Now, Let’s Bring On Our Legal Reporter

The O.J. Simpson case may not change the law, but it could, and should, expand the way it’s taught.

To wit: Lawyers on television.

As part of the media’s fixated coverage of the case--bigger, louder and more shrill even than for Michael Jackson and the Menendez brothers--numerous attorneys have been given the opportunity to amplify their careers and become stars by appearing regularly in front of the camera and advertising themselves in ways that even commercial-buying Larry Parker never envisioned.

Tapped by television stations and networks to serve as expert commentators, these locust swarms are being required to dissect every judicial aspect and microdot of the Simpson case, no matter how trivial.

Thus, you would think that the nation’s hipper law schools would begin offering specialized courses on communicating through media, in particular television, which has far outstripped the print press in utilizing attorneys as experts in sensational criminal cases. Some relevant course topics immediately come to mind:

* How to keep your bladder in check when you’re terrified either by the camera’s red light or by the stupidity of the journalist sitting beside you.

* How to be as pliable as Play-Doh in shaping your analysis to the preconceptions of your journalist colleagues.

* How to sound erudite while stating the obvious.

* How, when you’re stumped by a question, to reframe it in a way that appears to provide insight.

* How to articulate and explain a legal complexity and all its ramifications on live TV . . . in two sentences.

* How to correct a misstatement of law by an idiot anchor while appearing not to contradict that anchor or undermine his or her credibility as an authority figure.

* How to avoid appearing to be an idiot yourself, even if you are one.

All right, that’s a little cynical. The fact is that most of TV’s present cluster of legal adjuncts appear to be doing a capable job of explaining the Simpson case on the air. They’re brought out in force for live coverage of such events as Wednesday’s contentious pretrial hearing. And even though there is often nothing much for them to say, some of them have been saying it with conviction and authority.

Everyone has personal favorites. Among local television regulars, for example, Southwestern law professor Karen Smith merits praise for her measured, understated way of effectively conveying information on KABC-TV Channel 7--a station known more for bells and whistles than humility--without calling undue attention to herself. USC professor Erwin Chemerinsky has been extremely cogent. But Erwin--baby!--this is an electronic classroom. Get thee to a media coach fast.

When it comes to both presentation and content, though, no one locally tops Luke McKissick, the defense attorney serving as chief legal analyst for KTTV-TV Channel 11 since the onset of the Simpson case. McKissick is a natural, one of those rare finds for TV, someone who is effortlessly informative, lucid, incisive and even witty. As a bonus, he doesn’t appear to mind sharing time with the capable Andrea Ordin, a former U.S. attorney whom the station has paired him with of late.

*

Equally adept--though in a somewhat different category as a recent permanent addition to the KNBC-TV Channel 4 news staff--is former prosecutor Manuel Medrano, whose comments on the Simpson case are noteworthy for their precision. Combining brevity and clarity, Medrano explains complex legal points in ways that you would think lay viewers would understand. Hiring him as its legal specialist is one of Channel 4’s smartest personnel moves to date. If only stations recruited additional specialists or allowed reporters to give equal attention to other important beats as well. . . .

Unfortunately, Medrano has already learned firsthand what it’s like to be victimized by his own station, as Channel 4 careened out of control one morning while rushing to beat its competitors to a Simpson-related story.

It happened last Friday, when Channel 4 interrupted morning programming, breathlessly bursting onto the air with a bulletin giving the impression that Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito had agreed to media requests to view graphic photographs of the victims in the Simpson case.

Yanking on Medrano as if he were a yo-yo on the end of a string, