Upcoming O.J. Interview on Fox [Text View]

minckster

11-18-2006, 03:26 PM

Does anyone have a list of the sponsors? I would like to let them know how I feel about this.

I won't be watching it, and seriously, this is the first issue I've been seriously planning to stop buying sponsors' products because of.+1

The broadcast is during sweeps too, so Fox is expecting big ratings. They'll probably be right. :down:

hefe

11-18-2006, 03:36 PM

sketcher

11-18-2006, 04:36 PM

packerfan

11-18-2006, 05:08 PM

My local fox affiliate has decided not to air this thing.

smak

11-18-2006, 05:19 PM

Fox News is not Fox Network.

No, it's just owned and run by the same people.

-smak-

Mike10

11-18-2006, 05:38 PM

No, it's just owned and run by the same people.

-smak-

It is owned but not run by the same people

hefe

11-18-2006, 07:06 PM

Fox News is not Fox Network.
If you can rationalize boycotting a company and its unrelated products for advertising when people are watching because you think it is supporting what is being shown, then it is a far smaller leap to boycott the products of the corporation that is making it all possible...News Corp. And both of those networks are its products.

super dave

11-18-2006, 10:36 PM

The only Fox program I watch is The NFL, I don't think I can stop.......

I won't watch OJ.

daperlman

11-18-2006, 10:40 PM

Forget that it is in horrible taste. It is incredibly lame also. I mean we know he kilt them, but does anyone think that he is going to say anything interesting (putting himself in legal jeopardy).

smak

11-19-2006, 04:10 AM

It is owned but not run by the same people

It is, Roger Ailes is head of Fox News and Chairman of Fox Television stations.

This whole thing is a Ruper Murdoch production. The book is being put out by his company. The interviewer is his employee.

The whole "outrage" by O'Reilly is just a new way to sell books and sell TV.

The most potentially disgusting thing being done by Murdoch and Fox is the speculation that they are somehow paying Simpson in a way that the Goldman's and Brown's can't get to.

-smak-

Double-Tap

11-19-2006, 07:05 AM

The most potentially disgusting thing being done by Murdoch and Fox is the speculation that they are somehow paying Simpson in a way that the Goldman's and Brown's can't get to.

Exactly. It's disgusting to me. My question is how can someone who (potentially) gets away with murder even think about doing something like this at all. I'd love to hear a criminal psychologist dissect his motives. There has to be more than greed involved in O.J.'s actions.

appleye1

11-19-2006, 07:43 AM

Bill O'Reilly was stumping for people to boycott anybody who sponsors this. But why give a pass to the corporation that is airing it for profit? Let's boycott everything that corporation is trying to sell us, Bill! :p Oh wait, who airs your show...? :rolleyes:
I agree that O'Reilly is missing a major target in News Corp., but I disagree that he's doing so simply because they air his show. O'Reilly is the ratings powerhouse on that network. If he were to pack up his show and take it elsewhere Fox News might dry up and blow away.

I think O'Reilly might just like the corporation that owns his network and that's why he doesn't include them in his boycott. But he's not scared of them. I'm sure O'Reilly could say or do just about anything he wants and they wouldn't do a damn thing about it.

Too bad though. Someone needs to take News Corp. to task for this. Absolutely disgusting. From what I hear they have it structured so that Simpson's kids get the money. I can't see how that's much different than Simpson himself getting it. I'm sure they're still relying on OJ somewhat for their expenses. If they no longer need his help, then OJ ends up keeping for his own use what he would have given them.

getreal

11-19-2006, 04:11 PM

Forget that it is in horrible taste. It is incredibly lame also. I mean we know he kilt them, but does anyone think that he is going to say anything interesting (putting himself in legal jeopardy).
I don't think he could put himself in legal jeopardy as he cannot be criminally tried again for the double murders ("double jeopardy"). And he has already lost the civil suit but hidden his assets.

The kids are now of legal age, or close to it, aren't they? Justin was 7 & Sydney was 9 at the time of the murders. 12.5 years later, they've now spent most of their lives without their mother. I can't imagine having their own bank accounts filled from proceeds of their father's "hypothetical" version of the events "if he did it" to their own mother while they were asleep upstairs. Ugh! :down: :down:

sketcher

11-19-2006, 05:07 PM

It is, Roger Ailes is head of Fox News and Chairman of Fox Television stations.

This whole thing is a Ruper Murdoch production. The book is being put out by his company. The interviewer is his employee.

The whole "outrage" by O'Reilly is just a new way to sell books and sell TV.

The most potentially disgusting thing being done by Murdoch and Fox is the speculation that they are somehow paying Simpson in a way that the Goldman's and Brown's can't get to.

-smak-
So who are you supposing told O'Reilly to feign outrage? Ailes or Murdoch? And what does O'Reilly get out of selling books for OJ or raising ratings for another network? I think your hypothesis is far more unbelievable than O'Reilly being outraged about this book and interview.

Bondelev

11-19-2006, 07:09 PM

Don't Pay OJ!

www.DontPayOJ.com (http://www.dontpayoj.com/)

Stop the insanity. Write to the Fox network AND your local Fox affiliate and tell them that you will not watch the program and that you will protest any advertisers of the show by refusing to buy their product.

