This latest OJ episode raises questions having nothing to do with his guilt or innocence or even about him. As I understand it, he’s being paid more than $3 million for a ghostwritten book and TV special to deny that he killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. The hook is his less-than-tasteful instruction manual explaining that ‘if I did kill them, here’s how I’d do it’. I believe he’s the killer and I don’t want to hear anything he has to say. He shows us that while we sometimes wrongly punishes innocent people, we also allow guilty people to be free.

I don’t care about Simpson, but I do wonder about the treatment he’s receiving from News Corporation. The book, TV special and protests all heavily involve News Corporation subsidiaries. Those subsidiaries are HarperCollins, Fox Entertainment and Fox News. First, I’ll make a disclaimer that I watch Fox News and Bill O’Reilly almost every day. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don’t. Usually though, he’s interesting. He also gets great ratings. That's only important because great ratings and a large audience allow him to influence public opinion.

Anyway, since the story broke earlier this week, he’s been urging viewers not to watch the upcoming special on Fox Entertainment and is calling for a boycott of advertisers. Some applaud his courage for standing up to his ultimate employer, Rupert Murdoch, while others say that if he’s as angry as he purports, he should be principled and resign. His doubters suggest that if he stays with Fox, he's part of an elaborate ratings stunt.

He first response to doubters was that that his employer, Fox News, is totally unrelated to Fox Entertainment and has nothing to do with the Simpson special. By Friday he was saying that Fox News and Entertainment are separate subsidiaries of News Corp., and one has no influence with the other. He added that he's independent enough to condemn Fox Entertainment’s plans if they merit condemnation. Throughout the week, his response has been consistent in two respects: first of all, nothing would be gained if he resigned; and secondly, those who suggest otherwise are “Kool-Aid” drinkers who display their ignorance by making the suggestion.

O’Reilly is the the highest rated talking head in cable news. A detractor could point out that he could easily find another spot in the cable universe and even earn respect by submitting his principled resignation to Fox. A supporter on the other hand, would say as he suggests, that he’s showing independence and principle by standing up to the parent company of Fox news and Fox Entertainment.

Like everything famous and otherwise, all the parties to this story will someday fade into oblivion. But they’re yet another chapter in a seemingly endless debate about the media’s role in reporting news versus making it. What do you think? Is Bill O’Reilly really upset about this and willing to let the chips fall where they may or is his indignation simply part of a ratings and sales gimmick?

www.xomba.com/xombyte/thewonderer