The O.J. Trial

On June 12, 1994 Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were murdered. O. J. Simpson, Nicole’s ex-husband, was tried for the murder and acquitted, but it is still a common belief that Simpson committed the double murderer. The murder trail, the longest in California history, was a media event that contained all types of intrigue. The trial gathered attention because the Simpson’s marriage was bi-racial, Simpson was a former star in the National Football League, The defense team hired was all very high profile, there was alleged police misconduct, and the trail was televised daily.

Like the opening of a film The O. J. Simpson trail opened with a car chase before the actual trial began, only the chase was low-speed in a white Bronco, which stood out against the freeway and city streets. The chase aired live and was viewed by over 90 million people. The press not already reporting on the celebrity murder jumped on the story after the car chase, a moment that seemed to be stranger than fiction.

The trial started on January 25, 1995 and aired on Court TV. As the trial played out on television the press acted as translator to the readers who were watching. The average person had not seen the inner workings of the criminal justice system and during the trial California’s court system was being dissected in the news everyday. It was what might now be called a reality television show. There was also the looming question if having the camera in the courtroom changed the dynamic of the courtroom. This brought to the forefront the battle between the First and Sixth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Does the people’s right to know out way the defendants right to a fair trial. With the trail opening with a recording of Nicole Brown Simpson calling 911 fearing that Simpson would do her great bodily harm, Johnnie Cochran’s inspired quote, “if it doesn’t fit you must have acquit,” and the accusations of dirty cops the trial was very theatrical. When Simpson’s mug shot graced the cover of Time Magazine it was darkened and it seemed as if he had already been tried and convicted by the press before the trial had even gotten underway. This case and others like it create a problem in journalism and the rally cry that criminal cases a being tried by the media has gone up all across the country.

The journalism industry saw an economic boom during 1990s and fierce competition ensued between newspapers, magazines, and networks to hold the top spot in their markets. This battle did not take place through the pursuit of hirer quality journalism or the aggressive pursuit of more exclusive stories. It took place in the office through cost cutting and the idea to “do more with less.” The sensationalist story is one of the types of mediocre journalism that also shows the loosening ethics of the time. The profit growth that was seen during this time became the bottom line. Journalism as a whole suffered a great blow with the as readers lost confidence in journalists across the board. Even though most journalists were just fighting to keep their jobs. Stories like the O.J. Simpson Trial are just byproducts of the corporate take over of journalism spawned by deregulation.

The Obama Inauguration

Barrak Obama is the first black president of the United States and his inauguration on January 20, 2009 marks a milestone in the history of the country and the countries relations with the rest of the world. Coverage of his swearing in ceremony graced the front page of papers around the world. In the United States photos of Obama on the day spanned the width of the paper. Internet coverage of the day inspired newspapers to put together multimedia packages and slideshows. A freelance photojournalist shot a large and detailed panorama and there was even a live feed from a satellite online so the event could be watched from directly overhead. Papers across Europe covered the swearing in of the president, the celebrations, the outfits, the speeches, the possibility of a new white house pet, security concerns, and the weight of the occasion all in different stories on the day. International news wires like Agence France-Presse was focused on Obama.

You can find the word hope in almost every story written about the inauguration from the LA Times and NY Times in the US to the Telegraph in London and the Cape Argus in South Africa. Obama brought his message of hope, and this was reflected in the stories. The Standard from Nairobi, Kenya has reported on the joy of its countries people in regards to Obama, whom is of Kenyan lineage, being elected to the position of president for the United States. The Standard has also reported a steady list of situations around the world that they think that Obama, as they see the situation, is not only able to fix, but is obligated too do so. This is quite obvious that not only is the day of Obama’s inauguration, but everyday of Obama’s presidency.

The lead up to Obama becoming president of the United States was courted by the press positively. Television shows that seek out contradictions in the presses’ ethics, like Saturday Night Live, pointed out the bias of the press by making fun of its lean toward Obama. However, after the rocky relations between the Bush Administration and the press there was no attempt to conceal the press was optimistic that the new administration would nurture a better relationship with journalists.

The presses’ positive view toward anything is quite surprising when you consider the current state of newsrooms across the nation. Slow to adapt their print advertising supported business models to an online model that could support the financial burden of the change to an online product newspapers have been unable to maintain the fiscal growth most newspapers across the nation have instituted large scale layoffs of staff. This has been hard on both the reporters who have lost their jobs and those who have stayed fearing that they might be next while dealing with the loss of there co-workers.

