Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 28 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Less said about O.J., the better
Published Tuesday, July 1, 2008
O.J. Simpson in Fergus Falls? Let’s just hope it was a bad joke and leave it at that.
I gather from Jeff Hage’s column on June 27, 2008, that I wasn’t the only reader who was turned off by The Journal’s fawning over a “celebrity” whose comings and goings I would prefer to hear less about, not more.
Editor Hage defends his decision to cover the O.J. story by maintaining that he is a bona-fide celebrity, therefore readers would want to know about his visit to Otter Tail County. Personally, the less I hear about O.J.Simpson, the better.
We are talking about a violent show-off, ego-maniac, has-been football player who brutally murdered two people in cold blood, and managed to avoid being punished for his crime.
No doubt O.J. has a certain cult following. The editor made a journalistic decision to cover his visit to our area. I respectfully disagree with the reasoning regarding this incident.
To me it seems degrading to the collective consciousness of our community to make O.J. out to be some kind of folk hero, and imply that somehow we are really lucky to have him visit our area, as if the circus were coming to town.
Those whom I know here are intelligent people who live purposeful, rewarding and interesting lives, and probably don’t need to learn about O.J.’s travels for something to think or talk about.
We have a small local newspaper that I believe does a very good job of keeping us informed about what’s going on in our community.
There is much that we can be proud of. We have many outstanding citizens who work hard and contribute to the high standards and quality of life that we in Otter Tail County enjoy.
We have a technical college, all kinds of service clubs, a great many churches, historical museum, good schools, beautiful natural environment, and a thriving commercial and professional community, as well as our wonderful Center for the Arts, which any community would be proud to claim.
So, as far as I know, The Daily Journal has not run out of things to write about.
Now let’s raise the bar for our paper, not lower it. I would like to see The Daily Journal continue to set a moral tone that informs, supports, encourages and reports on what is good in our community, and work to expose what needs changing.
Perhaps I’m in the minority, but I’m not interested in reading about the likes of O.J. Simpson in the Fergus paper; so I hope in the future you will leave that sort of reporting to the supermarket tabloids.
Elizabeth Sweder - Fergus Falls
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Witty is great. Abusive is not. If you think a post violates these standards, don't escalate the situation. Instead, flag the comment to alert us. We'll take action if necessary. It's not hard. This should be a place where people want to read and contribute -- a place for spirited exchanges of opinion. So those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post at all.Posted by oh_its_you (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree. And where is the information on how to go and hear one of our Presidential candidtaes speak on Thursday. That information seems to be left out of the paper as today is the only day to get tickets (free), which you will need to hear him speak. That news was in the Fargo papers, which was one reason given as to why the OJ news was in the DJ.
Posted by ANonnyMoose (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Amen, Ms. Sweder. Well said, and thank you.
Posted by really (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree why put that dirtbag-wife beater/killer on the front page of the newspaper? Or in the news at all. Why glorify him and his above the law attitude? Don't waste your time with this criminal!
Posted by otterfan (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And yet, here we are still talking and reading about him.
hmmmmm.....
Posted by relax (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
the fact that people talk about it still, makes it news. you do not have to read that article. i pass over articles i am not interested everyday. i suggest you do the same.
Posted by hometown (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe he is guilty just like most people, however he was found innocent by a jury of his peers. That's the way it works. He is a bona fide celebrity and I don't blame the DJ for covering it. O.J. Simpson is, if nothing else notorious in American culture and therefore will get coverage eveywhere he goes.
Posted by Clara (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And if the Journal hadn't reported on O.J., one of you would have criticized the paper for being too lazy to go after a story. Sometimes you just can't win.
Posted by bucksteel (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OJ was found not guilty in criminal court, but he was found guilty in civil court (different burden of proof). That is not the same as being innocent of the charges, hometown. Plain and simple, he killed 2 people, and even though there is no criminal penalty, the courts are trying to hold him responsible financially for what he did. That being said, I agree with relax -- if you're not interested in the story, pass over it -- I do so weekly on Alan Linda's column, as well as daily on the Cathy cartoon strip. To each their own.
Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Perhaps the DJ was reporting on OJ to notify people to stay away from Thumper Pond for a few days. Would it have been "news worthy" then? They report on convicted sex offenders who are released into the community. What's wrong with reporting on an "acquitted" double murderer who will be hanging around the community for awhile?