Also write to all of the book sellers (including Barnes & Noble, Borders, Amazon & Wal-Mart) and tell them that you will shop elsewhere. If you want to stop this book and TV show from making it to market, you must do so soon, and you must kick them where it hurts most, in the pocketbook!

JFriday

11-19-2006, 07:18 PM

I heard they were running it without commercials (who would in there right mind sponsor this). They hope high ratings will help raise their future book rate.

Chester_Lampwick

11-19-2006, 07:22 PM

I think I'll TiVo and watch only the commercials. Then I'll know what products not to buy :-)
Really, I think everybody is too (artificially) sensitive about this. The murders themselves weren't spectacular. Regular everyday heat of passion stuff that goes unnoticed until it involves a celebrity. I think there are rules that state you can't profit from telling the details of a crime you committed. However, O.J. was not convicted so he couldn't have committed that crime legally speaking. A lot of people will watch this, but few will admit to it. I for one will probably watch this, providing my TiVo has no conflicts......

Todd

11-19-2006, 07:50 PM

The whole "outrage" by O'Reilly is just a new way to sell books and sell TV.

So basically he doesn't believe what's he saying about this? It's just to sell books and garner ratings? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Do you seriously not think he may actually feel this stupid broadcast is bad for our society?

Todd

11-19-2006, 07:51 PM

I can't watch it here, even if I wanted to. LIN Broadcasting has banned it's stations from showing it.

Chester_Lampwick

11-19-2006, 09:22 PM

I can't watch it here, even if I wanted to. LIN Broadcasting has banned it's stations for showing it.

This isn't another Clearchannel unfair censorship thing is it? I know this O.J. thing is in bad taste, but should it be censored?

daperlman

11-19-2006, 09:25 PM

I don't think he could put himself in legal jeopardy as he cannot be criminally tried again for the double murders ("double jeopardy"). And he has already lost the civil suit but hidden his assets.

The kids are now of legal age, or close to it, aren't they? Justin was 7 & Sydney was 9 at the time of the murders. 12.5 years later, they've now spent most of their lives without their mother. I can't imagine having their own bank accounts filled from proceeds of their father's "hypothetical" version of the events "if he did it" to their own mother while they were asleep upstairs. Ugh! :down: :down:
I understand double jeopardy but there are way around that resulting in problems for him - if he goes ahead and admits his guilt. Plus he could cause a problem with getting the $$$ from this.

So expect this interview to be dull and filled with disclaimers

madscientist

11-20-2006, 12:15 AM

bruinfan

11-20-2006, 02:52 PM

See, all that time on the golf course looking for the real killers produced something. He has come up with this idea... How I Did It...

From what I understand, the money can be funneled somewhere else, like his mom, and Goldman doesn't see a dime. And he's legally safe. The federal government can go after him with an infraction of civil liberties case, but I heard an interview that says it's very hard to win and I'm sure OJ will make sure not to say anything incriminating legally.

My question is how can someone who (potentially) gets away with murder even think about doing something like this at all. I'd love to hear a criminal psychologist dissect his motives. There has to be more than greed involved in O.J.'s actions.
Yeah, he is mentally ill... he needs the attention.

My ethical side says boycott, this is a load of crap.

My dark side says... car accident.... noone wants to look, but everyone does.

AstroDad

11-20-2006, 03:39 PM

Let's all just BitTorrent it.

jimborst

11-20-2006, 03:41 PM

Just on CNN, Fox has said they are going to cancel the airing of the two part interview.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/20/oj.cancel.ap/index.html

Lee L

11-20-2006, 03:46 PM

Right: OJ will not admit he did anything. He'll speak in hypotheticals, if he says anything at all.

As for who gets the money, there's no way OJ will get anything. Even if the proceeds go to him, he owes the Goldman family $33.5 million or so that they got in a civil judgement against him, and which he has not paid. They can't take his NFL pension nor his house, but anything else that's his is fair game. Unquestionably he won't see a dime of the money from any of this.

It is (or was) not goign to be aired in thise area anyway, but there is rampant speculation from lawyers and money managers that there is a way that they can structure this so that he keeps the money. Supposedly, he has already done that with other money he has made.

busyba

11-20-2006, 04:13 PM

Bill O'Reilly was stumping for people to boycott anybody who sponsors this.
Cause Bill O'Reilly is such an effective boycott organizer. Just ask the French. :rolleyes:

busyba

11-20-2006, 04:13 PM

I don't think he could put himself in legal jeopardy as he cannot be criminally tried again for the double murders ("double jeopardy"). And he has already lost the civil suit but hidden his assets.
In theory, if he incriminates himself in such a way that would run him afoul of federal law (for instance, saying he killed Nicole just because she was white, which would get him on the hook for violating Nicole's civil rights), he could be tried in federal court. This is said to not violate double jeopardy because the state and federal governments are considered seperate soveriegn entities and if you violate both their laws with a single act, both entities are entitled to go after you.

The government frequently takes advantage of that exception to double jeopardy when there is tremendous political pressure to do so. Two such cases that I can think of off the top of my head are the state and federal prosecutions of the LAPD officers who beat Rodney King and the two trials of Lemerick Nelson, who killed an orthodox jew during the Crown Heights Riot in NYC in the 1990's.

