Saturday, September 20, 2008

Spector Part Deux – Can We Get Coverage? Yup, Maybe!

I know many folks who avidly followed (ok, gave up their lives for six months) the Phil Spector trial only to be disappointed with the hung jury. The consolation was a retrial would take place. Well, now we know Part Deux will not be covered - yup, the media outlets have turned their backs on the audience. What they consider “old news” is important and of interest to a great many of us.

What we need to do is get our voices heard and very quickly!

There are two things we can do immediately:

One, go sign the petition for coverage of the trial – Petition

Secondly, it’s not as crazy as it sounds, but in speaking to some industry people, it is possible a production company will provide coverage on a pay-per-view basis. It ain’t cheap! The number of folks who would be willing to pay monthly for the coverage would determine the cost – could be $30 per month or with a larger group, could be as little as $15 per month – kinda like CourtTV, way back when.

This is strictly limited to the Spector trial. Leave a message here so we can gauge what kind of interest there is! We very well may be able to get this done, but your quick response will dictate what happens. We may have a source!

We have verification the TruTV will not cover the Spector trial!

Are you willing? It is imperative to leave a message here so we can gauge what kind of interest there is and get it put in motion!! The media folks are monitoring the responses here.

44 comments:

LinZbee said...

Count me in for pay-per-view, Sprockey! I am signing the petition, too.
Let's go, trial watchers - let's do all we can...and thanks for giving us the leadership we need on this Ms. S.!!!
Lindsey

jill said...

Count me in as well!! I read your posts though I haven't commented before...but this is a worthy cause!!
Jill

Anonymous said...

Hey Sprocket - me too - just signed the petition; but if that doesn't pan out - hopefully, at least you can get down there from time to time to keep us updated on this!!
Thanks again for ALL your updates on these different stories!

Niner

katfish said...

I signed the petition early on through a link on the Spector forum. I would be willing to pay, if necessary, to be able to see Spector round 2.
If there is anything else that needs done to help the cause let me know.

Sprocket said...

We really need your comments people! Please let us know if you are interested in paying to watch Spector 2.

Thank you!

CaliGirl9 said...

As much work as I didn't get done during Spector I, how could I NOT be there for Spector II?
Sometimes I just hate the media's agenda ... just because there's supposed to be "nothing new" doesn't mean the whole thing isn't newsworthy!

Anonymous said...

As much as it would be nice to watch, I am not willing to pay. Will pick up tidbits on mainstream media I guess. Thanks,,,

Liz said...

I'm happy to pay too (paid extra for a few months) - but make sure it can be seen outside the US, cause that is where I am. The CNN streams cannot currently be seen in my world

ritanita said...

Count me in. Just don't tell my husband! I've invested too much in this case to miss the second trial.

kayokat said...

Count me in as a YES.

kayokat said...

not sure if it took my comment. sorry if it double posts. Count me in as YES, most definitely would be willing to pay for Spector Part Deux.

Anonymous said...

Triple, Dipple, Flipple COUNT ME IN! I'd be more than willing to pay to see part 2! The first trial was absolutely amazing to watch - I learned so much about our legal system and along with everyone else,I was very, very disappointed it resulted in a mistrial. I have been on the edge of my seat waiting for the re-deux only to find out there isn't much media interest! SAY WHAT? No way! That can't possibly be! I think the 2nd trial will be as much or more riveting than the first! Attention MEDIA (if you are reading)! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE consider covering this trial on t.v. or th internet!
Kitty M.

Anonymous said...

Would be extremely difficult for me to pay right now. I was looking foward to watching spector part deux....
Sprocket, thanks for always keeping me up to date!Hope more than ever you continue!

Geralyn said...

I would absolutely pay to Spector 2.0. Count me in!

Anonymous said...

more than anything right now..so give up what? smoking...never did it. going to the hairdresser? nope, do not do that either...real beauty is on the inside anyway..right? will do it and gladly pay the money to see the second go round..best drama and court action on top of seeing justice carried out....real life...real emotions...MY MONEY IS ON THIS TRIAL...here take it...take my whole purse for goodness sake...just televise this dang trial!

Anonymous said...

Yes, I'd be willing to pay to see Spector 2. I just wish I could get a guarantee on a guilty verdict!