A reporter at the Oakland Tribune said that the paper’s newsroom felt happy again working together on the stories leading up to the inauguration. Obama’s inaguration is for newspapers, what The Washington Post called it in regards to the nation, “a moment of particular extremes: enormous joy, great hope, deep fears.”

1945 Atomic Bomb Drops

August 6th 1945 marked a day of mixed emotions across the globe. It was the day that the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima followed by the second drop on August 9th on Nagasaki. It was a terrible day for the Japanese but was seen as a success for the U.S. military and its citizens. It was a hard story to cover because sensitivity was a huge issue. Reporters had to report what was going on but there were many fatalities and it had to be done with some caress. President Truman reported that the U.S. will be showing the Japanese little mercy stating “If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the like of which has never been seen on Earth,” and he delivered on his promise dropping the largest bomb on a country that has ever been used in an attack.
BBC news reported the story and sounded pretty openly about it. The title reads: “1945: U.S. Drops Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima,” so it is a very straight-forward title. They didn’t clearly take a side to the story and just reported on what was said. The story kept out commentary from anyone except for the President and the British Prime Minister and that is probably because no one else could have commented on the story without bias. But I found it puzzling that it was added into the story that the atomic bomb being made by the Americans showed success that we were able to produce it over our German opponents. The reporter wanted to add something positive to the article so it was sad that this attack happened but it should be seen as a good thing because at least we came up with this piece of technology first.
According to a story run but Newsweek magazine, during this time Americans saw World War II as a good war and agreed with whatever moves our government made and didn’t have a problem with the atomic bombs. Newsweek magazine put a more positive spin on the story stating “The atomic bombs dropped on Japan killed fewer people than did conventional bombs, but they were safer for aircrews. And by dropping the A-bombs, the Americans avoided the horrendous losses they would have suffered-and inflicted--by invading Japan.” This type of story really helped the American public live with a decision to bomb another country because this one sentence proves that the war would have been worse if other actions were taken.
The way the story in BBC was covered, it was done very objectively with the facts given and allowing the readers to form their own opinions afterward. The Newsweek story was written objectively but there are little bits of information throughout the piece that can help the reader decide that it was a hard decision to make but it was made with our best interests in mind, therefore was the right decision.

Brown vs. Board of Education

On May 17, 1954, the supreme court ruled that schools shouldn’t be racially segregated. The response of the news media varied from region to region.
The next day, The New York Times front cover had the following headline stretched across the front page “HIGH COURT BANS SCHOOL SEGREGATION 9-TO-0 DECISION GRANTS TIME TO COMPLY.”
The image on the front cover showed African American lawyers, who led the battle against the supreme court, shaking hands.
The Title of the Article said, “ 1896 Ruling Upset.” The Subheading read , ‘Separate but Equal’ Doctrine Held Out of Place in Education. A third subheading said the full text of the Supreme Court’s decision was printed on Page 15. All of these screaming headlines show that the New York Times knew that they were writing about a historic and monumental event.
In the first stanza the article announced the ruling. In the third stanza it said that the method of integration will be decided in October. After providing Chief Justice Warren’s rationale for the decision, the writer went on to say that the decision did not apply to private schools, railroads and “other public carriers”. The writer also listed all the states that have mandatory segregation, adding that South Carolina and Georgia have announced that they plan to abolish public schools if segregation were banned.
The article didn’t express any obvious bias, but it focused on how segregationist states viewed the ruling rather than focusing on states that were pleased by the ruling and it didn’t talk about the effect of the ruling on African Americans. The absense of African Americans cheering the decision made me feel as if the writer was reassuring people that the status quo would be preserved- at least for the time being.
A nearby column titled “Breathing Spell” for Adjustment Tempers Region’s Feelings said that Southern leaders were relieved that integration would be gradual. As proof it noted that the governors of South Carolina and Georgia (who had in the past threatened to disband public education if segregation was banned) – were displeased with the verdict but found relief in slow integration. The voice for African Americans, the Southern Regional Council, was in favor of gradual integration too. I wonder if there were any African Americans who wanted equality then and there.

