Well, I, for one, am glad that is over.
It is over, right?
Let's call it Depp v. Heard v. Everybody Else.
I am not even going to make reference to the verdict…the civil payout. I would be surprised if you didn't already know the outcome in detail.
The actual subject matter notwithstanding, this was a court proceeding of some importance. The presence of celebrities, sadly, is what put it front and center, but there still existed an aura of validity. I say that even if it didn't wind up on our screens and our phones because we wanted to air and explore our concerns about domestic issues.
It was attractive because it was a classic He said-She said involving people we see on TV and in the movies.
Not so much for me, mind you, as I cannot name anything Ms. Heard was in, and the last film I saw with Mr. Depp was Public Enemies.
No, really, this wasn't my crowd. If Tom Hanks or Jennifer Garner or James Earl Jones wind up on Court TV, I'm there with popcorn and the phone on silent.
These were famous names nonetheless who apparently weren't very nice to each other, and we all got to be voyeurs into what they say were public glimpses into their lives together.
This was no Senate confirmation hearing despite the wall-to-wall live coverage, the nightly recaps, and the lunchbreak talkbacks complete with online viewer Q&A sessions.
Yes, let's talk about it on TV and online as we dip our baguettes in our tomato soup.
Celebrity taint aside, this was still covering the serious topics of domestic violence and perhaps mental health. Still, the courtroom antics and analysis are often measured, like a Family Guy cut away.
Some coverage was exactly what we would expect, the Law and Crime Network doing what their brand infers and rightly so. It seems everyone got in on it, though. I saw the big names on Fox picking it up, the lower thirds referring to the Blockbuster Trial. Other outlets are pegging it, The Civil Trial of the Century.
The OJ trial it was not.
I do enjoy talking about chyrons and lower thirds, though, especially on the cable channels. They remain today's equivalent of the great New York Post headlines of the 1970s and 80s.
Even Hannity was getting in on it; now, that was more than many might have anticipated.
CNN's talkers even took time to analyze the media coverage. Brian Stetler called it "uncomfortable" at one point while addressing a panel that included a Washington Post journalist.
They, of course, were able to chase local coverage as the proceedings took place in their stomping grounds.
It is interesting, maybe even disconcerting, that the media itself can be talking about the media coverage of a story it is covering.
These are just quick grabs of what was going on at the same time the country was hit hard again twice with the most horrifying type of criminal acts against its people.
Moreover, I wasn't even watching with any regularity.
The social media trail was and remained a differing and widely distinctive animal. Peeking in, it becomes harder and harder to figure out where tabloid and elementary reporting separate.
There was still an accurate analysis of the actual proceedings, including the legal strategies and the often-broad lines of questioning by both sides. Still, just as quickly, a tirade or a radical jab at wardrobe and hair choices would burst through the screen.
Now to criticize the news and media coverage of all of this would really be nothing more than the equivalent of shouting while pointing at ourselves in the mirror.
This type of news reporting wouldn't be offered if there were not a market and a desire for it. For some, it's a legitimate need to know, and for others, the justifiable feeding of a guilty pleasure.
Wrong?
No, I don't think so.
It may be easy to ridicule and poke fun at, sure. SNL took a crack at it, as did the late nights. So it's really okay to care and just as okay not to.
Of course, the umbrella concerns of family violence and abuse did get some attention, perhaps not the best kind, but then again, raising awareness of social issues is rarely a clean process.
There is often an unpleasant, even tragic, overture to snap us out of our trance.
Perhaps the American media loses yet another shred of dignity this time, but it is a loss we can afford as the job at hand was still being done.
Johnny Depp didn't bother keeping a straight face...must we?
Until the appeal process begins, at least.
No comments:
Post a Comment