I could care less about this news story. Yeah, I’m sorry she’s dead. But, a lot of people die every day. I don’t care about this story at all - regardless of how many people Larry King interviews about the case or how often it appears in the paper.
The media sensationalizes crap like this because the people are too fucking stupid to pay attention to the stuff that really matters. I can’t believe the minute details that are discussed in this case (and that many people can recite most of them) and yet 70% of this idiot populace thinks Saddam took part in 9/11.
Wake the fuck up! The media pushes garbage like this to keep you away from the real news, the stuff that really affects you. Your life will not change whether her husband, whatever his name is, goes to jail or is acquitted.
So fuck Laci Peterson, fuck her husband, fuck the media for talking about this garbage, and fuck the idiots for caring about some dead chick and a trial that will have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on their lives.
Why do I keep seeing this 70% thing all over. the place. Do you have a cite. I’m not calling you on it as much as I’d like to read the article if there is one. If anybody can point me to the cite, I’d appreciate it.
I don’t know anybody who thinks Saddam has a link to Saudi Arabian terrorists. I had thought the Saddam thing was about his potential to do harm (and the fact that he tried to spank GW’s daddy).
And , oh yeah, I agree that maybe we don’t need to focus one occurance of a tragedy that happans every day in America. I think this intrusion by the press may cause harm to the legal process.
Oh…you forgot to say fuck her unborn son also. :rolleyes:
So you don’t care about the trial? I get that…but what did this woman do to you to deserve your scorn? I’m sure she would have much rather never been in the media spotlight. I’m sure she would have rather been getting ready for her first Christmas with her baby than dead.
I would probably agree with the OP if I cared as much as he did. Honestly, I have not watched one TV spot or read one single article on this issue because its just one more dead person to read about in a veritable sea of dead people.
If the shit bothers you, don’t pay it any attention.
I think what he means is why are inundated with news about this trial? There are murders such as this one all over the country, some even worse. Why is THIS one so special that there is so much coverage?
If you’re going to get annoyed every time a murder becomes a media event, you’re going to spend a lot of your life annoyed.
The public has always loved a good murder: I don’t mean the ones that involve famous people, but the “why this one?” cases involving unknowns. The story almost always include a beautiful woman and/or a sex angle: Jack the Ripper, the Halls/Mills case, the Ruth Snyder case, Little Mary Phagan, the Black Dahlia, Jon-Benet Ramsey, now Laci Peterson. It becomes a one-year wonder, then the public and the media forget and move on to the next bright, sparkly object dangled in front of their eyes.
I understand that. I, too, wish the media would let it be and give her family some relief. I’m sure they would like to go on with their lives and not have to see their daughter/sister/friend plastered all through the news.
But in his closing the entire list of fuck yous should be directed at the media…not at the victims.
So husbands murdering their wives and unborn children can’t possibly affect us? It doesn’t really matter?
I kinda think how the justice system deals with our murderers will have a bit of an effect on our lives. Do you not realize that these cases are indictments or validations of the system? It’s not a case just about Scott or Laci. It’s about every individual’s right to life, yours included.
The media is a business with a product. Like most businesses, they sell the product that will make them the most money. This is what most people, not you or I, want to see. There is no evil roomful of people showing us this stuff to “keep us away” from anything. They are simply in the business of selling advertisements.
What we need are a failed chorine who shot her lover and a sassy cabaret singer who plugged her sister and her husband when she found them in a compromising position–I betcha that would make the papers. There would be flashy courtroom spectacle orchestrated by their cynical, amoral lawyer, and publicized by a sob-sister columnist.
As Eve said, people love the thrills of a juicy murder–why do yo think the true crime and mystery fiction genres are so popular? Give 'em the old razzle dazzle–razzle dazzle 'em. Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it and the reaction will be passionate.
Unless either you or someone you know is either the victim or the killer, or murders are so endemic where you live that it fundamentally changes your life, then “husbands murdering their wives and unborn children” can’t possibly affect you. Of these two conditions, only the latter is newsworthy (e.g., something the rest of the population should know about). Unfortunately, the latter is not what the media reports on, because an in-depth analysis of current crime statistics just isn’t very sensational and entertaining–especially when the crime rate is pretty low.
Don’t try and justify fascination with this case as anything other then voyeurism.
If you want to learn about the US Criminal Justice system, an incredibly over-publicized trial such as this probably isn’t the best way to educate yourself. There are more efficient ways of learning then playing a peeping Tom among millions of others in what should be someone elses private hell.
Listen, I am all for a juicy story, but when we are beaten to death by it for months or years (Jon-Benet Ramsey) I tend to get annonyed as well. People don’t vote, can’t tell you how many states there are, and don’t know who represents them in government (among many other things). It actually amazes me that some people are able to survive on thier own. But they can tell you every detail of the Peterson case. Something is wrong.
I don’t think that how the justice system treats this trial affects our lives at all. I think that the justice system is mainly about punishment these days and I don’t think any landmark precedent is going be set here. Don’t we alreay have a system that protects an individual’s right to life??? Why is this any different then any other murder that happened yesterday (other than the fact that this one is in the paper)?
Oh, for goodness sake, as if this is anything new! Here’s a clip from worldmag.com, about the Petersons’ forebears:
*By the last third of the 17th century, specific genres of sensational reporting were emerging. For example, “The Bloody Butcher,” a ballad broadside of 1667, began with an exclamation about “What horrid execrable Crimes/ Possess us in these latter Times;/Not Pestilence, nor Sword,-nor Fire,/ Will make us from our Sins retyre.” The report told of a husband and pregnant wife arguing about his adultery, and then:
With a strong long sharp-poynted knife,
Into the back he stabs his wife:
Flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone,
With one dead-doing blow is gone.
She faltred, fainted, fell down dead,
Upon the ground her bloud was shed;
The little infant in the womb
Received there both Life and Toomb.
Then was he Apprehended, by
Some Neighbours that did hear her cry
Out Murther, murther, and for this,
He judg’d and Executed is. *
69% of those polled stated it is either “very likely” (32%) or “somewhat likely” (37%) for a total of 69% who believe it is likely that Saddam Hussein was presonally involved. The poll was conducted 8/11-13 by phone. The sample consisted of 1,003 respondents and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3%.
These data have stayed fairly consistent for two years. I don’t know if this is the source of the “70% of Americans believe” story but the story does appear to be accurate.
And I agree with the OP, but I hesitate to say anything since the last time I raised a similar issue (regarding Elizabeth Smart) I was Pitted.
Here is an interesting Washington Post article about this (2 pages). Seems to have many specifics as to the dates and methodology of the polls on which this claim is based. Enjoy.
Metacom, you’re confusing me being disturbed by his lack of compassion for the victims with some kind of endorsement of sensationalism, peeping Toms and voyeurism? Heh, wow.
cmason32 appears to suggest that either murder or it’s telling shouldn’t be our concern (read newsworthy) if it didn’t happen to us directly. My point was that Scott could be almost any man, that what he did is more of an indictment of human nature than simply that of one individual. I think in some ways it’s a snapshot that speaks of much larger concerns. It wakes us up to the fact that there’s some really twisted people out there, as much as we’d like to believe otherwise. If there’s any confusion here, I think it arose from not making a distinction between what’s newsworthy and when the story becomes an invasive, prying carnival.
While the frenzy exhibited by the media is despicable, I don’t think it’s telling should be the cause of animosity toward the victim. “Fuck Laci Peterson”? I hope he didn’t mean that. Seriously, goddamn, have a heart.
Perhaps fuck laci peterson was a bit silly, but it’s just as silly to imply that I have no heart simply because I fail to care a lot about one woman, out the the thousands, that was murdered. I again acknowledge it was a tragedy, but I still fail to see why I should become emotionally invested in the trial.
And no one has yet given me any reason why I should care about this story. I’ve seen some “get used to it” and it’s human nature arguments, but that doesn’t give me, or anyone else for that matter, any reason to care about this.
Maybe I didn’t define my OP enough: I, of course, am not trying to make light of the murder - but that doesn’t mean I can’t complain about the media coverage this story, and others like it, receive. And I’m sure some will justify this by arguing the media just gives us what we want, they certainly created the desire at first - as none of us would have ever heard of her had it not been for the initial coverage.
I don’t understand how that question has anything to do with how much empathy Cmason32 has for the Peterson family. I interepreted it has a rhetorical question that you put forth to express your opinion that “husbands murdering their wives and unborn children” had relevance to “us” (e.g., people not involved with the case).
You also said:
I can not find a single interpretation of that statement that has any possible bearing on how much compassion Cmason32 feels towards Lacy Peterson. I interpreted it has you giving a justification for the widespread media coverage of this trial.
Jpeg, I’m tempted not to respond to your argument because of how silly it is. Laci Peterson is one murder out of the tens of thousands that occur each year. Yet the coverage would make you believe she was the only woman murdered in the last 3 years.
I guess you’re making a (sort of) slippery slope argument. But, as is often the case with such arguments, they fail to deal with the particulars of the case and instead rely on exaggeration and hyperbole in an attempt to make a point. But aside from your ridiculous exaggerations, what point have you really made? That I can’t care about anything at all if I don’t care about Laci Peterson? Is that really what you’re trying to argue?