From: Jasper
Date: 1/12/01
Time: 10:51:23 AM
Charlotte,
Remember Nadine?
She was the woman who called into the Coach McAdams show to say why she KNEW!!! that O.J. was guilty. I think you said something about her. I?m not sure if you were commenting on what she said or how he said it. I have to tell you that the connection I had wasn?t very good and I had to guess at some of what all of the callers were saying. But it didn?t take much to tell how hardened Nadine was in her view and how wrong she was about the evidence she relied on to form that view.
Correct me if I?m wrong?
Nadine was angry. She was outraged. Why? Because O.J. was seen wearing the killer?s clothes and coming across the lawn from the place where the glove was found. To her that was a fact that could not be denied and she simply was not going to listen to anything else. She said something about the "car" that was also supposed to be undeniable proof of O.J.?s guilt. I couldn?t hear everything she said but it sounding like she was taking about the Bronco. I thought she was referring to the way it was parked. She may have been talking about the blood near the handle or inside of it. Anyhow, she didn?t have the basic facts right because none of the evidence in, around or about it, proved anything incriminating. Nevertheless, her impression of the facts were so vivid and so strong that she was never going to listen to anything else. The only thing you could do by trying to address those impression was to make her angrier.
I run into people like Nadine a lot on talk shows. The idea that O.J. was seen in the killer?s clothes "jumping over the fence" or trying to sneak across the lawn is right near the top of the list with the "blood trail" and "his" Bruno Magli shoes. They have a list of "facts" like hers a mile long that "prove" to any honest, intelligent person that O.J. and O.J. alone must be the killer. They?re starting position is, "I?m right, you?re wrong, and that?s that."
I haven?t done enough talk shows where the station?s format is Country music to see a pattern there, but so far, they seem to be the most open-minded of anyone. I?ve had hosts who identify themselves as Conservatives who are just like Charlie or at least open to a reasonable argument to counter their beliefs. But, like I said in another post, if the station or the format of the show is "Conservative" you get a different sort of critter every time. "Liberal" shows are just as bad," only they insist on hearing about a huge racist conspiracies, but individual "Liberals" are individual. That probably explains my experience with Country music hosts. It wasn?t the format, it was the individual. It would be nice to get a better grip on that phenomenon. It?s interesting as hell, but I?ll be damned if I know what it means. -- Jasper