On the other side of the country, the LA Times Times printed a front page news story titled ‘High Court Bans School Segregation’ by Robert T Hartmann, the Times Washington bureau chief. The article was filled with quotes that explained the court’s reasoning.
It also included a tiny bit of analysis . The write spoke about the legal reach of the decision and its historical significance, “Although, technically today’s rulings apply only to the four States and the District of Columbia, and further legal delays may be encountered before public school segregation is formally outlawed throughout the land, the Supreme Court’s broad application of the 14th amendment appeared to doom separation of pupils on racial grounds as surely as Lincoln ended slavery in the United States.”
The article also mentioned a loophole in the law. The court only cared to desegregate public – not private -- educational facilities. “Some legal observers saw a loophole for announced southern plans to turn their states public schools over to private operation in the court’s conclusion that the opportunity for an education, ‘where the State has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.’ ”
There are few indications of the writer’s opinion on the case, but this line hints that he’s in favor: “Written in clear, nontechnical language, the sweeping decision outlined the remarkable strides in the past century not only of the Negro race but of the theory of public education.”

Photos from Mars

The Mars pathfinder mission seemed to be a very important event in history. We had already been to the moon by this point. We’ve received space telescopes pictures of Mars and several other planets. So we already knew what planets, besides Earth, looked like from space. This was the first time we were able to see another planet from its surface. And it still is. The pictures sent from Mars also helped scientists understand our planet. And just for kicks, we were also interested in life on Mars, if any. We have been fascinated with Mars for years, and have found evidence that Mars may have once been like Earth. The pathfinder’s mission on Mars, and the visual evidence it collected has led scientists to continue their search for life on Mars and other planets. More contemporary stories that have been printed in the last year or so have been of new planets found in other star systems in our galaxy.

Both, the New York Times and the Los Angeles times reported the story on July 8, 1997. Science writer KC Cole of the LA Times approached the story with the perspective of the public eye. Her writing was uplifting, easy to read. The story was written as a “what’s to come story.” The story depicts detailed information of the images of Mars: rock colors, shades, sky details. She went into detail of what the mission entitled and what people should look forward to in the near future. The article answers why scientists and the public should be interested what Mars looks like. Cole also reports on the scientists’ effort to gather as much information as they can. I found this article easy, informative and very well written.

John Noble Wilford, of the New York Times, approached the story a little differently but still focused on the celebration of the photos being delivered to Earth. He too, described the images of Mars and history of the mission. He focused part of the story on the budget of the project, reporting on the cost of the project, and how much more future expenses. The story covered more of the behind the scenes, as well as give a description of the images sent by the pathfinder. Wilford explained in his story the way Mars highlands have been on the planet for billions of years. Unlike the other story, this story was structured more on the pathfinder’s equipment, and its day on the planet. It seemed as though Wilford wrote this to be an actual report, rather than a story.

Both reporters talked to several top researchers and research leaders that worked on the project. There wasn’t enough reportage from the government. As a reporter, knowing this is a national accomplishment, the story would have been better if government officials expressed their views of the accomplishment made.

This story is rather contemporary. During this time, tabloid journalism was rapidly growing, and many tabloid papers came out with stories of actual events, such as the bombing at the World Trade center. Around this time, many stories about UFO’s were written for tabloid papers.


"Scientists Get New View of Mars Landscape" KC Cole LA Times

"Mars Yeidling Flood of Data on Ancient Deluge" John Noble Wilford New York Times

Fall Berlin Wall

The fall of the Berlin wall was historical. It ended the 28 year separation between east and west Germany. It’s probably considered at top news story of the 20th century because it signified the end of the Cold War’s last major incident. In 1961, the Berlin Wall was built, dividing the city of Berlin into two and dividing Germany into East and West Germany. The fall of the “Iron Curtain” ended division, and was part of the end of the Cold War.
Comparing anything contemporary to the fall of the Berlin Wall is difficult, but if there any that would resemble it, it would probably be the capture of Saddam Hussein and the fall of his political power. Though two separate events, both events dealt with politics and some sort of shift in power. While the decision to make treaties with each other does not compare to the downfall of Hussein, it is similar in that certain citizens of Iraq were able to enjoy more freedom. The war is still going on but a way of co-existing amongst each other in Iraq is progressing just as it did for the German states.

