The Importance of the Scott Peterson Trial

There is plenty of potential commentary about the verdict in the Scott Peterson case in which he was accused of killing his wife and their unborn child (aka a sack of cells). But instead I’d like to ask the following to check our collective awareness:

1. What was the verdict in the Scott Peterson trial?

2. How many United States Marines died or were captured in Fallujah today?

If you cannot answer number 2, then please do not try to convince me that I should give two shits about the answer to number 1.

Link Pandering: Please take a look at (and link to) my own site, Professor Chaos, for more insightful commentary like this …


FILED UNDER: Entertainment, Law and the Courts, Popular Culture,
Leopold Stotch
About Leopold Stotch
“Dr. Leopold Stotch” was the pseudonym of political science professor then at a major research university inside the beltway. He has a PhD in International Relations. He contributed 165 pieces to OTB between November 2004 and February 2006.


  1. B52vet says:

    Amen. The attention paid to such sensationalized nonsense by the media and a certain element of society says something about human psychology and our collective sense of proportion, and what it says isn’t good. There are murders every day somewhere in the US, by why don’t they get the same level of media attention? Because they don’t fit the profile the media ghouls know will bring big ratings, and hence big $$$. Judging by what the media choose to sensationalize, you’d think no men or non-young, white females ever get murdered. Simply put, the media use the deaths of those who fit the profile for profit, and those who tune in share the blame.

  2. keith taylor says:

    Those who tune in don’t share the blame. They take 100% of it. Given the choice of showing endless Simpsons reruns or endless documentaries, they’ll always choose the Simpsons, because the public will always tune in. The media will always show what we want to watch, just as a Kellogs will always produce more Coco Pops than low fat bran crap. We demand sugar and sensational trials, and you can’t blame them for giving it to us. We’re the ghouls, not them.

  3. B52vet says:

    By the same token, people can’t eat what Kelloggs (or someone) doesn’t produce, and people can’t watch what TV doesn’t show. It takes both sides to tango. It’s tabloid journalism, pure and simple. Now that this one is winding down, and once the post mortem mercifully grinds to a halt, the networks will have to dredge up another one. Twenty four hours a day, seven days a week is a lot of air time to fill, and there just isn’t enough legitimate news to go around.

  4. J. Leeward says:

    Ok guys, we all admit that the coverage of this trial might have gotten a little out of hand, or did it? Yes, soldiers did die today, but how many unborn children died today without the 2nd degree murder tagged to the mother? Yes, some might see this as some sort of sick reality tv “Law and Order,” or perhaps most people don’t even know the difference anymore, but the fact of the matter is, this was huge. People might not see that now because of all of the hype, but what is stopping other people coming forward demanding 2nd degree murder for those children aborted? Baby steps, baby steps.

  5. sgtfluffy says:

    here here, The Peterson Trial shows how the media loves to take the attention from the important things in our lives.

  6. political says:

    Exactly. The only reason why the Peterson case made the news is because it involved a pretty girl.

  7. JW says:

    “AKA a sack of cells”?!?!?!

    I haven’t watched the trial at all closely, but I remember that Laci Peterson’s baby was a gestational age of about seven months–old enough to survive quite nicely outside the womb with minimal medical care. At least evidence a passing familiarity with stories that you plan to blog on.

  8. Attila Girl says:

    Oh, JW. JW. At the top of your game, aren’t you?

  9. JW says:

    Sorry if I sounded too snippy, Attlia Girl. I’m carrying a baby at the same gestational age and for “a sack of cells”, it kicks very vigorously. The terminology is what got to me.

  10. JW: I think we’re all on the same page here. I was being facetious, mocking those who would say that at seven months that a baby isn’t yet a baby.

  11. JW says:

    Sorry for the overreaction then, Professor. I am a bit touchy on all topics of pregnancy because we have had a scare along the way with the prospect of losing this one. I promise not to comment again while hormonally challenged. 🙂