TVSquad

How can you hypothetically kill someone who is dead?

--
dwacon
http://www.dwacon.com
http://dwacon.blogspot.com

Reply

I think you're getting the Fox Network and News Corp somehow confused into "Fox News Corp". Fox News *Channel* and the Fox Broadcast Network are both owned by News Corp, but Fox News had no part in this interview.

Reply

Riiight. They've just been talking about it on air every chance they get. And the NY Post (another News Corp. property) has spent a full week with this on its front pages. And hey, if everyone at Fox News is so outraged, why didn't Roger Ailes (who runs the Fox owned and operated stations now) cause a stink about it? He's in a position of influence at the company, surely he could have said something.

Call me a liberal conspiracy theorist; I don't give a damn. Something stinks to high heaven.

Reply

You're right, Sam, you are a bit paranoid. You also are correct on one thing, Roger Ailes could have stopped it, because he does run the Fox Broadcast side of things as well. However, neither one of those points has anything to do with the factual inaccuracy of combining "Fox" and "News Corp" into one singularly titled entity "Fox News Corp" which was not a part of the book or TV special.

If you're going to respond to my comment (I can only assume you were), please respond to my comment, and not use it as an excuse to vent your dissatisfaction with a news channel with which you obviously have personal problems.

Reply

How much money were we talking?

What if we have OJ interviewed by Michael Richards and move the show to the CW network?

--
dwacon
http://www.dwacon.com
http://dwacon.blogspot.com

Reply

"How can you hypothetically kill someone who is dead?"

Only if you did it.

And my favorite is that Bill O'Reilly claimed that he was the one to stop it. Really? Because your fucked up bosses are the ones that did it in the first place!

Reply

What a shady, crappy organization FOX is. They should all be ashamed.

Reply

FOX knew what it was doing. It played FOX News off its FOX broadcasting network, thinking that the controversy would generate ratings for both networks. But then its hush money scheme with Nicole Brown Simpson's family members didn't work out, and it realized it was in really hot water, so it canned the whole fiasco.

Remember: Roger Ailes is in positions of great authority in both FOX News and FOX Broadcasting. To say this isn't a conspiracy is to really be an ostrich with your head in the sand.

Reply

i saw a Fox News Channel anchor trying to separate "Fox News Channel" from "FOX (network)" yesterday when he was covering this story. wtf. the "News Corp." should be ashamed of themselves for the book deal and the interview, whoever involve in this should get fired from the job. what on earth were they thinking? a word for Fox: so the ratings suck this season, big deal. just wait for American Idol to return. no more controversial interviews about "hypothetical" murders.

Reply

I agree 100% with Mitch. Sliming Fox News with Fox Entertainment is pretty politically convenient. That's why we love all you liberals out there: confusing issues for partisan gain.

Anyhoo, stick to the facts here: what Fox was doing in soliciting OJ and offering hush money is reprehensible. They should fire whoever in Fox Entertainment who came up and green lighted this campaign.

Reply

The only reason OJ pulls these stunts is to raise the money to pay the families from the civil suit. Then the families object every time he attempts to "profit" from the murders. Let's keep in mind that OJ is broke and couldn't get a job at Burger King. The families would get the millions of dollars from the book sales.

Reply

OJ hasn't paid the families anything yet as a result of the civil suit. FOX paid the book deal money to a third party - not directly to OJ so he wouldn't have to pay it to the families.

Doesn't Rupert Murdock run the whole FOX machine?

Reply

What is important about this whole debacle is clear: Fox is owned by one man. All of Fox. And one man overrode news, entertainment, publishing and corporate to make one decision including trying to pay the Brown family off. The big loser in this whole thing is the so called independence of the press and corporations when they are owned by a larger concern. This is the end of freedom of the press. If Harper Collins wanted to put this book out, let it. If Fox wanted to air this mess, let them but to have the owner dictate this is wrong. That's why we're in a war in Iraq now. Corporate heads dictate what the public sees and what the public knows.

Reply

O.J. Simpson has a pension from the NFL of $300,000 a year, which is sheltered from any kind of attachment, even for civil court judgments (as in the Goldman family suit). He owns an expensive Florida home (similarly sheltered from civil attachments) and drives a Ferrari. We should all be so broke.

