Author Topic: OJ book/TV cancelled  (Read 8690 times)

pumpster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18890
  • If you're reading this you have too much free time
Re: OJ book & TV appearance
« Reply #75 on: November 16, 2006, 05:22:01 PM »
Looks like there may be some backlash against Fox and Regan. Goldman said last night that OJ's already been paid into an inaccessible off-shore account, which doesn't make Fox look good.

yellowdog

  • Getbig I
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: OJ book & TV appearance
« Reply #76 on: November 16, 2006, 08:55:23 PM »
This is long as hell. Pumpster may want to read at least part of this rant...I could not get through half of it.

Full Statement From Publisher Judith Regan:

Why I Did It

I was sitting with Howard Stern, of all people, when the verdict came down. Many of you probably remember where you were at that moment. It was a moment I, like so many others, was dreading.

Because, I knew that the “killer,” as Kim Goldman so eloquently named him, would be acquitted. I knew it from my own experience.

Conviction is what I wanted—and not just in the legal sense.

I wanted it because I had once been that young woman who loved with all of her heart and believed in the goodness of man, the trusting girl who fell for the guy, who believed in the beauty of romance, the power of love, the joy of family and the miracle of motherhood. Like Nicole Brown, I believed with all my heart . . . and then got punched in the face.

Literally.

On that day, October 3, 1995, as Howard and I sat watching the television with a conference room full of people, I said, “He’ll be acquitted.” I said it out loud, and the others in the room looked at me in a way I’d been looked at before: “Oh, God. She’s crazy.”

But I knew it, because I’d been there. I’d listened to the lies (“She hit herself’), watched him charm the police (“Sir, I don’t know why she’s saying this”), endured the ignorance of one cop who looked at me with disdain and said “You must like it,” and couldn’t understand why they didn’t believe me.

That man was tall, dark, and handsome. A great athlete. A brilliant mind. He was even a doctor, with an M.D. after his name and a degree that came with an oath: “First, do no harm.” He was one of the brightest men I’d ever met. And he could charm anyone. He charmed me. We had a child. And then he knocked me out, with a blow to my head, and sent me to the hospital.

He manipulated, lied, and broke my heart.

And then, after all but leaving me for dead in a hospital, where his daughter died a few days later, he left for good.

So as I watched this new scene play itself out, I knew that this man—the killer, as Kim calls him—would be acquitted. I’d seen it before: The men in court, dressed in their designer suits, blaming the women they attacked. I’d seen, firsthand, the “criminal injustice system,” as I called it in my twenties—the system that let him go one night after assaulting me so he could come right back and do it again.

I had my witnesses, thank God, or no one would have believed me. But he, too, had his fans, the ones who could not believe that a man that smart, that good-looking, and that successful “would ever do anything like that.”

“Why,” one of my own family members said in one of the many denials I’d heard, “would someone like him do that to you? Why? And if he did, you must have done something to provoke him.” I’d heard it all.

So when the verdict came down, I watched the faces in the room freeze in shock.

“I told you,” I said, and left the room.

The Trial of the Century, as it was called, was not just a moment for me, it was a seminal moment in American history. The curtain was pulled back on the issues of domestic violence, police corruption, and racism—on both sides. And when the final curtain fell, it fell on the killer, as he is known, providing a protective shield from the consequences of his grievous act.

Conviction, or lack thereof, is the story of the trial of the century. Where was that sense of conviction when racist police officers abused and battered their victims? Where was that sense of conviction when Nicole Brown was being battered and people stood by and let him get away with it time and time again? Where was it when NBC kept him on the air when they were sure to know? Where was it when the Browns lost custody of the children, who were sent to be raised by the narcissist who killed their mother? Where was it when Fred Goldman, who lost his beautiful son, won a civil judgment, but was unable to collect it?

Where was it?

I never lost my desire for his conviction. And if Marcia Clark couldn’t do it. I sure wanted to try.

In the past few days, since the announcement of the forthcoming book and televised interview If I Did It, it has been strange watching the media spin the story. They have all but called for my death for publishing his book and for interviewing him. A death, I might add, not called for when Katie Couric interviewed him; not called for when Barbara Walters had an exclusive with the Menendez brothers, who killed their parents in cold blood, nor when she conducted her celebrated interviews with dictator Fidel Castro or Muammar al-Gaddafi; not called for when 60 Minutes interviewed Timothy McVeigh who murdered hundreds in Oklahoma City, not called for when the U.S. government released tapes of Osama bin Laden; not called for when Geraldo Rivera interviewed his dozens of murderers, miscreants, and deviants.

