brown, Duane, and Fraser, "Media Coverage," 269.
12. For an extended discussion of press behavior both before and during the trial, see Thaler, The Spectacle. 11. Thaler, The Spectacle, 141.
13. For an extended discussion of press behavior both before and during the trial, see Thaler, The Spectacle. 11. Thaler, The Spectacle, 141.
14. John H. Harvey and Gifford Weary, Perspectives on Attributional Processes (Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown, 1981), 6.
15. Harold H. Kelley, "The Processes of Causal Attribution," American Psychologist 28 (summer 1973): 108.
16. Stuart Oskamp, Attitudes and Opinions, 2d ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991), 32.
17. Fritz A. Heider, The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations (NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1958), 79.
18. Karen Huffman, Mark Vernoy, Barbara Williams, and Judith Vernoy, Psychology in Action, 2d ed. (NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1991); Oskamp, Attitudes and Opinions. 17. Oskamp, Attitudes and Opinions, 43.
19. Karen Huffman, Mark Vernoy, Barbara Williams, and Judith Vernoy, Psychology in Action, 2d ed. (NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1991); Oskamp, Attitudes and Opinions. 17. Oskamp, Attitudes and Opinions, 43.
20. Karen Huffman, Mark Vernoy, Barbara Williams, and Judith Vernoy, Psychology in Action, 2d ed. (NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1991); Oskamp, Attitudes and Opinions. 17. Oskamp, Attitudes and Opinions, 43.
21. Daniel Heradstveit and G. Matthew Bonham, "Attribution Theory and Arab Images of the Gulf War," Political Psychology 17 (summer 1996): 274-75.
22. Michael Ross and Don DiTecco, "An Attributional Analysis of Moral Judgments," Journal of Social Issues 31 (fall 1975): 92.
23. Bernard Weiner, "The Emotional Consequences of Causal Attributions," in Affect and Cognition: The Seventeenth Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, ed. Margaret Sydnor Clark and Susan T. Fiske (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1982), 190-91.
24. Ross and DiTecco, "An Attributional Analysis," 93-94.
25. Ross and DiTecco, "An Attributional Analysis," 97.
26. This research uses attribution theory to examine how organizations attribute behavior. A search of attribution literature revealed no other work applying the theory to organizations or institutions per se. A number of articles apply attribution theory to relationships within organizations, but none, apparently, focuses on the organization's collective attributional processes.
27. Ernest C. Hynds, "Changes in Editorials: A Study of Three Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly 67(summer 1990): 302.
28. Kenneth Rystrom, The Why, Who and How of the Editorial Page (State College, PA: Strata Publishing, 1999), 82.
29. Ernest C. Hynds, "Editors at Most U.S. Dailies See Vital Roles for Editorial Page," Journalism Quarterly 71 (autumn 1994): 575.
30. Clifford G. Christians, John. P. Ferre, and Mark Fackler, Good News: Social Ethics and the Press (NY: Oxford, 1993), 15.
31. The newspapers included in the database were the Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta Journal, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, Denver Post, Detroit News, Detroit Free Press, Guardian, Houston Chronicle, Houston Post, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, San Francisco Chronicle, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Times Picayune (New Orleans), USA Today, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post.
32. "The O.J. Simpson Case," Washington Post, 22 June 1994, sec. A, p. 20.
33. "O.J. Overflow," The Boston Globe, 30 June 1994, sec. A, p. 14.
34. "Courtroom Coverage is Addicting," Fargo Forum, 25 September 1994, sec. E, p. 4.
35. "Camera Ban No Solution," USA Today, 14 October 1994, sec. A, p. 12.
36. "The Justice System is on Trial," San Francisco Chronicle, 26 September 1994, sec. A, p. 22.
37. "Can Justice Survive All the Hype?" Atlanta Constitution, 4 July 1994, sec. A, p. 10. Ironically, the Constitution was involved in its own scandal two years later, when it concluded prematurely that Richard Jewell was the likely Olympic Park bomber.
38. "O.D.'ing on O.J.," Wall Street Journal, 21 June 1994, sec. A, p. 22.
