I am observing human interaction and behaviour in the continental United States of America. For the past month, the most popular news event has been the case of a Kobe Bryant. It has now been 'dubbed' the 'new Crime of the Century'. I ask why is the interest in this particular case so strong?
Maybe it is because Kobe Bryant is a popular athlete-celebrity? That cannot be the case. There are and have been other cases of popular athletes convicted of sexual assault that did not generate this much attention. A more popular star, Mike Tyson, was accused and convicted of rape and the case did not garner as much attention nor was it 'dubbed' Crime of the Century. Ok, so I move on.
Maybe it was because of shock value: Kobe Bryant has a 'clean image' and the accusation was such an acute contradiction to his carefully cultivated image that the reaction was immediate. Then I think, well if this is the case, then a similar pattern must have resulted previously. So I pick the most popular athlete of the last century: Muhammed Ali. I come up with nothing comparable. I pick the second: Michael Jordan. Wow, what coincidence! A basketball player. Surely if there is a pattern, it must exist here.
The comparisons between the two are uncanny: carefully cultivated images, great players, etc. Ok now the crime so accused...Not the same, but if shock value is what is in question, then let's consider: Michael Jordan was accused of extramarital affairs, one which resulted in a child out of wedlock. Surely such damage to the image of such a reputed and respected celebrity athlete will cause a stir. Not even close.
So I continue on and on and on...and I realize I must be missing something. But what? Then it hits me: the PREVIOUS crime of the Century. The double murder case of one Oriental James Simpson. A celebrity athlete who likewise had a cultivated image. What was so peculiar about that case? Oh yea, before the trial and facts, most already had opinions about the case. Why? Shock? No! What? Stop it! What? ...The victims were 'White' and OJ was 'Black'. And before the trial, the vast majority of Whites thought he was guilty whilst the majority of Blacks thought he was innocent. The media thus cultivated this polarity and reaped the rewards of more viewership.
Ok then the same pattern amongst the races must exist, and lo and behold, it does:
Blacks: Whites
66% innocent 38%
25% guilty 41%
http://www.msnbc.com/news/949835.asp?0cv=SB10&cp1=1
But why????
Maybe it is because Kobe Bryant is a popular athlete-celebrity? That cannot be the case. There are and have been other cases of popular athletes convicted of sexual assault that did not generate this much attention. A more popular star, Mike Tyson, was accused and convicted of rape and the case did not garner as much attention nor was it 'dubbed' Crime of the Century. Ok, so I move on.
Maybe it was because of shock value: Kobe Bryant has a 'clean image' and the accusation was such an acute contradiction to his carefully cultivated image that the reaction was immediate. Then I think, well if this is the case, then a similar pattern must have resulted previously. So I pick the most popular athlete of the last century: Muhammed Ali. I come up with nothing comparable. I pick the second: Michael Jordan. Wow, what coincidence! A basketball player. Surely if there is a pattern, it must exist here.
The comparisons between the two are uncanny: carefully cultivated images, great players, etc. Ok now the crime so accused...Not the same, but if shock value is what is in question, then let's consider: Michael Jordan was accused of extramarital affairs, one which resulted in a child out of wedlock. Surely such damage to the image of such a reputed and respected celebrity athlete will cause a stir. Not even close.
So I continue on and on and on...and I realize I must be missing something. But what? Then it hits me: the PREVIOUS crime of the Century. The double murder case of one Oriental James Simpson. A celebrity athlete who likewise had a cultivated image. What was so peculiar about that case? Oh yea, before the trial and facts, most already had opinions about the case. Why? Shock? No! What? Stop it! What? ...The victims were 'White' and OJ was 'Black'. And before the trial, the vast majority of Whites thought he was guilty whilst the majority of Blacks thought he was innocent. The media thus cultivated this polarity and reaped the rewards of more viewership.
Ok then the same pattern amongst the races must exist, and lo and behold, it does:
Blacks: Whites
66% innocent 38%
25% guilty 41%
http://www.msnbc.com/news/949835.asp?0cv=SB10&cp1=1
But why????