Pardon my cynicism, but I think it's just marketing. One of the best ways to sell a book is to get someone, somewhere to ban it. Conversely, one of the better ways to ensure that people watch a TV program is to generate some controversy about it.
There is rarely any such thing as bad publicity.
Oh, I agree that all of this discussion is hyping the program. But my specific point was to note the apparent invisibility cloak that Rupert Murdoch is wearing through all of this. Why should his billions shield him from criticism for his willingness to immolate morality on the altar of ratings? It's pathetic.
Judith Regan did exactly the right thing. I will not read his book or watch the interview since I already know OJ is guilty but by doing this interview she exposes the hypocrisy of the 'law' and the lawyers and the court system to abort justice. The most culpable I believe is the female judge who gave his two children back to him to raise. What hope do those children have for happiness and normalcy.
I also know about people who seemingly are leaders in their profession and 'look good on the outside', even Christian but are so disfigured emotionally that under cover of their outward goodness, in secrecy try and often achieve doing great harm to others. All of this took courage on her part. She also points out that no one criticises those who interviewed the Menendez brothers, Castro, Manson, etc.
I think she should be thanked.
Cordio