"I've never seen so much blood in my life."

 

Remember OJ Simpson? In 1994, Simpson's wife was brutally murdered, along with her friend, Ronald L. Goldman. Simpson fled the scene, and one of the most infamous televised car chases of our times played out across the world. Simpson was apprehended, and despite a mountain of evidence against him, after a year-long trial, was acquitted. Though double jeopardy forbid Simpson from ever being put behind bars (something about to become even crueller, in light of today's events), a lawsuit was taken out by the families of the victims, and was successful, finding Simpson "responsible" for the deaths of his wife and her friend. He was ordered to pay millions in damages to the families, but walked from court with his famous smirk, vowing that the grieving loved ones would never see a single cent - a promise Simpson has kept, to this very day. After this, he disappeared into obscurity (spending most of his time playing golf in the Bahamas), and has lived on only in various manifestations of pop culture (mostly comedies) as the quintessential symbol of the "one who got away". But OJ Simpson is back... just in time for Christmas.

 

Murdoch's Fox has secured a multi-million dollar deal to screen two interviews with the former football star, that will be followed by the release of his book (published by another Fox company), two days later. Both the interview and book are titled; "If I Did It: Here's How It Happened", and yes, you've guessed it, Simpson has offered a "hypothetical" confession, where he doesn't say outright that he did do it - but goes into brutal detail of how he would have murdered the pair, "if" he had murdered the pair. Not that he's saying he did. But if he did... well... here's how he would have done it, and got away with it (including descriptions of the acts - from the method, to descriptive passages in awe of the amount of blood). The psychoanalysts must be wetting their pants, waiting to get hold of this one.

But the public (as well as the media) are not exactly wetting their pants, but shaking in their boots. America is currently gripped by the outcry against the deal, amazed by Fox's audacity to milk Christmas book sales and TV sweeps with the twisted mind-games of a killer. What's interesting is that Fox seems to have underestimated this, to some extent; while it goes without saying that the fortune it stands to make is in no way threatened by the outcry (if anything, it will help it), it seems a tad surprised (if the damage control is anything to go by - and it is) by the reaction of the viewing and reading public. Whilst right-wing conservatives are more than likely to turn their hatred towards Simpson into cold, hard cash, the morality of Fox in question is clearly asking too much of many, and the outrage is catching on. They're going to still watch the interviews, and most (though less than will be able to tune into the interview, conscience "clean") will buy the book. But they're outraged by Fox, nonetheless.

Time for the PR cannons to be rolled out (and we know how good Fox is at firing those). It started with one of the key figures in the line of fire, Judith Regan (Murdoch's business partner in crime, head of Regan Publishing, and Simpson's interviewer for the TV special), coming out today, to tell us all that we'd made a terrible mistake. She's not doing it to make a profit from the confessions of a killer, and to boost her public profile, heavens no! Once upon a time, Judith had a relationship with an abusive man, and ever since then - though she has never mentioned it before to... well... anybody - she has been on a mission to help society battle the terrible problem of abusive men who "get away with it". Judith isn't lowering this society by selling the mind-games of a murderer - she's saving us all!

"When you see the interview," she tells us, urging us to engage the product, "you'll be amazed by his thought processes. I consider this his confession... otherwise, I wouldn't have done it."

One has to wonder how putting Simpson in the spotlight (with his smirk and his pile of cash) as he gloats about getting away with it and toys with the public, is helping this issue. If anything, it will provide a hero for abusers. But even so, Judith's supposed altruism was further undermined when details of the deal were brought to light this morning, after the families of the victims came out announcing their plans to make sure Simpson finally came through with his damages lawsuit, and that every penny profited from the success (at a reported 3.5 million for the rights to the book, one has to wonder how Judith thinks it helps society's problem against abusive men to pay them 3.5 million for their smug confessions that are protected by double jeopardy) would be duly snatched from the bastard. It turns out that is most unlikely. Fox's multi-million dollar lawyers got together with Simpson's multi-million dollar lawyers, and fancy-danced their way around a contract where all money is paid to an unnamed "third party", meaning that on the record, Simpson isn't receiving any money. In other words, Regan and Co helped protect the abusive murderer from the legal proceedings against his abuse and murder. She did it for the good of this society, no less.

Fox's king of the right-wing, Bill O'Reiley (from The O'Reily Factor) was also dragged out for damage control. Worried by the going sentiment against the deal, Fox decided to throw all obvious hypocrisy to the wind, and make sure this sentiment was echoed within Fox itself. O' Riley, in a cross-promotional segment for the interview and book (on primetime Fox) ironically spoke out against it! How does that work, exactly? Newshounds explains...