I think though that the statute of limitations on any federal laws that would even be remotely applicable in this case would have expired by now.

Raimi

11-20-2006, 04:19 PM

Looks like Fox pulled the plug. I think people were more outraged than interested.

angbear1985

11-20-2006, 04:21 PM

Looks like Fox pulled the plug. I think people were more outraged than interested.

Good - glad! Should be!

Sparty99

11-20-2006, 04:24 PM

Looks like Fox pulled the plug. I think people were more outraged than interested.
They're not just pulling the plug on the interview, they've shelved the book as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/20/oj.cancel.ap/index.html

jradford

11-20-2006, 04:29 PM

Just on CNN, Fox has said they are going to cancel the airing of the two part interview.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/20/oj.cancel.ap/index.html
From that headline and the 1st paragraph, it seems as though the publishing of the book itself has been canceled.

Score one for decency.

edit: DAMN!!! Too Slow!

busyba

11-20-2006, 05:27 PM

Score one for decency.
More like score one for the heckler's veto.

Not that I have any sympathy for OJ or for the parties seeking to profit from the tragedy; I just tend to find it troubling when free expression is artificially stifiled.

My form of protest was refusing to watch the show or buy the book. I don't see why that shouldn't be enough.

smak

11-20-2006, 05:32 PM

So who are you supposing told O'Reilly to feign outrage? Ailes or Murdoch? And what does O'Reilly get out of selling books for OJ or raising ratings for another network? I think your hypothesis is far more unbelievable than O'Reilly being outraged about this book and interview.

So basically he doesn't believe what's he saying about this? It's just to sell books and garner ratings? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Do you seriously not think he may actually feel this stupid broadcast is bad for our society?

Then give me one good reason O'Reilly didn't bash the people who he should have been bashing. The owners of FOX, and his boss Roger Ailes.

To say that the two networks are totally different entitities is just weasling out of laying blame at Ailes and Murdoch.

Any outrage of this show, while purposely lying about who is responsible for it, doesn't make his outrage look all too convincing to me.

1/2 of O'Reilly's show is just phony stuff he puts on the air for ulterior motives. Or do you really think there's a "war on Christmas", or does he just want to sell his book?

-smak-

getreal

11-20-2006, 05:34 PM

Now that the book and television interview have been killed, do you think OJ's "third party" still got their payment? I kinda' think so ... as the book was printed, but just not released, and the television interview had already been taped ...

SoldOnTivoToo

11-20-2006, 06:02 PM

I have only one word to describe this kind of garbage - DISGUSTING!!!

I know we have freedom of speech and press, but profiting from a murder is just about one iota above bottom feeder. (if that)

In a way, Fox would have been so screwed if they had gone ahead. I think the backlash would have caused more problems that money.

DarkAudit

11-20-2006, 06:07 PM

Guest on MSNBC as the news was announced suggested that News Corp. finally took a look at the potential liabilities if they went forward, and pulled the plug after that.

byte_me123

11-20-2006, 06:29 PM

In theory, if he incriminates himself in such a way that would run him afoul of federal law (for instance, saying he killed Nicole just because she was white, which would get him on the hook for violating Nicole's civil rights), he could be tried in federal court. This is said to not violate double jeopardy because the state and federal governments are considered seperate soveriegn entities and if you violate both their laws with a single act, both entities are entitled to go after you.

The government frequently takes advantage of that exception to double jeopardy when there is tremendous political pressure to do so. Two such cases that I can think of off the top of my head are the state and federal prosecutions of the LAPD officers who beat Rodney King and the two trials of Lemerick Nelson, who killed an orthodox jew during the Crown Heights Riot in NYC in the 1990's.

I think though that the statute of limitations on any federal laws that would even be remotely applicable in this case would have expired by now.

Two things,

One. He’s black and they were white. According to Lib’s. As a black, he can’t hate.

Two, there is no statue of limitation on murder.

Rob Helmerichs

11-20-2006, 06:37 PM

Two, there is no statue of limitation on murder.
Well, of course One is gibberish. But as for Two, he's already been tried for murder; the question is would he open himself to other charges? And the chances are that for any such charges, the statute of limitations will probably have expired.

busyba

11-20-2006, 07:00 PM

Yeah, what Rob said. :)

The federal charge wouldn't be for murder so much as a civil rights violation (...that just happened to result in murder).

And to address #1, even though it was gibberish... Lemerick Nelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Heights#The_Crown_Heights_Riot) wishes you were right.

Chester_Lampwick

11-20-2006, 07:13 PM

They're not just pulling the plug on the interview, they've shelved the book as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/20/oj.cancel.ap/index.html

More hype. Now, they'll wait a few weeks or months and then air it. They can the say "The interview so controversial it couldn't be aired...." Maybe it'll be pay-per-view.

It's really a double standard. He wasn't convicted, but in the court of public opinion he's guilty so everyone has an issue. Now if he was convicted and everybody thought he got a bum rap, they would wan't to see this interview. I say if he was found "not guilty" who am I to second guess the legal system?

I still wouldn't speculate as to how I allegedly did a crime. Who knows what carrying that stigma would be like.