Nor should it be.

“To publish” does not mean “to endorse”; it means “to make public.” If you doubt that, ask the mainstream publishers who keep Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf in print to this day. They are likely to say that there is a historical value in publishing such material, so that the public can read, and judge for themselves, the thoughts and attempted defenses of an indefensible man. There is historical value in such work; there is value for law enforcement, for students of psychology, for anyone who wants to gain insight into the mind of a sociopath.

But that is not why I did it. That is not why I wanted to face the killer. That is not why I wanted to publish his story.

I didn’t know what to expect when I got the call that the killer wanted to confess. I didn’t know what would happen. But I knew one thing. I wanted the confession for my own selfish reasons and for the symbolism of that act.

For me, it was personal.

My son is now twenty-five years old, my daughter fifteen. I wanted them, and everyone else, to have a chance to see that there are consequences to grievous acts. That the consequences of pain and suffering will ultimately be brought upon its perpetrators. And I wanted, as so many victims do, to hear him say “I did it and I am sorry.”

I didn’t know if he would. But I wanted to try. I wanted his confession.

I wanted the acknowledgment, not for me but for my son, so I could turn to him and say, “I’m sorry that he was not a father to you. I’m sorry that he could not teach you what it means to be a man. And, finally, he’s sorry too.”

When I was a girl, a young, innocent, and believing girl, my parents made me go to confession. I didn’t always like to go. It was spooky going into the dark confessional booths, where I was told to say my penance for my sins and to recite The Act of Contrition.

Oh my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended thee. And I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell. But most of all because I offend thee my God, who art all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance and to amend my life, amen.

To confess my sins, to do penance and to amend my life, amen.

I was seven or eight years old at the time, and I had no idea what I was saying or doing. But I do now.

I made the decision to publish this book, and to sit face to face with the killer, because I wanted him, and the men who broke my heart and your hearts, to tell the truth, to confess their sins, to do penance and to amend their lives.

Amen.

I have not spent a lifetime in the study of deception detection, but ex-CIA specialist Phil Houston has. “When killers confess,” he told me, “the way they often do it is by creating a hypothetical”—and then they spill their guts.

For many of them, it is the only way to tell the truth.

I thought of this and the many books I’ve published over the years on the subject of sociopaths and their lack of empathy (Without Conscience and Snakes in Suits). And I thought about The Mind & The Brain, a book about the power of the human will. Is such behavior the result of a genetic flaw? Could it be caused by a head injury? Is it the result of a weak and damaged human will? Was this man suffering from a sort of emotional autism?

How did it happen? How could a man with so much have so little? And how could we, as a society, continue to protect him and others from the consequences of his wrong-doing?

I don’t know why he did it—why he did the book, and sat for the interview. Was it his own disturbed need for attention? Did he have remorse? Was he ready to come clean and make amends and do his penance? I wouldn’t know until I sat down in a chair across from him.

What I do know is I didn’t pay him. I contracted through a third party who owns the rights, and I was told the money would go to his children. That much I could live with.

What I wanted was closure, not money.

I had never met him and never spoken with him until the day I interviewed him. And I was ready. Fifty-three years prepared me for this conversation.

The men who lied and cheated and beat me—they were all there in the room. And the people who denied it, they were there too. And though it might sound a little strange, Nicole and Ron were in my heart. And for them I wanted him to confess his sins, to do penance and to amend his life. Amen.

We live in a world right now where hatred and vengeance is a way of life.

And as the killer sat before me I was not filled with vengeance or hatred. I thought of the man who had beaten me so many years ago, who left me in a hospital, the man who broke my child’s heart. And I listened carefully.

And what went through my mind surprised me. Mental illness. Thought process disorder. No empathy. Malignant narcissism.

In the years to come, I hope we will have a better understanding of this type of disordered personality. Are certain people simply born that way? If not, what goes wrong that changes them? How does this happen? And why?

I took on this project with the belief that his life must be a constant torture, a kind of hell. And I wondered: In his confession, however he chose to state it, would he do his penance, could he amend his life? Could he say he was sorry?