MB

Mary said...

I will gladly pay to see Spector II gavel to gavel on streaming video! It must really burn Spector to know that the media don't consider him important enough to cover! I hate to boost his ego, but I want to see this trial, hopefully with the appropriate outcome this time!

SeniorMoments

Sprocket said...

For those of you who are having trouble signing the petition, I had the same problem. I tried different browsers, nothing worked.

When I clicked on the box to sign as anonymous, it let me sign the petition. I then just put my hat name in the comment box and my support for trial coverage.

Hope that helps those of you who are having trouble signing the petition.

We also need your comments here, on T&T. The media group that T&T is in contact with will be reading your input as to whether or not you would be willing to pay to see the trial.

Anonymous said...

Count me in - been waiting and waiting and waiting . . . I'm sure there are a lot of us that read, but don't post.

Karen said...

Count me in. Already signed the petition.

Lets hope we can get someone to notice!

colleena said...

I'm willing to pay to see Spector get what's coming to him (hopefully). Justice for Lana!

Anonymous said...

Count me in too.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I would definitely pay to see the retrial of Spector. I can't wait to see what "aha" moment the defense will come up with this time. Even $30 a month is only a dollar a day. What value for your money!!!
Susan

Janice said...

Jumping on the "count me in" bandwagon.... Do you have any idea why "CourtTV" won't be covering?

Hate to admit I'm that addicted to this trial - but I truly want to see justice done for Lana's memory and her familie's piece of mind.

thanks for keeping us up to date -

janice

Janice said...

Dang.... checking the anonymous box didn't work for me.

I'll keep trying... thanks much Sprocket !!

janice

Sprocket said...

Janice,

The only other option I can think of, is to limit your comment to a few lines.

Joan Stroup said...

Absolutely, How could Court tv not cover this??? How stupid! What about Michael Bryant, The Legal Edge? why won't he cover it?
We gave up our lives for all those months to follow that trial, and certainly want to see the outcome of a second trial.
Count me in!
Joan

Anonymous said...

This isn't old news! I signed the petition and really want to see the second trial. How could I miss Punkin Pie?? :) ...Justice for Lana

Anonymous said...

Sprocket, could KTLA cover and stream the trial?

coinoutlet said...

You can count me in at either price!

Sprocket said...

Anony @ 8:26 AM

I guess what most people are not considering is the high cost of production to meet Judge Fidler's requirements for cameras in the courtroom.

The amount of money we were told it would take is . . . $30,000 a month.

That's just the basic cost. That doesn't include a profit.

Because the length of the trail is a big unknown, the mainstream media is not interested in putting out that expense for a trial that they generally feel is old news. So I'm sorry to say, I don't think KTLA will invest in this trial.

Anonymous said...

I would pay. If we can't have camera coverage I would accept live audio feed! That would at least be something. I can't imagine Spector's friends wouldn't want to watch it live. If they do I hope they will use their pull in the industry. (incase they read here!)

Anonymous said...

Pay-per-view is fine with me - there are so many of us who want to see this trial!

Anonymous said...

Count me in. I'm willing to pay to see this come to a right conclusion.

caryn said...

YES I have to watch AJ in action again!!! That's the only consolation prize for having that IDIOT jurer (and he knows who he is)hang on us.

Anonymous said...

I don't need to see the rerun of Spector. Once was enough!

Kathie Berry said...

Hi Sprocket & Donchais,
I would be happy to sign up. I've waited so long for the second trial, I can't imagine missing watching it. So hopefully we can get this going.
You are doing a great job here with Donchais and the contributors!

Kathlb

Nancy said...

I signed the petition. And I'm willing to pay to watch Phil 2.0 in anticipation of justice finally being served for a woman who simply made an error in judgment. An error that never justified murder.

It's too bad that our media doesn't want to foot this bill. I guess Phil isn't that popular after all. Just imagine if OJ had a second trial. Oh wait, he does, and it's being aired. And it's not even for those murders!

Thank you, Sprocket, for all you've done. Keep up the great work.

lmgavin@gmail.com said...

I absolutely would be willing to pay for Spector II. Been waiting since the day the jury voted "not guilty" on the first one. Thanks, Sprocket.

Suzi said...