Raimi

11-20-2006, 07:13 PM

Two things,

One. He’s black and they were white. According to Lib’s. As a black, he can’t hate.

Two, there is no statue of limitation on murder.Well, I've heard Jesse Jackson say a black man can't be racist but I think people on the left realize a black person can be just as hateful as anyone else. :)

It's not a statute of limits issue, OJ can't be tried for murder a second time. Busyba was explaining how OJ could get the Feds to go after him.

bruinfan

11-20-2006, 07:44 PM

It's really a double standard. He wasn't convicted, but in the court of public opinion he's guilty so everyone has an issue. Now if he was convicted and everybody thought he got a bum rap, they would wan't to see this interview. I say if he was found "not guilty" who am I to second guess the legal system?
But he's guilty...
;)
or at least liable...

busyba

11-20-2006, 07:53 PM

Speaking of double jepoardy and OJ. I think I'm slightly galled that the civil case was not considered a violation of double jepoardy. Sure, he wasn't at risk of going to prison, but an umpteen-million dollar judgement isn't anything to sneeze at.

The only reason he isn't utterly destitute and homeless right now is because he had the good fortune to have a pension to live off of and the good foresight to purchase real estate in Florida. I'd think that should constitute "jepoardy".

Heck, even in criminal cases where the maximum penalty is only a fine (no jail time), you can't try a person more than once, so why should civil actions be exempt from double jepoardy?

Todd

11-20-2006, 08:31 PM

Then give me one good reason O'Reilly didn't bash the people who he should have been bashing. The owners of FOX, and his boss Roger Ailes.

To say that the two networks are totally different entitities is just weasling out of laying blame at Ailes and Murdoch.

Any outrage of this show, while purposely lying about who is responsible for it, doesn't make his outrage look all too convincing to me.

1/2 of O'Reilly's show is just phony stuff he puts on the air for ulterior motives. Or do you really think there's a "war on Christmas", or does he just want to sell his book?

-smak-
Have you ever even seen his show or are you like Dave Letterman who said virtually the exact same things to him but has never seen his show and is too dumb to even find FoxNews in his TV listings? I certainly don't think O'Reilly is perfect and I don't agree with some of his stuff, but most of it is pretty well thought out and correct. I do think he was flat out wrong on why we had high gas prices over the past year or so and is naive when talking about Ethanol, but when it comes to the culture, he's not far off at all.

smak

11-20-2006, 09:49 PM

You know Dave Letterman hasn't seen O'Reilly's show? How do you know such insider info?

The subject is OJ Simpson, and FOX News was doing more to promote the OJ interview/book/TV show then the other 3 (CNN, Headline News, MSNBC) cable networks combined.

So for O'Reilly to blast all the OJ hype, and then feign ignorance as to who was airing the show and releasing the book, and his own networks gigantic hype of the 2 is just more O'Reilly hypocrisy.

When it comes to the culture he's not far off from what? What you believe? I think that we've seen lately that is getting less and less what the rest of the country believes.

-smak-

Rob Helmerichs

11-20-2006, 09:59 PM

Heck, even in criminal cases where the maximum penalty is only a fine (no jail time), you can't try a person more than once, so why should civil actions be exempt from double jepoardy?
Because there's a lower standard of guilt. It's possible not to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and still be guilty by a preponderance of the evidence. Legally, OJ fell into the grey area between the two standards. But it was up to a jury (well, two juries) to decide that.

Todd

11-20-2006, 10:24 PM

You know Dave Letterman hasn't seen O'Reilly's show? How do you know such insider info?

Because he said so a few weeks ago when Bill was on his show. Dave made an absolute ass of himself during the interview. It was pathetic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWO5ub-c6R8

bruinfan

11-21-2006, 03:36 AM

Because there's a lower standard of guilt. It's possible not to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and still be guilty by a preponderance of the evidence. Legally, OJ fell into the grey area between the two standards. But it was up to a jury (well, two juries) to decide that.
in a civil case, you are found liable, instead of guilty.

so basically, the legal system found that oj didn't do it, but upon further review, and with a lesser standard, they found it's his fault nicole and goldman are dead.

while it's a loophole, he was tried for 2 different offenses: committing murder, which he was not guilty, and causing the death of 2 people, which he was liable. technically, they can keep suing oj for different offenses, if they have cause, but not the same thing twice. or the federal govt can indict him for civil liberties offenses. or tax evasion, or mail fraud... if they are determined to put him behind bars, they keep searching... apparently, the man is unchargeable.

Disclaimer: All of my research was completed through procedural crime dramas and jury movies. and extended LA Times coverage of the OJ Simpson trials for 2+ years. :up:

smak

11-21-2006, 06:07 AM

Because he said so a few weeks ago when Bill was on his show. Dave made an absolute ass of himself during the interview. It was pathetic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWO5ub-c6R8

Yah, O'Reilly asking Letterman if he wanted the terrorists to win is pretty pathetic, as those kind of questions always are.

-smak-

Todd

11-21-2006, 07:12 AM

Yah, O'Reilly asking Letterman if he wanted the terrorists to win is pretty pathetic, as those kind of questions always are.

