Rear Window Ethics Rear Window Ethics: Scott Peterson Verdict

Saturday, November 13, 2004

Scott Peterson Verdict

I turned on CNN this afternoon to see that after all the general hubbub, and all the media coverage, the Scott Peterson trial had come to a close. He was found guilty of murder.

My reaction: "What? Oh. OK. Who cares?"

I feel like I happened upon the season finale of some crappy TV drama without having seen a single episode of it before in my life, and now i have no clue as to what is going on. Who are these people? Why is that group of people so angry? Why am I watching UPN/The WB/Court TV? I have no idea who the characters involved with the trial are, who the victim was, what the evidence was found, or what jurors switched with what other jurors. And I really don't care.

It's not like I don't pay attention to the news. On the contrary, I find it difficult to get through the day without my morning NPR, my afternoon CNN, my evening Jim Lehrer, and my nighttime BBC. I guess I just manage to completely zone out when this trial is the topic of conversation.

I don't understand why this case received so much media attention. As far as I know, Scott Peterson wasn't famous before his arrest. This wasn't a celebrity trial. No celebrated football great was in the news. There was no racially polarizing force intrinsic to the case as it unfolded in the courtroom. There was a murder. Murders happen all the time, all across America and the world. Some schmuck is implicated and all of a sudden the country becomes obsessed with a trial to the extent that there are CNN news flashes about it, it's discussed on sports radio, and a seemingly endless number of blogs are written about it.

And now I'm one of them. Damn-it. How could this have happened? Crap. That's it, I'm out of here.