Hi Sprocket. OK, maybe I just don't "get it", but cameras in the court should NOT be up to Judge Fidler and his "standards". It's about public access to the courts. Is there NO pool camera? I have a hard time understanding that, given the fact, in other states (especially MA) trials are available to the pubic via all types of telecommunications, no matter the "interest" in the case. Please advise.

Anakerie said...

Well, I signed the petition a few days ago and this morning added a post on my blog sending folks here and to the petition. I hope it does enough to get something going for televising the trial!

Sprocket said...

Hi SuziQ,

A judge gets to rule in his own courtroom. He is the one who gets to decide whether or not there will be cameras in his courtroom on a particular case. Cameras in a courtroom are not a given "right." I don't believe there have ever been cameras in a Federal Court. There might have, but it would be extremely rare.

Fidler believes the cameras are a distraction. That they cause more attention to be paid to the camera verses the testimony ~ and if I'm remembering correctly from last year, back at a pretrial hearing in February, 2007 when he first ruled on this ~ he feels it causes undue attention paid to the cameras by all parties: defense, prosecution, witnesses, etc.

This is why he requires they be small cameras, mounted on the wall above the jury box. The general public gets to see the trial, but they are not a huge camera in the middle of the gallery. They are small, out of the way and blend in.

When I first saw the boxes on the wall, I did not know what they were.

Fidler gets to decide who sits where in his court. During Spector, the court liaison's officers directed the public on where they were allowed to sit. In the Simpson case, there is an assigned seating chart for media and public.

I will also add that during Spector 1, Judge Fidler also ruled that laptops were allowed in the courtroom, however, those individuals on laptops were required to sit in the back row.

From my understanding, this was so the noise from their keyboards did not disturb the the other gallery members trying to hear the testimony or reporters taking notes in notebooks. Peter Y. Hong, Matthew K, Harriet Ryan, etc., all those reporters sat in the back row because they were on laptops. I clearly remember Linda Deutsch one day, before court had started, telling an obviously new reporter in the room who had sat in the third row behind her, typing away on a laptop, that she needed to move to the back row. The keyboard noise was distracting to her.

Some judges don't even allow phones inside their courtroom. Beth Karas told me that Judge Glass has ruled that phones are NOT allowed inside her courtroom for OJ Simpson's case. And, Federal court is like that, too. They were not allowed in the courtroom for the Anthony Pellicano case. The two times I went to Pellicano, I just left my phone in my car.

A pool camera. There usually was a pool photographer that changed every day or so. They were in the far back left of the courtroom, behind the 2 camera operators that were jammed behind a tiny console board, in the far left aisle, in line with the third bench row. Again, the court via the liaison's office determines where the photographers can sit/stand to take photographs.

Think about it. Who would pay for the pool camera? What organization would have the satellite trucks in the lot? Who would pay for the camera operators? There has to be a media interest to provide this, and we've been told there is no media interest.

The media organization that donchais is in contact with were gracious enough to investigate the possibility of covering this trial and the cost to do so. Believe it or not, they did this at her request. Their response to her was what we have already posted on the blog.

The media organization asked us to spread the word on the internet to gage the public response for "pay per view." And that's what T&T has tried to do.

Suzi said...

Thanks Sprocket for information. I understand that judges have wide latitude in what is allowed in their courtroom. Things vary even more on a state by state basis with Florida and Massachusetts being the most "camera friendly". It seems wrong (to me) to disallow cameras. Trials have long been "spectator sport" and keeping cameras out won't change that. Thanks for doing everything possible to maintain an open court policy.

Sprocket said...

You're welcome Suzi.

We were lucky in Spector 1 that Fidler allowed them. He just had restrictions on the type of camera, where they would be placed and what they could photograph. (No gallery members or jurors.)

Fidler is still allowing cameras for Spector 2, it's just that no media organization has approached him with a motion to do so. Even Fidler himself said, there was not as much media interest this time around.

This is the crux of the issue. No media group has stepped up to cover this trial.

If there are not enough people speaking up, stating that they are willing to pay to see the trial, then it's more than likely not going to happen. You'll have to rely on media groups that might or might not have a reporter filing regular reports on the trial, and/or writing a blog from the back row and reporting on the action.