Thousands of people celebrated the fall of the wall. Many citizens of East Berlin, originally from the west, traveled within the first few days across the border back to their homes.

The New York Time’s approach to the story was celebratory. The reporter talked to many people on both sides of the wall, as well as got quotes from the Mayor of West Berlin. The story mostly is written as a straight news story. It was framed around the people crossing the border to go back to their homeland. The New York Times breaks the story into five sections: the fall of the wall, people crossing, the history behind the wall, the fate of the wall, and people who are skeptic of the incident. The New York Times’ coverage dealt more with first person accounts of the event, instead of secondary sources.

The LA Times covered the fall of the Berlin Wall differently. They, like the New York Times, covered the celebration of East and West Germans. The LA Times also looked at President Bush’s reaction to the incident. The story was structured closer to home, with President Bush hailing the opening of the border. Most of the people attributed in this story were U.S. government officials, such as President Bush, congress members, and at least three senators. In the article with President Bush hailing the border’s opening, President Bush was quoted that he never saw this change in politics change as soon as they did. In this article, the wall was not yet broken down at the time of this article but sources in Congress already had speculation that the opening would lead to the destruction of the wall.

Both reporters for these stories should have had more contact ambassadors from neighboring countries and reported on their thoughts on the situation. I feel that getting more government official thoughts would have made the story more two-sided. Each article focused too much on one point of view, whether it was through the eyes of government or the eyes of citizens.

Both, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times covered several different articles in their November 9th issues, in 1989.

PEACE! VICTORY!

On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, effectively ending the Second World War. This is the only story on the list given the same raking by both the public and journalists, number one. As significant as the dropping of the atomic bomb is, I thought it was interesting that WWII officially ending was not on the list. I believe that the end of WWII is in itself one of the biggest news stories of the century and deserves its own place on the list.
August 15, 1945, the day Japan officially surrendered, the front page of the Los Angeles Times triumphantly declared “PEACE! VICTORY!” with a sub-headline of “Japs Accept Allied Terms; Truman Names MacArthur to Receive Formal Surrender”. The lead is simple, yet dramatic: “Japan surrendered unconditionally tonight, bringing peace to the world after the bloodiest conflict mankind has known.”[1] The article then goes on to describe President Truman’s announcement and how the official surrender process will take place.
The article quotes Japan’s Emperor Hirohito who had addressed the people of Japan over the radio for the first time earlier that day. The article then goes on at length to describe what the next steps are in the peace process for the United States and Japan, how the public reacted to President Truman’s news, and what some of the lasting impacts of the war would be.
One point I find particularly interesting is that throughout the lengthy article, the atomic bomb is mentioned only once, and very briefly near the end of the article. However, there was one sentence on the first page of the article that seemed to briefly allude to the atomic bomb. “Thus was the ‘infamy’ of Pearl Harbor avenged…Japan had paid the full penalty for the treachery that plunged the United States into a two-front war- the costliest in all of history.” [1]
Conversely, the New York Times on August 15, 1945, looked very different. Almost half of page three is taken up by a photograph showing civilians and service men in a giant conga line on the White House lawn. The headline reads “Emperor Informs People of Defeat- As the Nation Greeted Japan’s Surrender Before and After it Became Official”. [2]
In contrast, this article has many pictures, all showing people celebrating the ending of the war. It is much shorter than the Los Angeles Times article and explains how Japan’s Emperor Hirohito surrendered. It also quotes his earlier radio address to the people of Japan.
I don’t believe that any contemporary story could begin to even compare to the sheer impact that the ending of World War II had on this country. These articles clearly demonstrate the impact that the events of August 1945, had on the country. And history tells us that there has been no comparable event in this country since in terms of the sheer relief and joy that was felt on that day.

[1] PEACE VICTORY :Japs Accept Allied Terms; Truman Names MacArthur to Receive Formal Surrender. (1945, August 15). Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File),1. Retrieved March 8, 2009, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers Los Angeles Times (1881 - 1986) database. (Document ID: 412593761)
[2] EMPEROR INFORMS PEOPLE OF DEFEAT :As the Nation Greeted Japan's Surrender Before and After It Became Official. (1945, August 15). New York Times (1857-Current file),p. 3. Retrieved March 8, 2009, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2005) database. (Document ID: 88279590).