Posted by andtongs (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
“Fawning” is a good word for the conduct of the editor in this case. In the past I have defended the editor, I now see that was a mistake. My past esteem for Jeff Hage has fallen several notches. Any story can be reported for alleged newsworthiness without fawning over the subject. Any newsworthiness attached to Mr. Simpson has long since disappeared.
Posted by WithoutKeys (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you're interested... Dr. Phil is discussing OJ's book If I Did It tomorrow (Wed).
Posted by tsy86h (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think he should have done the story and asked this dirty man some dirty questions. It was a chance of a life time for a small town reporter. I would have loved to have read a article about OJ's response to Mr. Hage asking him why he did it, and how he can live with himself knowing that he killed the mother of his own children.
Amy O your response was funny!
Posted by worthy01 (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So then is the Fargo Fourm a super market Tabloid for they did do several stories on him.
Posted by JeffS (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree that OJ visiting the area warranted a story in the local paper. However, the interviewer should have added a question like, "is your golf glove fitting properly?" or "do you think you'll find the real killer on this golf course?" He should have added some sarcastic question that would have let OJ know that not EVERYONE in the community was thrilled to see him.
With the warm reception that he received I wouldn't be surprised of OJ wanted to move to Otter Tail county. Nice job people.
Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I wonder how in the heck the Daily Journal "policy" (which we all know is set in stone somewhere) lets them allow comments on a letter to editor such as this, but prohibits them from allowing comments on stories such as the initial story about Mr. OJ being in the area and the op-ed published my Mr. Hage justifying him doing the initial story? Hmmm...
Posted by sametoyou (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hometown, He was found guilty in civil court of causing the death of the 2 victims!!!!
Posted by bigkahunaburger (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Does anyone else chuckle at the irony of a headline reading "Less Said about O.J., the Better", followed by 13 paragraphs about O.J.? The man is infamous.
Posted by hometown (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm well aware that he was found guilty in civil court. That worked out real well, looks like he's really suffering!(add sarcasm here). He is still free and while we all know he probably should not be the fact remains is that he was found innocent in a court of law and then found guilty in a civil court. Basically I call that a tie.
Posted by BloopTriple (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with the paper's decision to cover the story, but let's define what the story is: a brutal killer who skated on the criminal charges visited the area.
But the celebratory tone of the original article was amazing. You ask about his golf game, cigars, his drinking a little "hair of the dog." A puff piece on O.J.? Come on.
But that was made exponentially worse by Hage's defense of the coverage. Calling him an "honest man," one of the nicest guys ever, and open to any question? Did you ask him this question: "Um, did you kill your wife?" Because that's the only question most people want answered. Either he's not an open and honest guy as you profess, or you completely abandoned your charge as a journalist by not asking. If you cling to your journalistic morals in deciding to do a story, you don't get to leave those morals in the car when you meet him. "Fawning" was a good word.
If Osama bin Laden came into the Journal office today, would you ask him about the Timberwolves trade? If Hitler rose from the dead and came in today, would you ask him what his favorite brand of ice cream is? Or would you feel some sense of duty to bring up 9/11 or the Holocaust?
It's OK to do the story. Doing it poorly wasn't OK. And scolding people who pointed that out wasn't OK either.
Posted by ANonnyMoose (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ms. Sweder's sixth paragraph sums up the situation beautifully. The piece wasn't a warning article (although that was a really clever idea, AmyO), or any kind of probing, hard-hitting investigative effort. This was a newspaper editor with stars in his eyes sitting at the guy's feet like an adoring puppy. His own follow-up rationalization column surely supports that view. Newsworthy or not, it was pathetic.
.
Technically, Simpson wasn't found "innocent" in the criminal case. "Innocent" and "not guilty" are two different things. He was let off, found "not guilty", because of the jury's perception of prosecutorial and police incompetence, not because he didn't do anything. And there's no such thing as being "guilty" in civil court. He was sued by the victims' survivors and was found "liable", meaning he's not guilty of a crime, but is responsible for their deaths in a financial sense. I know that's splitting hairs, but that's the way the system works, and it's always helpful to know the difference.
Posted by ANonnyMoose (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BRILLIANT post, Bloop! Thanks!
Posted by Pharaoh (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Personally, I wish to thank, and congratulate Mr. Jeff Hage, Journalist: for his unbiased and required humility in his compatriot approach to Mr. Simpson’s celebrity; and for having refused to purport or compromise his dignity or to qualify mutual respect is a hallmark of nobility. Mr. Hage’s decorum is a stellar example of the rules of engagement, especially, in the field of journalism. A big five Stars for Fergus Falls News … For competent reporting.