39. "Time's Tinkering: Altering Photo has Serious Consequences," Philadelphia Inquirer, 23 June 1994, sec. A, p. 16. In a full-page letter the next week, Time managing editor James R. Gaines apologized for the cover. "I have never been so wrong about how [a cover] would be received," he wrote. The magazine did not mean to be racist, he wrote, nor did it mean to imply guilt on Simpson's part. However, Gaines continued, "photojournalism has never been able to claim the transparent neutrality attributed to it. Photographers choose angles ... And every major news outlet routinely crops and retouches photos to eliminate minor, extraneous elements, so long as the essential meaning of the picture is left intact." James R. Gaines, "To Our Readers," Time, 4 July 1994, 4.
40. "Time's Tinkering: Altering Photo has Serious Consequences," Philadelphia Inquirer, 23 June 1994, sec. A, p. 16. In a full-page letter the next week, Time managing editor James R. Gaines apologized for the cover. "I have never been so wrong about how [a cover] would be received," he wrote. The magazine did not mean to be racist, he wrote, nor did it mean to imply guilt on Simpson's part. However, Gaines continued, "photojournalism has never been able to claim the transparent neutrality attributed to it. Photographers choose angles ... And every major news outlet routinely crops and retouches photos to eliminate minor, extraneous elements, so long as the essential meaning of the picture is left intact." James R. Gaines, "To Our Readers," Time, 4 July 1994, 4.
41. Tabloid here refers not to tabloid-sized mainstream newspapers like the Rocky Mountain News, but rather to what are sometimes called "supermarket" tabloids and their television counterparts.
42. "The First Amendment and the Simpson Case," San Francisco Chronicle, 18 August 1994, sec. A, p. 24.
43. "Camera Ban No Solution."
44. "Primal Curiosity," New York Times, 10 July 1994, sec. A, p. 18.
45. "Wrong Answer for the Simpson Case," New York Times, 21 October 1994, sec. A, p. 30.
46. "Fair, but also open," Los Angeles Times, 31 August 1994, sec. B, p. 6.
47. "The First Amendment and the Simpson Case."
48. "The O.J. Media Frenzy," USA Today, 30 June 1994, sec. A, p. 10.
49. "O.J. Overflow," Boston Globe, 30 June 1994, sec. A, p. 14.
50. "O.J. Overflow."
51. "The Justice System is on Trial," San Francisco Chronicle, 26 September 1994, sec. A, p. 22.
52. "Seek Death Penalty: It Doesn't Make Sense," USA Today, 9 September 1994, sec. A, p. 10.
53. "From Athlete to Actor to Accused," Cedar Rapids Gazette, 21 June 1994, sec. A, p. 6.
54. "Courtroom Coverage is Addicting."
55. "O.J. Overflow."
56. "The O.J. Circus," Call and Post, 7 July 1994, sec. A, p. 4.
57. "Round 2," Christian Science Monitor, 26 July 1994, p. 18.
58. "The O.J. Media Frenzy."
59. "Courtroom Coverage is Addicting."
60. "Round 2."
61. "Wrong Answer for the Simpson Case," New York Times, 21 October 1994, sec. A, p. 30.
62. "Bad Call, Judge," Houston Chronicle, 21 October 1994, p. 26.
63. "The Judge's Wise Change of Mind," Los Angeles Times, 22 October 1994, sec. B, p. 7.
64. "Gags Cause Problems; Don't Assure Fairness," USA Today, 1 September 1994, sec. A, p. 8.
65. "Public is the Loser When O.J. Judge Ejects Reporters," USA Today, 21 October 1994, sec. A, p. 10.
66. Other newspapers, most notably the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Houston Chronicle, New York Times, and Chicago Tribune, published a number of editorials on the Simpson case. None of these newspapers, however, focused on the news media coverage of the case as much as USA Today.
67. "Yes, O.J. Can Get Fair Trial: So Can His Prosecutors," USA Today, 26 September 1994, sec. A, p. 10.
68. "Camera Ban No Solution."
69. "O.J. Watchers Win," USA Today, 8 November 1994, sec. A, p. 10.
70. "Cameras in the Simpson Trial," New York Times, 17 October 1994, sec. A, p. 16.
71. "With TV in Court, Citizens Will See What O.J. Jury Sees," Denver Post, 13 November 1994, sec. F, p. 2.
72. Thaler, The Spectacle, 118.
73. Thaler, The Spectacle, 131-32.