Reply

Rupert Murdock owns all of Fox, and there is no way he was not in on the ground floor of this abomination. That said, anyone who believes he pulled the book and interview because of public outrage is being fooled. Murdock pulled it because he couldn't make money on it. The advertisers wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole, and no one would have bought the book once the pertinent excerpts were posted. Trust me, if he could have made a fat profit from it, we would have been treated to the whole sorry package. For another viewpoint, read Charles Krauthammer's column in Time.

Reply

Surely FOX never imagined that publishing a book about the Simpson/Goldman murders written by the man who'd been accused of committing the murders would cause an uproar. SUUUURE...RIIIIIGHT! Talk about free publicity. Then they pull the book? Wonder how much they are going to have to pay OJ for that.
By the way, OJ is hardly "broke". He very wisely put all of his money and property in trust funds and pension funds which can never be touched by anyone.

Reply

I was dumbfounded when I hear about the whole thing. Why on earth would OJ do such a thing, I wondered? What would his and Nicole's children feel about this? How stupid is this man? The I though about the money angle. Perhaps he was trying to put some money into the hands of the families who suffered and continue to suffer so much. Still, too dark too sordid too disrespectful. I think the woman who promoted the book as OJs confession must have been expecting a very big payoff for all the transparent hype. Perhaps he doesn't even take the position that is hyped.... namely - if he did it. Maybe that was all promotional bull, I think. Then I see it is all pulled. The families have a right to be angry. It was very stupid of OJ to be led into this. WHat could he possibly gain from this? Perhaps the book and the interview were going to support his position that he did not do it. Perhaps it was going to support a position such as if he wanted to do such a thing he could have done it a number of ways which would have never even been linked to him in any way. Perhpas this was all put to him by a ghost writer or a promoter or the legal advisers he has as a way of getting some money to settle the ongoing legal battles. Maybe we will know some day, but I doubt it. If it had been named and promoted differently and it made clear the families would receive all the proceeds, maybe it would have been viewed differently by everyone.

Reply

I sad and sorry to for the loss of the two families loss of loved ones. But having such a strong hatred toward OJ isn't going to solve anything. OJ was tried and was found not guilty by a Jury of the USA. He was tried for a civil suit matter and was not so greatly lucky to have won so his judgement was to pay for the loss of the two famlies. So why can't we honor both jury decisions by leaving OJ alone due to respect for the first trial Jury and letting him work to pay the second trial decision. Personally everyone should remember the White Throne Judgement, God will get all evil doers at the end no one is going to get away with their evil acts. If OJ did it, only he and the victims know about it. And on the other hand if he didn't why continue to live like sad zombies while he just simply moved on to do whatever comes to mind to do. I think the Goldmans would have taken the money if they wasn't profitting off the murders themselves in other ways. The where no body's and now always in the publics view so please stop the hating it would kill you yourselves very softly and you can't try OJ for that! Let him work if he has a real human heart he'll also respect the US Jury's decision and pay up!

Reply

The people have spoken, and they said "We"re sick of Oj Simpson." We have all wasted enough time in the 90's on this sad piece of human garbage. When is the media going to finally stop trying to capitilize on the pain and suffering of victims of hideous crimes? Let Oj crawl back into the hole he came out of. If the attention goes away, maybe he will too.. The only book I will ever buy concerning him would be titled " Why I should be thrown into a wood chipper feet first" by OJ Simpson.

Reply

Murdoch did the right thing pulling this when he did, realising astutely that the big advertisers were getting cold. It's not important that there were two families out there being exploited for some cheap publicity, what really counts is that on a fundemental level the idea was not as they say 'a winner'. Yes, we can sit up all night debating how a man cleared of murder, in what was in my opinion, one of the fairest and least biased trials ever to have been conducted in America, can sit in front of a camera and speculate on how he might of done it if he had, er, done it. But at the end of the day it's just not that entertaining is it? I mean I can see how it might be entertaining to hear a seasoned sports pro commenting on how they might have played differently in a tournament or maybe a president commenting on what could of happened had a election turned out differently, but O.J Simpson? Please! What's next? Winnona Ryder, If I was going to steal some clothes, here's how. Or, Mike Tyson, I Didn't Rape Her, But If Was Going To, Here's How I Would Have Done It. Actually maybe not that last one. I mean cold-blooded murder is one thing, but rape, nobody wants to hear about that, do they?

Reply