Ah, primetime. Last Thursday I had my bowl of leftover pasta and glass of limeade ready and raring to go for a thrilling night in front of the television. The highlights? Michael Jackson trial re-enactments at 7:30 p.m. and 9 p.m., “Law and Order: SVU” at 8 p.m. and then wrapping up with the premiere of “Law and Order: Trial by Jury” at 10 p.m.
Finally, I have a use for that gavel I’ve had stowed away.
In the midst of a generation who lost themselves in the O.J. trial, Enron and the queen of nice Martha Stewart’s recent jailtime, is it any surprise that we can find our entertainment just as easily in a jury summons as we can on television?
Hell, even the Scott Peterson trial got an “E! True Hollywood Story.”
And does it come as a shocker that the same entertainment network is now showing re-enactments from the much-publicized King of Pop’s courtroom transcripts?
Well, it should be – right?
That’s the question I asked myself about halfway through a debate with a friend over celebrities’ rights to privacy. I, being quite stuck in my ways, was convinced that as a celebrity you accept your role in the public’s eye. You have to be willing to risk public embarrassment if you want to revel in public accolades.
However, I’ve always been a staunch supporter of anyone’s right to a certain degree of privacy. No, the paparazzi shouldn’t jump your fence to catch you breast-feeding your newborn and no, they don’t have a right to chase your limo on your way back from the podiatrist. But, if you were to start shoving your hand down a 12-year-old boy’s Fruit of the Looms? Then, yes, I want to see you ripped apart in front of a jury on the 10 o’clock news, but do you belong juxtaposed with news on Britney’s latest video and the new Julia Roberts flick?
If a celebrity is making news, is that entertainment, news or both?
As I rattled off example after example of celebs who are more known now for their testimony than their talent, such as O.J. Simpson, Martha Stewart and Jack-O himself, I recalled some other prevalent cases that weren’t household names until after their time in the courtroom, like the Menendez brothers, Timothy McVeigh and Scott Peterson.
Controversial cases such as these received widespread attention, even without a celebrity headlining the defendants. In some cases, they got even more media coverage than the star-studded spectacles.
At some point in television’s short history, scandal trumped stardom.
People want to tune in to see the crime, not the person. There’s a sort of fascination with the idea of crime and punishment and networks are doing all they can to give the people what they want. From CBS hit “CSI” to the ludicrous amount of “Law and Order,” one can’t escape throughout the week. These “ripped from the headline” dramas are becoming more and more popular.
The “Law and Order” franchise, which includes the classic model, the sex crime based “SVU,” “Criminal Intent” and now “Trial by Jury,” can be seen up to six times a week on NBC and over 40 times on cable, but viewers aren’t growing weary just yet.
For the week of Feb. 21-27, both “Law and Order” and “Law and Order: SVU” ranked in the top 25 highest rated programs according to Nielsen Media Research. Also, the premiere of “Trial by Jury” debuted to an average of 17.1 million viewers Thursday night.
Obviously, the cast of characters in the Jackson trial, which includes talk-show host Jay Leno, Emmanuel Lewis of “Webster” fame and former “Goonie” Cory Feldman, are adding hype and publicity. However, anyone, regardless if he is the King of Pop, who allegedly touched a little cancer-stricken boy, will be all over headlines strictly based on the magnitude of the charges – not on the magnitude of the celebrity.
And anyone who begs to differ is simply overruled.
– Bobby Hankinson can be reached at [email protected]