"After announcing we are entering THE no-spin zone, O'Reilly dissed FOX TV and "a publisher" (Harper Collins, another News Corp. holding), who want to make some money off of the project. Then, in an effort to promote his book and make some money himself, he proceeded to tie the OJ controversey into the Tiller controversey, conflating the two so he could point to the "culture war" he defines in his book. He says in both cases someone is profiting from murder, and we as a culture must take a stand.

HE is not going to watch the interviews or buy the book and will boycott any and every product of any and every advertiser during the program, leaving one to wonder how he will know which companies to boycott. (He will outsource the dirty work, of course, probably to the crowds of illegal immigrants who are driving down his property values.) If nobody watched, the show would not go on and the evil profiting corporation (his employer) would have no incentive to air it.

Once again a FOX employee is telling viewers that WE are the cause of the airing of the program - News Corp. can't (like NBC did) refuse to air the program, refuse to give Simpson a national audience. Of course it's a lie that we "demand" this programming. Sure there are dolts who will watch it but there are far more people who would watch porn and they're not airing that. Oh, wait, News Corp. has a porn division too.

So, literally seconds after he enjoins viewers to not watch the Simpson interview, the Top Story was a graphic blow-by-blow description of the murders ("a reminder", he said solemnly) complete with videos of the scenes that first couple of days.

In the course of interviewing Tom Lange (lead detective LAPD) and Chris Darden (prosecuting attorney) O'Reilly showed his complete lack of respect for facts or evidence in this exchange:

BOR: Our investigation done independently from any police investigation, Detective, said that there was somebody that helped Simpson, and we suspect that it was Robert Kardashian, now deceased. Does that jibe with what you know?

TL: No. That's, certainly not at the crime scene. Again, all of the evidence at the crime scene indicates only one suspect. I know there's been a lot of talk and conjecture but when all else fails we have to actually go to the evidence and that tells us one suspect and one murder weapon. After this I'm sure there was some people that assisted Simpson, possibly Kardashian, but again there's no proof to that.

BOR: No. But Kardashian, it looks to us, did uh, dispose of clothing and things like that.

TL: Well, we don't know that because... (pauses as BOR overtalks)

BOR: I'm saying that; you guys can differ.

Well there you go. It's never been clearer that to O'Riley ( and generally on FOX) the truth is just a matter of opinion, facts and evidence be damned. They believe it, there's no proof but a gut feeling, and that's good enough to present viewers with an "alternate truth" conjured up because it fits.

At the end of the segment O'Reilly again endorsed NOT watching the show or buyiong the book, and Lange pointed out that he agrees but here they all are, discussing it and promoting it; to which O'Reilly answered that he is condemning it, and there's a difference."

Of course, this is the point - that Fox tries to sneakily become part of the condemning, in the most amazing condescension of it's own viewers, by hoping they forget that what is actually being condemned is Fox! If you can't beat 'em, join 'em - and hope nobody notices you're actually the very thing being beaten.

This all comes after a chorus of outrage, across American talkback radio and blogging. The press have happily ran with the outrage, also, as have other TV networks. CBS asked, "What kind of editor, publisher or broadcaster traffics in this kind of merchandise? And what kind of an audience will watch it, in between commercials for snow tires, cold medicine, Christmas cards and pills for erectile dysfunction?" And by late this afternoon, NBC and ABC had both leaked the news that they were first offered rights before Fox, and turned them down.

One of the more abhorrent factors of the spectacle, aside from the callousness towards the victim's families (which can only be described as "pathological"), is Simpson's own children (now teenagers), who are left to make sense of their father releasing a book in which he describes the brutal killing of their mother. Rhonda Swan, from Palm Peach Post, wondered; "What will he tell them? 'I'm innocent, but let me tell you how I wanted to kill your mother?'" And CBS asked, "What kind of a father treats his children to that kind of spectacle, evidently without shame?"

Last night, two members of the victim's families spoke out against the deal with Larry King (which you can watch, below). They urged the public to boycott both the book and the interview, and any associated products advertising through them. But the sad fact we all know too well is that even if Fox suffers some PR damage through all this (fingers crossed, but let's not underestimate the power of Fox spin), as it stands, in a fortnight from now there will be three very rich Americans who will be even richer - Rupert Murdoch, Judith Regan, and of course, the mysterious "third party". There'll be no problems for any of these three when it comes to filling this year's Christmas stockings. In a world of televised wars, of cruel reality TV and dirty elections that rival Hollywood blockbusters, the pop culture games of the most famous murderer ever to walk free will be the icing on the cake, and the good people of America will be hungry to lick the knife clean.