I thought back to Christmas Eve, a few years ago. The man who broke my heart was now standing on my doorstep, shaking. He talked about my son, now in his twenties, and told me I’d done a great job raising him alone.

During the years that I was running from work to homework, from my office to every school play, assembly, swim meet or parent conference, he never showed up for a single thing. While I was raising my son, he had lived a high life and then lost everything. He ended up in prison, lost his medical license, lost many of his worldly possessions, lost his looks and now, most of the women who once cared had gone, too.

And he was losing his mind. His hand was shaking violently. He had Parkinson’s disease, and was a broken man. He looked at me. The girl he’d left in the gutter had raised two children alone, had built a successful company, and was now a happy woman.

“I guess you think I’m getting my comeuppance,” he said.

And strangely I didn’t. That a man who had so much could throw it all away and fall so low—it gave me no pleasure.

I was sad for my son, sad for the women he’d left behind, sad for the mother and siblings he’d disappointed and I was sad for him that he’d missed the opportunity to live a beautiful life.

When I sat face to face with the killer, I wanted him to confess, to release us all from the wound of the conviction that was lost on that fall day in October of 1995.

For the girl who was left in the gutter, I wanted to make it right.


beatmaster

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2819
  • Save a tree, eat a beaver
Re: OJ book & TV appearance
« Reply #77 on: November 16, 2006, 09:24:41 PM »

oj's a piece of sh*t, and should die for what he did
are you delusional?

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: OJ book & TV appearance
« Reply #78 on: November 16, 2006, 09:26:19 PM »
No, as soon as he ran in the white Bronco nobody thought he was innocent.

No.  Some people seriously believed he was innocent.  A smaller, even less rational group believes it to this day.

mightymouse72

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 891
Re: OJ book & TV appearance
« Reply #79 on: November 16, 2006, 10:47:45 PM »
No.  Some people seriously believed he was innocent.  A smaller, even less rational group believes it to this day.

a better term would be even more stupid group

people have been put to death with much,much less evidence than he was acquitted with. 
in my eyes the jury commited the real crime
W

Parker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 53475
  • He Sees The Stormy Anger Of The World
Re: OJ book & TV appearance
« Reply #80 on: November 17, 2006, 04:46:51 AM »
"We hope Ms. Regan takes full accountability for promoting the wrongdoing of criminals and leveraging this forum and the actions of Simpson to commercialize abuse," fumed Nicole Brown's sister Denise Brown.



This is the Bitch that said OJ commitment multiple abuses to Nicole, but never went to the police or confronted OJ. As I saidbefore, as long as OJ was making money for the family, they didn't mind sacrificing a daughter. Hell, I bet she probably gave OJ a BJ or two. 

pumpster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18890
  • If you're reading this you have too much free time
Re: OJ book & TV appearance
« Reply #81 on: November 18, 2006, 11:06:16 AM »
O.J. Deal Leaves Sour Taste in Many Mouths

Saturday, November 18, 2006
An angry wave of criticism swept through the publishing and broadcast worlds Friday over the coming Fox television interview tied to the promotion of a book by O.J. Simpson, in which he describes how he would have murdered his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman -- if he'd done it.

The two-part, two-hour TV interview is scheduled to be aired on the Fox network Nov. 27 and 29 and was conducted by hard-charging and controversial publisher Judith Regan. The show will run before the Nov. 30 release date of Simpson's pseudo-confessional tome, "If I Did It," a book published by ReganBooks, a division of HarperCollins, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.
 
The outrage that has been brewing all week seemed to boil over in recent days as members of the public, television station executives and fellow publishers criticized the book and the taped interview.

Geoff Shandler, editor in chief of Little, Brown, said yesterday, "It's so outrageous and flamboyant and audacious that part of you almost laughs while the other part of you wants to puke."

It was just one example of the kind of fire that Regan has drawn, and that has had some wondering if the envelope-pushing publisher had finally pushed too far.

On Thursday, Regan issued a rambling, eight-page statement in which she said she was motivated not by notoriety or money but by a kind of ersatz revenge and desire to have Simpson confess his crimes (which he reportedly is careful not to do). Regan also said she was compelled by her own history of domestic abuse -- "like Nicole Brown, I believed with all my heart," she said, "and then got punched in the face. Literally."