-smak-
Uh no, he asked Dave if he wanted us to win and Dave had a very hard time coming up with an answer. Seriously, how hard of a question is that? I think he asked it because he had asked Rosie O'Donnell the same question and she wouldn't answer. That's pathetic.

AstroDad

11-21-2006, 12:56 PM

Uh no, he asked Dave if he wanted us to win and Dave had a very hard time coming up with an answer. Seriously, how hard of a question is that? I think he asked it because he had asked Rosie O'Donnell the same question and she wouldn't answer. That's pathetic.

I don't think it is that easy a question without having a definition of what would be considered a "win".

Supfreak26

11-21-2006, 02:02 PM

Raimi

11-21-2006, 03:20 PM

I guess I'm a sicko because I was really looking forward to this. I think it's sad that they were pressured into shutting this down.

Pure censorship at it's finest.

If you don't want to see it, don't watch it. Simple as that.

Thank you Fox for protecting me from myself again! :(This isn't censorship at all. It's the will of the people being heard. Fox decided it was in their best interest not to air the interview. Be it a financial decision or that they thought their reputation would suffer, they saw that many of their viewers were unhappy with the decision to help OJ profit from his crime. They weren't ordered to pull the plug, they chose to do so because they had angered their customers. This isn't a free speech issue or a censorship issue. :rolleyes:

Supfreak26

11-21-2006, 04:15 PM

This isn't censorship at all. It's the will of the people being heard. Fox decided it was in their best interest not to air the interview. Be it a financial decision or that they thought their reputation would suffer, they saw that many of their viewers were unhappy with the decision to help OJ profit from his crime. They weren't ordered to pull the plug, they chose to do so because they had angered their customers. This isn't a free speech issue or a censorship issue. :rolleyes:

Wrong. I'd bet a 1000 bucks that if they aired this show, it would have HUGE ratings. Definitely #1 for that week. Possibly for the entire season.

The reason it was cancelled is the same reason everything else is pulled, cancelled, or censored in this country. The vocal minority complained loud enough to be heard.

This is censorship as much as bleeping out the word ******** in the latest Battlestar Galactica was.

It's crap like this that make me frustrasted to be an American. You don't want to see something? DON'T WATCH IT!!!!! You don't like internet poker? DON'T PLAY IT!!!!! You don't like what a book contains? DON'T READ IT!!!!!! You don't like Strip Clubs? DON'T GO!!!! You don't like porn? DON'T BUY IT!!!!!

When did this country lose it's common sense?

I have the freedom to watch something as much as you have the freedom to turn it off. Now my freedom's been taken away here but it's ok because the vocal minority got their way. :rolleyes:

That's the American Way? What a joke.

Todd

11-21-2006, 04:48 PM

Wrong. I'd bet a 1000 bucks that if they aired this show, it would have HUGE ratings. Definitely #1 for that week. Possibly for the entire season.

The reason it was cancelled is the same reason everything else is pulled, cancelled, or censored in this country. The vocal minority complained loud enough to be heard.

This is censorship as much as bleeping out the word ******** in the latest Battlestar Galactica was.

It's crap like this that make me frustrasted to be an American. You don't want to see something? DON'T WATCH IT!!!!! You don't like internet poker? DON'T PLAY IT!!!!! You don't like what a book contains? DON'T READ IT!!!!!! You don't like Strip Clubs? DON'T GO!!!! You don't like porn? DON'T BUY IT!!!!!

When did this country lose it's common sense?

I have the freedom to watch something as much as you have the freedom to turn it off. Now my freedom's been taken away here but it's ok because the vocal minority got their way. :rolleyes:

That's the American Way? What a joke.
Unbelievable. :rolleyes: It's called common decency. Why have we lost that concept in this country? Just because you CAN air something, doesn't mean you HAVE to. It's only cencorship if the government does it. A private company can decide to air it or not. It's up to them. They listened to the outrage and decided it wasn't in their best interest and hopefully as part of that, decided it wasn't in the country's best interest either.

Raimi

11-21-2006, 04:48 PM

...I have the freedom to watch something as much as you have the freedom to turn it off. Now my freedom's been taken away here but it's ok because the vocal minority got their way. :rolleyes: ...
Your right, you have the freedom to watch whatever you wish, and Fox has the freedom to choose not to air something because they believe it will be harmful to their business. The American way is standing up for what you believe in. That's exactly what those opposed to OJ's interview did. You have just as much right to get groups of people together to condemn Fox for not airing the interview. If you made your voice heard then perhaps there would be a different outcome.

Censorship would be banning the OJ interview from being broadcast anywhere by anybody. It will probably still be available on the internet or in video stores unless the property owner decides not to sell it. The book will be published at some point by a publishing company that feels the benefits outweigh the negatives for their business to publish it. Just because you want to see something doesn't mean someone is obligated to air it for you. You're rights don't outweigh theirs. :)

That being said, I can understand your frustration if you really wanted to watch it.

Supfreak26

11-21-2006, 05:02 PM

That being said, I can understand your frustration if you really wanted to watch it.

Funny thing is, I don't really care that much. lol

I just get wound up when I can't see/hear/do something because the vocal minority is so darn vocal.

smak

11-21-2006, 05:07 PM

Uh no, he asked Dave if he wanted us to win and Dave had a very hard time coming up with an answer. Seriously, how hard of a question is that? I think he asked it because he had asked Rosie O'Donnell the same question and she wouldn't answer. That's pathetic.

