This week's incident involving O.J. Simpson and a robbery is a bit surreal. When the story first broke, CNN displayed a large red headline saying "O.J. Simpson suspect in armed robbery." It's enough to keep anyone glued to the channel and create considerable buzz about the story.
Any story involving Simpson is too good to be true for the media, since Simpson's murder trial in 1995 redefined the concept of media spectacle.
It's also a bridge the media will never let him burn.
Simpson re-ignited the spectacle by nearly releasing a book called If I Did It, which would have described how he murdered ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ron Goldman -- if he had done it, of course. The concept is highly suspect, but no one can really be sure if he is guilty. Only a jury can decide that, and the message they left between the criminal trial (not guilty on all counts) and 1997 civil trial (guilty of wrongful death and battery) was mixed.
So this incident involving a Simpson's theft of his own memorabilia in Las Vegas had me wondering: does the media (and the consumer, as well) want to see Simpson guilty of something?