[CreepingDeth]

Why is it that the media just grabs onto court cases in the way they do? I can almost understand why they obsess over the Lindbergh, OJ, Kobe, etc. cases that involve celebrities. Almost.

But that's a different story. Why do they pick out one case, such as Scott Peterson's, instead of maybe half a dozen cases with worse circumstances? What made this case so bloody special? Really though, did it fit some sort of criteria? Do they pick these things out to distract from news cases? Do they portray group x as evil? Is it filler? Why do they do this?

Example: Remember that guy who shot 6 guys in Wisconsin? He was trespassing, he turned at started shooting, another guy shot and missed, he killed all of them, including some who were hiding, and even a 22 year old woman. There was one gun.
Now, why is that not a story? 6 people shot for nothing, and to top it off, they were all of a different race. Hate crime? I don't know. But it has gotten little attention, unlike the Peterson case that got a mention ever hour on the news channels.

[strictlyplaid]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
Why is it that the media just grabs onto court cases in the way they do?

Just an (unsubstantiated) theory, but usually it seems like they're looking for a compelling story. Senseless violence with a clear perpetrator doesn't sell papers as well as a picture-perfect all-american white-bread marriage with a secret love triangle that ends in a mysterious murder where the hunky antagonist may-or-may-not have killed his bride and unborn child. If it makes a good book, it will probably make a good news story too. And once one major news organization latches on, there's usually a competitive snowball effect (and then lingering follow-on coverage.)

Alack for we university types, that we're stuck teaching boring details of the good life, how an economy works, or the structure of the human hand.