Transcript
January 2, 2004
BOB GARFIELD: This is On the Media. I'm Bob Garfield.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: And I'm Brooke Gladstone. The year's final Nielsen ratings are in, and for the second year in a row, commercial cable networks bested their broadcast counterparts, and once again, Court TV reaped the benefits of America's migration from free TV. Propelled by the high octane trials and tribulations of Martha Steward, Scott Peterson, Robert Blake, Phil Spector, Kobe Bryant and Michael Jackson, the channel posted a 13 percent boost in its primetime ratings over the previous year. Catherine Crier is host of the daily Court TV series Catherine Crier Live, and she joins me now. Catherine, welcome to OTM.
CATHERINE CRIER: Thank you very much.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: What would you say are the common threads among the stories that I just mentioned?
CATHERINE CRIER: Public interest. Because, as you said, some are celebrities. Scott Peterson became a celebrity. Now there are some, such as Martha Stewart, that really have interesting political nuance, and we're able to talk about that. It's much more than Martha Stewart, homemaker, but it's -- you know, what is insider trading? What sort of access does someone like Martha have that we don't? We then saw the, the investigation by Elliot Spitzer and others move beyond just insider trading to the mutual funds and a major examination of the financial industry in this country, I think all for the better.
BROOKE GLADSTONE:So a story like Martha Stewart gives you the opportunity to explore a range of important issues, all wrapped up in a beautifully salacious celebrity package, and I guess one could say that the Kobe Bryant trial brings up very interesting issues of what constitutes rape and sexual harassment, and perhaps Michael Jackson brings up child welfare issues. It's hard to know, however, how Scott Peterson's, Robert Blake's or Phil Spector's story, for example, could advance the cause of human understanding.
CATHERINE CRIER: Well, it may not advance the cause of human understanding other than examining the psychology of individuals who, who may or may not have participated in this case. One of the reason's Scott Peterson case is so fascinating is people look at this beautiful young woman on the verge of giving birth to the first son of this couple, and a handsome young man, Scott Peterson, and think to themselves "If he's guilty, how in the world could he have done this?" And so there is, I think, a, a psychological fascination and maybe even personal examination when we get into looking at some of these stories.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Could you give me a preview of the big legal stories of 2004?
CATHERINE CRIER:Obviously Michael Jackson. Obviously the trial of Scott Peterson, Robert Blake, Kobe Bryant -- but from a personal point of view, I'm fascinated with the whole war on terrorism, the trial of, of these cases; what's happening in Guantanamo Bay; Saddam Hussein, the Patriot Act and further legislation that the Justice Department and, and the attorney general wants to see passed in this country.
BROOKE GLADSTONE:On your show, you've already begun to look at the arrest of Saddam Hussein from a number of legal perspectives. To what extent will your show and Court TV in general cover the trial itself? If it took place, say, in the Hague, there wouldn't be any cameras there. But if it takes place in Iraq, all bets are off.
CATHERINE CRIER: Well, there, there may actually be exposure wherever the case occurs, and of course we'll be there in some form or fashion -- whatever the powers that be allow -- but this is a very important issue. The United States has, has chosen in certain ways to limit its participation in international criminal courts. Is it going to try and support a court in Iraq? Are we going to push for the death penalty in a country where at least as of today there is no legitimate death penalty under their new laws? All sorts of, of interesting international but also criminal justice issues.
BROOKE GLADSTONE:What about the ethics of it all? What about the victims and the accused? Can people truly get a fair trial under the glare of the media spotlight?
CATHERINE CRIER: It's an interesting question, and I went back and did some research, going back literally to the turn of the century and examining high profile cases that at first received a lot of newspaper coverage, then radio and finally when television injected itself, and I realized that the number of acquittals versus convictions were pretty consistent -- they were pretty evenly balanced, no matter what the, the public and the newspapers and the press were saying at the time. There are a couple of good examples. The McMartin case was that child care case in the late '80s. People were marching up and down the streets with banners saying "We Believe the Children." They were acquitted of all counts but one that was deadlocked, and basically that was discharged.
BROOKE GLADSTONE:But the McMartin trial was a long time ago. Don't you think that with the increasing interest and the increasing popularity of Court TV and of court coverage in general that it's harder and harder to find a jury pool that hasn't been tainted.
CATHERINE CRIER: Well, I'll, I'll throw out the O.J. case, but I've said it in public many times -- Heavens, I thought O.J. was guilty, but that's another story. Robert Durst is a new interesting case. This was in Galveston, Texas of all places, known for being very hardline. Well, Galveston jury acquitted this man who admitted on the stand to killing another man. They bought the story that it was self-defense. I don't know that I agreed, but this case was covered in the news, covered on Court TV -- ample information believing this man to be guilty, and yet a jury of 12 acquitted him.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: What do you think is going to be the biggest story of next year, Catherine, for your program?
CATHERINE CRIER: Oh, if I, if I were to guess early in this year, probably Michael Jackson, if this thing actually goes to trial.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: And do you think it'll ultimately really be worth all that screen time?
CATHERINE CRIER:Oh, now that's the sort of esoteric question that I ask myself every day working in television. I don't know that that's the case, at all. Worth the screen time? No. But that's why I write books now [LAUGHS] and spend a lot of time reading, because I think there are other things we should do with our time than, than watch television. But it will be a fascinating case, and a good look at the criminal justice system.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Okay. Catherine, thank you very much.
