Oj Made In America

The film, O.J. Made in America, heavily focused its point of view on the racial aspects that influenced the trial (Edelman, 2016). Instead of painting Simpson as a possible murder suspect on trial for the death of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman, they depict him as a black man being framed for murder (Edelman, 2016). During the duration of the film, the subjects being interviewed used an inconceivable amount of crude and racially insensitive language. Racial epithets like the word, “nigger,” were spoken immensely throughout the film (Edelman, 2016). This language was used to fuel the racially charged nuances that covered the duration of the Simpson trial. The Los Angeles Police department and Detective Mark Fuhrman played a large

role in the racial undertones that haunted this trial. Consequently, this caused the villain in this film to not be O.J. Simpson, the man on trial for murder, but the Los Angeles Police Department and their tactics. In addition to the racial issues focused on during the film, most of the narration came from close friends of Simpson or people who worked for him. They would all refer to Simpson, Brown Simpson, and Goldman, by their nicknames (Edelman, 2016). The usage of informal speech when referring to the parties involved with the murder, creates a sense of familiarity for viewers. This allows those watching to feel closer to those included with the crime.
The BBC film, O.J. Simpson Untold Story, was densely concentrated on figuring out if there could have been other possible suspects that could have participated in the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman (BBC, 2000). The BBC documentary did not characterize Simpson as the murder suspect, nor did it vilify and outright deem him as the guilty party. The film mentioned other potential murder suspects, like Jason Simpson, Simpson’s son from his first marriage with Marguerite Whitley (BBC, 2000; In Touch Weekly, 2018). Jason Simpson was depicted as a short tempered, frustrated, and angry young man, who did not necessarily get along with his step-mother, Nicole Brown Simpson (BBC, 2000). The film further goes along with this theory that Jason Simpson could be the one responsible for the murder of his step-mother, by showing the cover of a tabloid magazine that states, “O.J.’s Son Tries to Kill His Own Girlfriend” (BBC, 2000). Instead of using fact-based evidence that can prove Simpson’s son tried to kill his girlfriend, the film gets information by word-of-mouth from friends of the parties involved. This is another way the media tries to twist the narrative to fit their modus operandi.
On June 14th, 1994, the Los Angeles Times printed an article titled, “O.J.

Simpson's Ex-Wife Found Stabbed to Death” (Malnic & Ferrell, 1994). This was published two days after Nicole Brown Simpson’s death. The Chicago Tribune in 1995, published an article titled, “Nicole Simpson's Grisly Death Described to Jury” (Seigel, 1995). These titles use very abrasive and candid language, most likely used to grab the reader's attention. Words like “stabbed, slash, slit, and grisly” are commonly used when discussing the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman (Seigel, 1995). Furthermore, in the Los Angeles Times newspaper headline, it does not say directly who the murder victims are. They state that O.J. Simpson’s ex-wife was found dead, but not who his ex-wife was. Not mentioning Nicole Brown Simpson’s name in the title seems commonplace for most news media accounts of the murder. The Los Angeles Times, People Magazine, CBS News, and other media outlets have all done so (Malnic & Ferrell, 1994; Baker, 2018; CBS News, 2018). Also, the title does not mention whether or not there were other victims of the crime, but later down in the article they clearly state, “the body of Ronald Lyle Goldman of the Agoura area was found a few feet away in shrubbery” (Malnic & Ferrell, 1994). The lack of fully disclosing who the victims are within the title is misleading. The title is revolved around O.J. Simpson, yet he was not the one that was murdered. It appears that the Los Angeles

Times used Simpson’s name to grab the public’s attention, rather than giving direct facts. Most news coverage of the case was centered on the celebrity of O.J. Simpson, rather than the deceased. Surprisingly, within the article, the authors use the entire first and last names of both victims. Typically, many new media outlets use nicknames or go by a first name basis when describing who the victims are. Almost to make it seem as though readers can feel closer to victims or people involved with the crime.
CNN, another news outlet, made a timeline of the case of O.J.

Simpson and also described the victims as being, “stabbed to death” (CNN Library, 2018). Within this article, CNN had also continued to refer to Nicole Brown Simpson as, “Simpson’s Ex-Wife” (CNN Library, 2018). When the media refers to Brown Simpson this way, it makes it appear as if she had no identity of her own, other than being someone’s ex-wife. Another misleading article is the Los Angeles Times article on Ronald Lyle Goldman, just days after his death. The headline reads, “Victim Thrived on Life in Fast Lane, His Friends Recall” (Mosk and Hall, 1994). When seeing this, readers see that Ronald Lyle Goldman is no longer “Ron,” as his family and close friends called him, but the victim. His identity as a human being is shattered, just like Brown Simpson’s was when continued to be labelled “ex-wife.” This article in the beginning paints a picture of how Goldman was an athletic, adventurous and happy-go-lucky young man. Mosk and Hall state, “He had model good looks, a body sculpted by daily weightlifting sessions and tennis, and a magnetic personality that friends said made them want to hang around him, just to see what he would be up to next” (Mosk and Hall, 1994, para. 2). The paper then quickly changes tones and mentions how he and Brown Simpson’s bodies were found dead outside of the Bundy Drive condo. When readers come upon this article, they would assume that they would be reading an article about the life

of Ronald Lyle Goldman, not another disturbing mention of how his slain body was pushed against a fence in front of Nicole Brown Simpson’s home.
Infamy runs rampant in people’s minds when mentioning the name O.J. Simpson and the debacle that was the TIME magazine cover. Business Insider has it listed as one of TIME magazine's most controversial covers alongside their 1939 article naming Hitler, “Man of the Year,” and the 1997 cover of Ellen DeGeneres coming out as gay (Choe, 2012). When glancing upon this magazine cover, readers can see that it is a snapshot of Simpson’s mugshot yet, that was not what caused the outrage from people across America. TIME magazine altered the image of Simpson mugshot to darken the corners of the image and his skin, giving Simpson an almost sinister-like look to him. The Simpson case was a highly publicized case that was charged with racial tensions between black and white people of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police Department. When TIME published this article, it could appear to people that the artist could have possibly darkened his skin on purpose to further ignite the media circus surrounding this trial. TIME magazine responded to the outcry by stating, “no racial implication was intended, by TIME or by the artist” (Bronx Documentary Center, 1994, para. 3). The New York Times did a follow up with TIME magazine’s editor, James R. Gaines, who responded to the backlash with, “To the extent that this caused offense to anyone, I obviously regret it” (Carmody, 1994, para. 5). When news media outlets decide to alter facts in order to pique interest in their viewership, it creates a false sense of reality for people trying to find the truth about facts of a case. This example is another way the media can negatively frame news to create controversy and hype. After the backlash of this magazine cover, TIME then later came out with an unedited version of Simpson’s mugshot, but the damage was already done. TIME painted Simpson out to be a villain, and already deemed him as guilty. When society presumes someone as guilty before they are allowed to prove themselves innocent in court of law, disputes sparks, and that is exactly what happened in the Simpson case. Many published articles surrounding this case were extremely biased and lacked the correct details to outright say whether or not Simpson was guilty. Media seems to always make it their job to be judge and jury, when it is not their place to do so.