No, asking an American citizen that question is pathetic. The whole idea that if you don't subscribe to someone's warped view of America and the World that you are pro terrorist is disgusting.

It's a tactic of the far right, and it's shameful.

-smak-

Raimi

11-21-2006, 05:19 PM

Funny thing is, I don't really care that much. lol

I just get wound up when I can't see/hear/do something because the vocal minority is so darn vocal.It frustrates me occasionally as well. Sometimes I wish the networks would just have the chutzpah to stick to their guns. But I can understand their apprehension from a business perspective. :)

Todd

11-21-2006, 05:50 PM

No, asking an American citizen that question is pathetic. The whole idea that if you don't subscribe to someone's warped view of America and the World that you are pro terrorist is disgusting.

It's a tactic of the far right, and it's shameful.

-smak-
Do you want us to win over there? Can you come up with an answer for that? If an American, especially one who has benefited immensely from this country like Dave, can't answer that question with a "yes", then I really don't know what to say. There is obviously a portion of the far left that does not want us to win. They want us to lose and be embarrassed while doing it. It's certainly not a majority, but there's a substantial number. It's all about their hate for this country and it's leaders. BTW, Bill is hardly a member of the far right. Overall he's to the right of center, but his views are all over the place depending on the issue.

smak

11-21-2006, 08:06 PM

I seemed to have wandered off into some sci-fi/fantasy board. I was trying to post on the Tivo Community?

-smak-

jradford

11-21-2006, 10:26 PM

Do you want us to win over there? Can you come up with an answer for that? If an American, especially one who has benefited immensely from this country like Dave, can't answer that question with a "yes", then I really don't know what to say. There is obviously a portion of the far left that does not want us to win. They want us to lose and be embarrassed while doing it. It's certainly not a majority, but there's a substantial number. It's all about their hate for this country and it's leaders. BTW, Bill is hardly a member of the far right. Overall he's to the right of center, but his views are all over the place depending on the issue.
In baseball, you win by scoring more runs than the opposition in 9 innings. In golf, you win by taking fewer strokes than anyone else. In war, you win by...er...um. :confused: How can you answer whether you want to win or lose something when it seems like no one knows what "winning" is? Do I want us to "win"? Yes, because that means less troops will be in harms way, but will there ever be a point when anyone knows whether we won or lost? I wonder if Bill O'Rielly defined "winning" before we went over there.

Raimi

11-21-2006, 11:29 PM

In baseball, you win by scoring more runs than the opposition in 9 innings. In golf, you win by taking fewer strokes than anyone else. In war, you win by...er...um. :confused: How can you answer whether you want to win or lose something when it seems like no one knows what "winning" is? Do I want us to "win"? Yes, because that means less troops will be in harms way, but will there ever be a point when anyone knows whether we won or lost? I wonder if Bill O'Rielly defined "winning" before we went over there.Winning is establishing a self sufficient free government in Iraq that can handle the insurgents on their own. That wasn't too hard. :)

Chester_Lampwick

11-22-2006, 12:52 AM

Win? If I might analogize for a moment.

Iraq is a helpless victim being mugged by Saddam. America is the passerby who, witnessing this decides to stick up for the little guy and takes out Saddam. Then America leaves the poor soul alone in that bad neighborhood instead of calling the police (United Nations). So was this for America to win? Did America have anything at stake before they went in? No. Was it good that America stepped in? Yes. Should they have? Hmmm... maybe they shouldn't have taken the risk and went to the proper authorities.

Another item. If Bush comes from a family that owns oil wells, and his family was doing okay selling oil for $40 a barrel, they must surely be making money hand over fist selling oil for $70 a barrel after initiating a middle east war. To me that makes this war a shady deal. Conflict of interest? And it only cost the American taxpayer a couple billion dollars a week, and the lives of more than 3,000 soldiers, not including the ones who are just permanently injured.

Who do you see "winning"?

madscientist

11-22-2006, 01:06 AM

Winning is establishing a self sufficient free government in Iraq that can handle the insurgents on their own. That wasn't too hard. :)Then yes, I would like us to win. So what?

That's a stupid, loaded question with zero chance of getting useful information in response. As has been said here, anyone who asks this question is not genuinely interested in learning someone's opinion. They're just hoping people who have a more complex view of the world than black and white will stumble over that complexity enough that they can be portrayed as un-American or unpatriotic. It's your basic low-brow "gotcha" question.

Now, if they really wanted to have an interesting, useful, and insightful discussion they would ask this:

What are you willing to sacrifice to win in Iraq?

THAT is the only question worth asking (or answering). Funnily enough, I don't see too many pundits asking it. Or offering an opinion.

smak

11-22-2006, 04:40 AM

I decided to come clean and admit that Rosie and Dave hate America.

Also, every person who voted for a Democrat 2 weeks ago, and not a Republican also hates America and want the terrorists to win.

Plus, everybody eligible to vote, who didn't vote also hates America, because they had a chance to vote in all Republicans, and failed to vote.