OJ'S GREATEST TROPHY
WE THE PEOPLE
ALL THE PEOPLE
“NOTWITHSTANDING, the fact that twelve members of his peers returned a verdict of not guilty, contrary of course to the one alluded to - having been so well convoluted, notwithstanding; was not acceptable.”
“THUS,” being the official rally of the m.p.s - (media pimps); and their entourage of clones and drones: apocalypse bloodhounds, if you will. IN their malign judgment, they have chosen subversive attitudes: Drenched with incessant and insidious defamation of honorary jurors. The assigned extension of the court: His/Her honor. A young man of old reportedly said: “Nothing is as it appears to be,” with respect to the twelve standing jurors: In essence there are thirteen judges; the statute equation of thirteen is one (1) plus three (3) which equals to (4). What, if anything does that have to do with law…? The same thing that the law of gravity has to with keeping man's feet on the ground. A JUST BALANCE.
CONCEIVABLY, OJ could have landed on either side of the pendulum, and the jurors would've, again, been just in their decision. Translated: Life-imprisonment or lethal injection. Make no mistake about it, the State will, and has murdered the innocent; “for little or nothing.” And did so in accordance to the will of the people. Jesus, that young man of old is evidence of that. Had Christ, the benefit of twelve jurors instead of the blood thirst of the masses, I'm sure life would be different.
INDIVIDUALS or groups engaging in or promulgating, even rudimentary persecution, slanted at OJ: YOU; or myself, is a perpetration of non other than a very sick campaign of psychological warfare - terrorism; home grown - an attack against the free peace of mind and dignity in the social order of the State. The undermining, and immoral deprivation of his children's innocence: A bell that cannot be un-rung. This threatens the natural growth in the psychological development of child welfare, everywhere.
“THE children indeed, aren't deft or blind.”
THIS precipitated cloud of vengeance; orchestrated - presumptuously and irresponsibly by self ordained persecutors, m.p.s and the entourage of hounds, by sheer design in malign perforation as to facilitate total disruption of OJ Simpson's life and family's unity. Totally, has nothing to do with a proclamation of justice.
JUSTICE is what one would expect to find in Christ's DNA:
CONTINUED:
TWILIGHT-ENCORE.COM
Posted by James (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I completely agree with BloopTriple. OJ in the Fergus area is a story. Fawning over him is obnoxious. Defending your fawning and scolding readers for criticizing you while calling OJ "an honest man" (let's remember: he does have an armed robbery charge against him) is cause for firing.
Posted by bucksteel (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OJ does not hold a candle to Ali, regardless of OJ's guilt or innocence. Ali was a champion. OJ is a chump. It is like comparing a diamond to frozen turd.
Posted by andtongs (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pharaoh, I think you need to be tested for drugs.
Posted by bigkahunaburger (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is that guy comparing O.J. to Jesus? I've seen them both in the left rough on the par 4 eighth at Thumper, and Christ can hit that knock-down wedge with the best of them. Not to mention his length off the tee and creativity around the greens. Match play prediction: The Riz over The Juice, 5-and-4.
Posted by justme (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 11:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pharoah, Pharoah, let my people go. What a fitting nickname for someone who can defend the glamorization of a murderer among us. Imagine the pain and torment experienced by the families of Ron and Nicole when they have to constantly deal with the fact that this monster is not only free to vacation whenever he pleases, but boasts of the lavish retired lifestyle he enjoys. The very thought sickens me. Enjoy your freedom, Mr. Simpson, while it lasts, because one day, you will get what is coming to you. A jury of your peers may have found you not guilty but you will meet your real judgement in the end.
Posted by dazzlefresh (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think this is a tricky situation. O.J. is news. But when you are a small town reporter, how do you cover it? Do you ask a question like "did you kill your wife?" a question many have asked before to no avail, since why would he ever answer that? Asking that would essentially shut down the interview from any further questions. O.J. has no reason to talk to small town newspapers and you would lose the story. Do you go the opposite route and ask fluff questions? At the least, the DJ did cover the basics - why he's here, what he's doing while here. The story, however, the "so what?" of the piece wasn't there. So I'm still wondering, so what? Perhaps that is the question to ask OJ, why do you think people continue to follow you?
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)