Media companies that own Fox stations are mulling this weekend whether to direct their stations to run or to preempt the Simpson interview, scheduled to air on the final Monday and Wednesday of the November sweeps ratings period, when ratings are closely watched and future ad rates are tabulated based on those numbers.

On Friday, at least two broadcasters directed their Fox-affiliated stations to preempt the Simpson broadcasts. One of them, California-based Pappas Telecasting Co., owns Fox stations in Fresno, Calif.; Sioux City, Iowa; and Omaha and Lincoln, Neb.

"Our company feels very strongly that there is no beneficial interest to the airing of this program except to O.J. Simpson, and we have no desire to benefit O.J. Simpson," said Pappas's Mike Angellos. He added that his station had been deluged with complaints from the public.

The other broadcaster, LIN TV Corp., owns Fox-affiliated stations in Norfolk; Providence, R.I.; Mobile, Ala.; and Toledo.

"After careful consideration regarding the nature of the show, as well as the feedback we received from the viewers of Northeast Wisconsin, we determined that this programming was not serving the local public interest," WLUK-TV General Manager Jay Zollar said on the station's Web site yesterday.

A Fox spokesman contacted Friday declined to comment regarding the special.

Simpson is no stranger to public outrage. But it appears that much of the condemnation was directed at Fox and Regan, with questions about who will ultimately profit from the deaths of two people whose throats were slashed in Brentwood, Calif., on the night of June 12, 1994.

Regan, 53, has long been a source of gossip, envy and disdain among her colleagues and competitors. She got her start in publishing as a reporter for the National Enquirer, and is now an industry powerhouse.

"Who else has the combination of nerve, foresight and soullessness to publish a book by O.J. Simpson," Sara Nelson, editor of Publishers Weekly, wrote in an online editorial.

"Judith Regan is a very smart and very savvy publisher," Nelson said later in an interview. "But this is just different. This is just . . . " She searched for a word. "This is just really awful."

Publishing companies routinely print books that people find in bad taste, but Regan pushes the envelope -- with profitable results. Her catalogue for ReganBooks, in which a sexy image of the publisher herself sometimes graces the cover, details graphic adult novels and other pulp, such as the memoirs of porn star Jenna Jameson, alongside serious novels by writers such as Jess Walter, who was a finalist for this year's National Book Award for fiction.

The cover of Simpson's book features a picture of the former National Football League star. The portion of the title "I Did It" is in blood-red ink and the word "If" is in white. As of Friday evening, the book was ranked No. 22 on Amazon's bestseller list, though it will not be released until the end of the month. Amazon users tagged the product with the words "shameful," "disgusting," "murderer" and "pathetic."

Regan did not return phone calls on Friday, nor did her publicist. HarperCollins would not comment on the book. In her statement, Regan said she secured the book deal after being approached by a "third party" representing Simpson, whom she did not reveal. "What I do know is I didn't pay him. I contracted through a third party who owns the rights, and I was told the money would go to his children. That much I could live with," Regan said. "What I wanted was closure, not money."

The National Enquirer reported that Regan paid $3.5 million for the Simpson book. In so-called trial of the century, Simpson was found not guilty in criminal court; but he was found responsible for the deaths in a civil trial and was ordered to pay the Brown and Goldman families $33.5 million, only a fraction of which has been paid.

Simpson lives in Florida, where his home is protected from seizure, and he receives a pension from the NFL worth about $400,000 a year.

Regan said she wanted to do the TV interview, which she characterizes as "a confession," herself. Because he was acquitted in court, Simpson cannot be tried again for the same crimes.

"I had never met him and never spoken with him until the day I interviewed him. And I was ready," Regan said. "The men who lied and cheated and beat me -- they were all there in the room. And the people who denied it, they were there, too. And though it might sound a little strange, Nicole and Ron were in my heart. And for them, I wanted him to confess his sins, to do penance and to amend his life. Amen."

Regan further described herself as a victim when she said the media "have all but called for my death for publishing his book and for interviewing him," something she called a double standard.

Regan continued, "A death, I might add, not called for when Katie Couric interviewed him; not called for when Barbara Walters had an exclusive with the Menendez brothers, who killed their parents in cold blood . . . not called for when '60 Minutes' interviewed Timothy McVeigh, who murdered hundreds in Oklahoma City."

She characterized the Simpson trial, for better or worse, as "a seminal moment in American history," as it was a perfect tabloid mystery double murder, with its crosscurrents of violence, celebrity, racism, wealth, police corruption and the media.

However accurate that may be, families of the victims were furious.

Nicole Simpson's sister, Denise Brown, who chairs a foundation to fight domestic violence, said in a statement: "It's unfortunate that Simpson has decided to reawaken a nightmare that we . . . worked so hard to move beyond. We hope Ms. Regan takes full accountability for promoting the wrongdoing of criminals and leveraging this forum and the actions of Simpson to commercialize abuse."

On Friday, a number of Fox station managers were wondering what to do with the Simpson special. "I think everybody thought Fox was beyond this, beyond those days of 'When Animals Attack' and all that kind of stuff," said a disgusted general manager of a top 50 Fox station who did not want to be named. The GM said he would bet that as soon as one big station-owning company rejects the Simpson show, "other owners will follow."

Among the more creative ways of dealing with a public relations disaster, a Fox station in Seattle has promised that if it airs the interview, it will not sell any local ads. Instead it will help tape public service announcements for local organizations that aid victims of domestic abuse, which will run in place of local ads.


240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: OJ book & TV appearance creating problems for Fox & Regan
« Reply #82 on: November 18, 2006, 11:12:01 AM »
FOX news agreed to pay him using an offshore account which the Goldmans couldn't touch.  And NBC completely rejected OJ's offer.

Disgusting.

pumpster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18890
  • If you're reading this you have too much free time
Re: OJ book & TV appearance creating problems for Fox & Regan
« Reply #83 on: November 18, 2006, 11:14:11 AM »
Quote
FOX news agreed to pay him using an offshore account which the Goldmans couldn't touch.

Already mentioned; apparently his kids are not bothered, either. Killing two birds with one stone, the payment's been made in their names, further diminishing the Goldmans' ability to retrieve funds.

pumpster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18890
  • If you're reading this you have too much free time
Re: OJ book/TV creating problems for Fox & Regan
« Reply #84 on: November 19, 2006, 02:40:28 PM »
OJ 'confession': now US turns on Murdoch

It must have seemed like a good idea to someone. The man most Americans believe is behind their country's most infamous murder agrees to a virtual confession in a book and TV interview. Surely it would be a ratings and publishing smash.
Not quite so fast. For in reality OJ Simpson has succeeded where millions of angry liberals have always failed: striking a direct blow at the media empire of Rupert Murdoch, and especially its controversial broadcasting arm, headed by Fox television.

A wave of revulsion and open criticism, reaching a climax this weekend, has swept America in the wake of revelations that Simpson intends to capitalise on the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ron Goldman with a book and TV 'confession' in a £1.8 million deal brokered by Murdoch-owned companies. So widespread is the condemnation that even some of the top names on Murdoch's own cable channel, Fox News, have urged viewers not to buy the book or watch the interview.
It is no surprise. In both book and interview Simpson describes how he would have murdered Brown and Goldman. But only if 'hypothetically' he had done it. He even describes the amount of blood that would have been caused by slashing the pair to death.

The extent of the reaction perhaps typifies a case that has both outraged and enthralled Americans.

Certainly, the public vilification of Simpson seems to have taken its toll on Judith Regan, the controversial US book publisher who conducted the interview and whose Murdoch-owned ReganBooks is behind the deal. She has issued a bizarre eight-page defence of the deal in which she confessed to being a battered wife and that she felt the spirit of the slain couple in the room with her as she spoke to Simpson.

Given the scale of the backlash, it is no surprise that Regan is feeling the pressure. Murdoch and Fox must have been taken aback at the sheer speed at which the publishing scoop of the century has turned into a potential public relations disaster.

Local TV stations have already been swamped by complaints from the public, prompting many to opt out of showing the interview.

The outrage has spread to the publishing world, where revulsion at the book itself, entitled If I Did It, has already seen some stores start sending it back.

The anger was sharpened by publicity stunts such as the colouring of the 'I Did It' part of the book's title in red, and the fading of the 'If' into a pale white. In California the owner of Brentwood Bookstore, near where the murders took place, has refused to stock it, while the Northern California Independent Booksellers' Association, made up of some 240 bookstores, has emailed its members suggesting cash generated by the book be donated to domestic violence charities. Even some of the biggest media names in Murdoch's own empire have joined the fray, though the cynical might interpret that as a clever media ploy to have one's cake and eat it.

Bill O'Reilly, the conservative and outspoken anchor of a talk show on Fox News, called for a boycott of advertisers who buy ad space during the two-hour long interview. Another Fox star, Geraldo Rivera, famous for his patriotic stance on the war on terror, declared that the Simpson deal was 'appalling' and vowed to oppose it.

The Fox channel has long been a liberal bete noire and the subject of numerous documentaries about its obvious conservative bias. But the Simpson scandal is different, with the sheer involvement of Murdoch's empire striking at the heart of middle America. It was controlled from the start by disparate elements of Murdoch's News Corp empire: ReganBooks is owned by Murdoch's HarperCollins. The interview is to be shown on two separate shows on Murdoch's Fox network, just in time for a vital ratings boost that will set lucrative future advertising rates. And news of the deal was first revealed in the Murdoch-owned New York Post last week.

The New York Daily News, bitter rival to the Post, immediately came out blasting both its editorial barrels at Murdoch and Regan. In an editorial directly addressed to Regan, the newspaper accused her and her boss of making blood money. 'He did it for buckets of bloody bucks, just as you and Murdoch are,' the paper thundered.

But Murdoch is used to media storms. Fox, too, has long revelled in controversial attention. Both have often trusted the old adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity, even when it involves Simpson's hypothetical confession of a murder that was all too real. But if millions of Americans still tune in to watch or buy the book, then Murdoch will have had the last laugh over his critics.

It would not be the first time.

Where are they now?

The lawyer
Johnnie Cochran, OJ's lawyer, attracted as much attention in the trial as OJ himself or the famous glove the footballer struggled to pull on in front of the court. Cochrane died in 2005.

OJ's home
The house in Brentwood, Hollywood, where the former football star once lived, was sold long ago and demolished.

The restaurant
Mezzaluna, where Nicole Brown Simpson, OJ's former wife, had dinner before her murder has been replaced by a coffee shop.

The condo
The house number has been changed on the condo where Nicole and friend Ronald Goldman were killed.


240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: OJ book/TV creating problems for Fox & Regan
« Reply #85 on: November 19, 2006, 03:07:31 PM »
I read that Rupert Murdoch has dinner with Hilary Clinton once a week.

Is this true?  pretty interesting, if so.  Would make hedgehog look pretty smart.

sandycoosworth

  • Guest
Re: OJ book/TV creating problems for Fox & Regan
« Reply #86 on: November 19, 2006, 04:03:46 PM »
As convincing an argument for double jeopardy if ever there was one >:(

Dos Equis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66458
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: OJ book/TV creating problems for Fox & Regan
« Reply #87 on: November 20, 2006, 01:29:03 PM »
I can't believe it.  The long lost media conscience has surfaced.  That, or they were afraid of a boycott, loss of income, etc.  Show has been cancelled. 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230838,00.html


Al-Gebra

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5927
Re: OJ book/TV creating problems for Fox & Regan
« Reply #88 on: November 20, 2006, 01:36:56 PM »
I can't believe it.  The long lost media conscience has surfaced.  That, or they were afraid of a boycott, loss of income, etc.  Show has been cancelled. 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230838,00.html



why not? they got enough publicity out of the deal. 

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19682
Re: OJ book/TV canceled
« Reply #89 on: November 20, 2006, 01:49:22 PM »
What’s the big deal here and why the cancellation?  Like everything else on TV if you don’t want to watch it, don’t watch it.  ::)

Diesel1

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6261
Re: OJ book/TV creating problems for Fox & Regan
« Reply #90 on: November 20, 2006, 02:34:38 PM »
I can't believe it.  The long lost media conscience has surfaced.  That, or they were afraid of a boycott, loss of income, etc.  Show has been cancelled. 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230838,00.html



Fucking cowards. Depite the whining, people would've watched and bought the book the fucking hipocryts

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: OJ book/TV cancelled
« Reply #91 on: November 20, 2006, 02:48:19 PM »
Free OJ.  He's innocent.

Dos Equis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66458
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: OJ book/TV creating problems for Fox & Regan
« Reply #92 on: November 20, 2006, 03:00:26 PM »
why not? they got enough publicity out of the deal. 