So now we're looking at what, 150-175 million or so Americans that hate America?

I don't know about you, but i'm going to go learn Arabic right now, so i can, like the 175 million American's who hate America get ready to surrender to the terrorists.

-smak-

Redux

11-22-2006, 05:36 AM

Wrong. I'd bet a 1000 bucks that if they aired this show, it would have HUGE ratings.And you would have lost. Shows that do not have advertising are not rated, what would be the point?

Would millions of people have watched? Sure, but Fox would have lost a fortune.

Todd

11-22-2006, 07:10 AM

Chester_Lampwick

11-22-2006, 10:16 AM

But does O.J. want to win this war?

lew

11-22-2006, 10:45 AM

It's not government censorship but it's still censorship. The show was scheduled as per the normal programming decision making process that's used at FOX. Murdoch decided to cancel (censor) the show and book after the interview was scheduled and after the book was printed.

I don't think the interview or book was a good idea and I doubt I would have watched it. My guess is the show would have gotten good ratings. It wasn't the "will of the people" in general but rather the will of a vocal group of people who don't think it's enough to ignore a show they don't like but also want to prevent others from watching such shows. I have more than enough shows on my now playing list. It doesn't bother me if the shows on live TV don't interest me. The fact that I don't approve of a show doesn't mean that others shouldn't be able to view it.

Someone was already paid for the interview and book. OJ isn't going to profit any less just because the book was pulled.

People like Charles Manson have been interviewed on TV.

This isn't censorship at all. It's the will of the people being heard. Fox decided it was in their best interest not to air the interview. Be it a financial decision or that they thought their reputation would suffer, they saw that many of their viewers were unhappy with the decision to help OJ profit from his crime. They weren't ordered to pull the plug, they chose to do so because they had angered their customers. This isn't a free speech issue or a censorship issue. :rolleyes:

Rob Helmerichs

11-22-2006, 10:57 AM

HomieG

11-22-2006, 11:05 AM

But when it's the owner making the decision, it's self-censorship. That's different than real censorship, when the decision is forced upon you.

They make decisions like this every day, but we just don't hear about them. And personally I find that acceptable, as well as them deciding to no air (or sell) the OJ confession. There are still a lot of places in the world where that isn't even up to the business. Given the choice, I'd much rather have the option we have here in the US.

lew

11-22-2006, 11:24 AM

It's not every day that the normal programming decision process is reversed by the CEO. It's not every day that a vocal minority of viewers, who want to impose their standards on others, are able to convince a CEO to cancel a scheduled program. The decision not to make a book deal or schedule an interview is made every day. Barbara Walters said she turned down the opportunity to do the OJ interview.

I don't think Fox should have ever agreed to the interview but I don't like a program being cancelled because a vocal group of people object to the content.

They make decisions like this every day, but we just don't hear about them. And personally I find that acceptable, as well as them deciding to no air (or sell) the OJ confession. There are still a lot of places in the world where that isn't even up to the business. Given the choice, I'd much rather have the option we have here in the US.

HomieG

11-22-2006, 11:31 AM

It's not every day that the normal programming decision process is reversed by the CEO....

Acutally, due to my employment, I happen to know that this does happen frequently. Perhaps not every single day, but more often than you know. Defintely happens in the news and entertainment broadcasting business. In this case, yes they were vocal, but I am not so sure it was a vocal minority. But we'll never really know that for sure. Sometimes the networks guess right before the decision is made, sometimes they guess wrong.

I do agree with you on this premise...I am tired of people forcing their views on me because they don't like it. If they don't like it, that's fine, they don't have to watch it, listen to it, read it, etc. I didn't ask them to force me not to, nor do I appreciate them wanting to force me to do anything I want to, or not.

Zevida

11-22-2006, 12:23 PM

a vocal minority of viewers

I'm not sure why everyone keeps insiting that only a minority of people in the country were opposed to the interview. I think really, the vast majority of the country found the interview to be in extremely poor taste and very offensive. This wasn't some radical or reactionary minority group sending 100 letters to a station. This was a national outrage that swept the country. Fox found out that while the standards of American television can go pretty low, they can't go that low.

The only people who seem to be upset at the decision are not upset at the fact that they won't get to see the interview or book, but rather they are upset at the perceived censorship.

Todd

11-22-2006, 12:47 PM

I'm not sure why everyone keeps insiting that only a minority of people in the country were opposed to the interview. I think really, the vast majority of the country found the interview to be in extremely poor taste and very offensive. This wasn't some radical or reactionary minority group sending 100 letters to a station. This was a national outrage that swept the country. Fox found out that while the standards of American television can go pretty low, they can't go that low.

The only people who seem to be upset at the decision are not upset at the fact that they won't get to see the interview or book, but rather they are upset at the perceived censorship.
Bingo.

BTW, should the victim 's families not have a say in this too? No one ever seems to think about them....

getreal

11-22-2006, 01:04 PM

... should the victim 's families not have a say in this too? No one ever seems to think about them....
Well, in this specific case, the Goldman family were definitely heard.

And as far as O'Reilly's loaded "yes-or-no" question to Letterman, that was like asking "Do you beat your wife anymore? YES or NO? Don't elaborate, all I want is a YES or a NO."