CATHERINE CRIER: You're welcome, Brooke. Take care.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Catherine Crier is the host of Court TV's daily series Catherine Crier Live.
copyright 2003 WNYC Radio
BOB GARFIELD: This is On the Media. I'm Bob Garfield.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: And I'm Brooke Gladstone. The year's final Nielsen ratings are in, and for the second year in a row, commercial cable networks bested their broadcast counterparts, and once again, Court TV reaped the benefits of America's migration from free TV. Propelled by the high octane trials and tribulations of Martha Steward, Scott Peterson, Robert Blake, Phil Spector, Kobe Bryant and Michael Jackson, the channel posted a 13 percent boost in its primetime ratings over the previous year. Catherine Crier is host of the daily Court TV series Catherine Crier Live, and she joins me now. Catherine, welcome to OTM.
CATHERINE CRIER: Thank you very much.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: What would you say are the common threads among the stories that I just mentioned?
CATHERINE CRIER: Public interest. Because, as you said, some are celebrities. Scott Peterson became a celebrity. Now there are some, such as Martha Stewart, that really have interesting political nuance, and we're able to talk about that. It's much more than Martha Stewart, homemaker, but it's -- you know, what is insider trading? What sort of access does someone like Martha have that we don't? We then saw the, the investigation by Elliot Spitzer and others move beyond just insider trading to the mutual funds and a major examination of the financial industry in this country, I think all for the better.
BROOKE GLADSTONE:So a story like Martha Stewart gives you the opportunity to explore a range of important issues, all wrapped up in a beautifully salacious celebrity package, and I guess one could say that the Kobe Bryant trial brings up very interesting issues of what constitutes rape and sexual harassment, and perhaps Michael Jackson brings up child welfare issues. It's hard to know, however, how Scott Peterson's, Robert Blake's or Phil Spector's story, for example, could advance the cause of human understanding.
CATHERINE CRIER: Well, it may not advance the cause of human understanding other than examining the psychology of individuals who, who may or may not have participated in this case. One of the reason's Scott Peterson case is so fascinating is people look at this beautiful young woman on the verge of giving birth to the first son of this couple, and a handsome young man, Scott Peterson, and think to themselves "If he's guilty, how in the world could he have done this?" And so there is, I think, a, a psychological fascination and maybe even personal examination when we get into looking at some of these stories.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Could you give me a preview of the big legal stories of 2004?
CATHERINE CRIER:Obviously Michael Jackson. Obviously the trial of Scott Peterson, Robert Blake, Kobe Bryant -- but from a personal point of view, I'm fascinated with the whole war on terrorism, the trial of, of these cases; what's happening in Guantanamo Bay; Saddam Hussein, the Patriot Act and further legislation that the Justice Department and, and the attorney general wants to see passed in this country.
BROOKE GLADSTONE:On your show, you've already begun to look at the arrest of Saddam Hussein from a number of legal perspectives. To what extent will your show and Court TV in general cover the trial itself? If it took place, say, in the Hague, there wouldn't be any cameras there. But if it takes place in Iraq, all bets are off.
CATHERINE CRIER: Well, there, there may actually be exposure wherever the case occurs, and of course we'll be there in some form or fashion -- whatever the powers that be allow -- but this is a very important issue. The United States has, has chosen in certain ways to limit its participation in international criminal courts. Is it going to try and support a court in Iraq? Are we going to push for the death penalty in a country where at least as of today there is no legitimate death penalty under their new laws? All sorts of, of interesting international but also criminal justice issues.
BROOKE GLADSTONE:What about the ethics of it all? What about the victims and the accused? Can people truly get a fair trial under the glare of the media spotlight?
CATHERINE CRIER: It's an interesting question, and I went back and did some research, going back literally to the turn of the century and examining high profile cases that at first received a lot of newspaper coverage, then radio and finally when television injected itself, and I realized that the number of acquittals versus convictions were pretty consistent -- they were pretty evenly balanced, no matter what the, the public and the newspapers and the press were saying at the time. There are a couple of good examples. The McMartin case was that child care case in the late '80s. People were marching up and down the streets with banners saying "We Believe the Children." They were acquitted of all counts but one that was deadlocked, and basically that was discharged.
BROOKE GLADSTONE:But the McMartin trial was a long time ago. Don't you think that with the increasing interest and the increasing popularity of Court TV and of court coverage in general that it's harder and harder to find a jury pool that hasn't been tainted.
CATHERINE CRIER: Well, I'll, I'll throw out the O.J. case, but I've said it in public many times -- Heavens, I thought O.J. was guilty, but that's another story. Robert Durst is a new interesting case. This was in Galveston, Texas of all places, known for being very hardline. Well, Galveston jury acquitted this man who admitted on the stand to killing another man. They bought the story that it was self-defense. I don't know that I agreed, but this case was covered in the news, covered on Court TV -- ample information believing this man to be guilty, and yet a jury of 12 acquitted him.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: What do you think is going to be the biggest story of next year, Catherine, for your program?
CATHERINE CRIER: Oh, if I, if I were to guess early in this year, probably Michael Jackson, if this thing actually goes to trial.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: And do you think it'll ultimately really be worth all that screen time?
CATHERINE CRIER:Oh, now that's the sort of esoteric question that I ask myself every day working in television. I don't know that that's the case, at all. Worth the screen time? No. But that's why I write books now [LAUGHS] and spend a lot of time reading, because I think there are other things we should do with our time than, than watch television. But it will be a fascinating case, and a good look at the criminal justice system.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Okay. Catherine, thank you very much.
CATHERINE CRIER: You're welcome, Brooke. Take care.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Catherine Crier is the host of Court TV's daily series Catherine Crier Live.
copyright 2003 WNYC Radio