Yes.  The "bad" publicity will likely help book sales.  I'm just surprised they even thought about giving this murderer a stage.  I think respect for the victim's families should trump the short-lived ratings bump they would have gotten for this show.  The media has no conscience. 

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: OJ book/TV cancelled
« Reply #93 on: November 20, 2006, 03:02:09 PM »
The media has no conscience. 

NBC declined OJ's offer.
FOX accepted it initially, then changed mind based upon protest.

NBC showed some decency in their passing up a story everyone would talk about.  Who would have thought FOX wasn't the ethical stalwarts we thought they were?

Dos Equis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66458
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: OJ book/TV cancelled
« Reply #94 on: November 21, 2006, 09:21:11 AM »
The plot sickens.  Families offered hush money?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/21/oj.cancel.ap/index.html

Faust

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3154
  • It's a league game, Smokey
Re: OJ book/TV canceled
« Reply #95 on: November 21, 2006, 09:23:21 AM »
What’s the big deal here and why the cancellation?  Like everything else on TV if you don’t want to watch it, don’t watch it.  ::)

That's a strange comment. You honestly think this isn't something special (hence the big deal)? And you agree with the way they paid him?
$

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19682
Re: OJ book/TV canceled
« Reply #96 on: November 21, 2006, 09:50:56 AM »
That's a strange comment. You honestly think this isn't something special (hence the big deal)? And you agree with the way they paid him?

I know nothing of how he was paid. I assume it was the way most celebrities are paid when they work with a ghost writer.

And no, I don't think this is anything special.  There are lots of books out there by authors I disapprove of for one reason or another.  If I'm not interested I don't buy the book. Likewise for TV; if I'm not interested, I don't watch it. 

People in this country get “upset” over OJ’s TV/book deal but they don’t much care about servicemen dying in a unnecessary war that the country was lied into.

This cancelled epiosde is no more objectionable to me than other tasteless grabs at money aired on TV.  Remember, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?  That show grabbed tons of viewers and her Playboy issue was one of their bestsellers.  People pretended to be "offended" even as they watched and bought it up by the millions.  The same thing would have happened with OJs TV special and book.

The world is filled with trash.  Putting it out there is not a crime; consuming it is.

I had no interest in reading his book... but now that it has effectively been banned I  do want to read it.  And I'm sure I'm not alone.

Faust

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3154
  • It's a league game, Smokey
Re: OJ book/TV canceled
« Reply #97 on: November 21, 2006, 10:17:16 AM »
I know nothing of how he was paid. I assume it was the way most celebrities are paid when they work with a ghost writer.

And no, I don't think this is anything special.  There are lots of books out there by authors I disapprove of for one reason or another.  If I'm not interested I don't buy the book. Likewise for TV; if I'm not interested, I don't watch it. 

People in this country get “upset” over OJ’s TV/book deal but they don’t much care about servicemen dying in a unnecessary war that the country was lied into.

This cancelled epiosde is no more objectionable to me than other tasteless grabs at money aired on TV.  Remember, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?  That show grabbed tons of viewers and her Playboy issue was one of their bestsellers.  People pretended to be "offended" even as they watched and bought it up by the millions.  The same thing would have happened with OJs TV special and book.

The world is filled with trash.  Putting it out there is not a crime; consuming it is.

I had no interest in reading his book... but now that it has effectively been banned I  do want to read it.  And I'm sure I'm not alone.

Agreed, there's a lot of smut on tv.
But when you commit a double murder in a gross way, get away with it and end up making millions of dollar out of it, that tops it all.
Consuming trash is not a crime, it's just a waste. Killing somebody and even supporting the murderer is a crime and that's what happening.

You think people should consider this as normal? I can see where you're coming from, but this is not the regular lack of taste we're used to. This is disgusting.

*Btw, i agree on your Iraq standpoint. Dozens of americans are dying each month. Shame.
$

pumpster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18890
  • If you're reading this you have too much free time
Re: OJ book/TV cancelled
« Reply #98 on: November 21, 2006, 10:33:41 AM »
Bottom line Fox & Regan finally stepped over the line. They'd still be doing the special if not for the reaction and price to their rep.

The OJ interviews have already been taped, will eventually come out probably online.

Slick Vic

  • Guest
Re: OJ book/TV cancelled
« Reply #99 on: November 21, 2006, 11:26:50 AM »
And just think.... Even if he flat-out said he was the murderer, there's nothing the justice system can do.