BTW, how did we get so off track on a thread about OJ's book and interview to the feud between O'Reilly and Letterman about the war in Iraq? <--- Rhetorical question ... please do not answer. :D

Raimi

11-22-2006, 02:25 PM

I decided to come clean and admit that Rosie and Dave hate America.

Also, every person who voted for a Democrat 2 weeks ago, and not a Republican also hates America and want the terrorists to win...Acceptance is the first step to recovery. :)

...Then America leaves the poor soul alone in that bad neighborhood instead of calling the police (United Nations)...The United Nations are the police? They're more like the 12 year old that fantasizes about being a cop when he grows up but at the moment is completely incapable of doing anything to the bad guys. :rolleyes:

But does O.J. want to win this war?Finally we get to the real issue. :)

Wheens

11-22-2006, 08:43 PM

Boy! Am I glad I started this thread :D :D

daperlman

11-22-2006, 09:04 PM

And as far as O'Reilly's loaded "yes-or-no" question to Letterman, that was like asking "Do you beat your wife anymore? YES or NO? Don't elaborate, all I want is a YES or a NO."

I get your point you are saying that question implies guilt by comparing it to the beat your wife question... either you used to beat her or you used to and will continue to. And that is not the first time I heard that... how does
Do you beat your wife anymore? compare to Do you want the US to prevail in Iraq... isn't the Iraq question easy to say YES to? Wouldn't a loaded question be more like "Do you support the war in Iraq or do you want Terrorists to win"?

Redux

11-22-2006, 09:22 PM

Do you want the US to prevail in IraqI think we all do.

To prevail (at this point) would be to leave behind a strong enough Iraqi government to hold together the divisive factions, provide stability and a reasonable flow of oil, and keep terrorists from using Iraq as a base. IOW the situation prior to our invasion. Preferably under somebody with a little more suavity in disguising the ruthlessness of the leadership required of such a task, a Tito rather than a Saddam. Though if Saddam would be willing to take on the job on, I think we should at least give him an interview.

Todd

11-22-2006, 09:44 PM

Todd

11-22-2006, 09:47 PM

Boy! Am I glad I started this thread :D :D
Interesting how the subject takes all kinds of twists and turns around here sometimes isn't it? :D

Todd

11-22-2006, 09:49 PM

But does O.J. want to win this war?
OJ only cares about himself. :D

Chester_Lampwick

11-22-2006, 11:41 PM

All Letterman had to say was: "Of course I do". He could even expand on it, for example: "I truly hope that we can setup a democracy that can stand on it's own in Iraq and act as a stabilizing force in the region. Of course it's become very difficult to do this since so many factions in the region don't want this to happen, but we must try or best to make it happen." I don't know why so many people find it so hard to express that type of attitude. How do you think the troops feel when they are denigrated and told that we must leave before they finish their job? If that happens the terrorists and despots do win and their sacrifice was for nothing.

If you watched the Glen Beck show on radical Islam or terrorism this week you might have the idea that this is near impossible. Schools in the middle east teach kids from a very you age to hate Israel and America. They are in affect brainwashed. I doubt that you can undo several generations of this sort of conditioning in a couple years by rolling in the tanks and heavy armour. Only when the population is overtaken with the next generation of properly educated people would Iraq be "stable". Until then, Iraq needs to ruled with an iron fist.

Face it, this war has done more bad than good for America. It remains to be seen if will have been much good for Iraq.

Todd

11-23-2006, 07:47 AM

If you watched the Glen Beck show on radical Islam or terrorism this week you might have the idea that this is near impossible. Schools in the middle east teach kids from a very you age to hate Israel and America. They are in affect brainwashed. I doubt that you can undo several generations of this sort of conditioning in a couple years by rolling in the tanks and heavy armour. Only when the population is overtaken with the next generation of properly educated people would Iraq be "stable". Until then, Iraq needs to ruled with an iron fist.

Face it, this war has done more bad than good for America. It remains to be seen if will have been much good for Iraq.
I haven't seen his show, but I'm under no illusions that this may well be impossible. We went in with noble intentions over there but I decided a while back that it may well not have been worth it. We cannot accept all the blame though which many seem to want to put on us. There's plenty of blame to go around, most of which go to the Iraqi's themselves along with Iran and Syria. But I still hope and pray that we can pull something good out of all this. There are just quite a few in this country who won't even do that.

smak

11-23-2006, 02:30 PM

11/23/06: "Attack in Baghdad kills 160"

Happy Thanksgiving Iraq :(

-smak-

Raimi

11-24-2006, 01:01 PM

I think we all do.

To prevail (at this point) would be to leave behind a strong enough Iraqi government to hold together the divisive factions, provide stability and a reasonable flow of oil, and keep terrorists from using Iraq as a base. IOW the situation prior to our invasion. Preferably under somebody with a little more suavity in disguising the ruthlessness of the leadership required of such a task, a Tito rather than a Saddam. Though if Saddam would be willing to take on the job on, I think we should at least give him an interview.Saddam kills 150,000 Kurds in the Anfal campaign, gasses 5000 Kurds in Halabja and you're actually suggesting Iraq would be better off under another Saddam. I wonder if the Kurds would agree. :down: