Why are we still talking about O.J. Simpson?

By ANITA CREAMER
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
The victims' families are outraged. Bloggers and broadcasters are furious, too.

But isn't O.J. Simpson at least half a decade too late for the public to particularly care what he has to say?

In a considerable achievement for our age, poor taste plunged to new depths last week with the announcement that in "If I Did It," a planned book and TV special, Simpson describes how he would have orchestrated the vicious slashing deaths of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman in June 1994.

After a firestorm of criticism _ and after several Fox affiliates said they would not run the special, planned for Nov. 27 and 29 _ News Corp. announced Monday that it has changed its mind and canceled "If I Did It."

Better judgment prevailed, but not from Simpson.

His book's original title, "If I Did It, Here's How It Happened," was as coy as it was ungrammatical, the confused tenses sounding more than a little confessional.

Trying to fan the flames of publicity, his publisher, Judith Regan, even told reporters at the National Book Awards ceremony that she doesn't consider the book fiction.

Call it what you will, the point is the same: Simpson and Regan were trying to wring a profit from the last ounces of sensationalism remaining in the case.

Aren't we over O.J. yet?

He was once a flashpoint for the nation's polarized views on race, wealth and celebrity. But by now, people's opinions about Simpson are engraved in stone. We've long since reached the era of O.J. fatigue.

The drama began to grow tired after the criminal trial with its jillions of hours of expert commentary and wall-to-wall coverage _ and after the civil trial, with its verdict that coincided with the 1997 State of the Union speech, causing the major networks to split-screen their hearts out while trying to decide whether O.J. Simpson or President Bill Clinton was more worthy of coverage.

Once, diehard Simpson junkies could argue for hours about case arcana _ the bloody glove, the barking dog, the slow-motion freeway chase, Kato Kaelin and his unkempt hair.

But the thrill is long gone.

In our continuing need to tune in to the reality show of other people's tragedies, a host of other real-life murder mysteries has taken the place of the Simpson case, including the heavily sensationalized deaths of JonBenet Ramsey, Chandra Levy and Laci Peterson.

And a new century has brought its own set of problems, as well.

Today, the Simpson case seems stunningly unimportant in comparison with what's going on in the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan or in the killing fields of Darfur.

Or to put it more bluntly, without a new hook _ new evidence or an outright confession _ we long ago heard all we need to from O.J. Simpson.

Hypotheticals just don't cut it.

It's tempting to suggest here that it's vulgar to use two vicious murders, including that of his children's mother, as a career move. But Simpson is hardly alone in that, considering the cottage industry of broadcasters, authors and legal experts who made their names off the case in the 1990s.

Even so, it's not surprising that Denise Brown and Fred Goldman issued statements condemning this new attempt at commercialization of the murders, while executives at Fox, never a bastion of class or taste, were busy congratulating themselves on a potential ratings bonanza before Monday's announcement.

The nation long ago decided to let Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman rest in peace.

How interesting that O.J. Simpson didn't want to allow that yet. Feel free to fill in your own hypothesis here.

(Contact Anita Creamer at acreamer(at)sacbee.com)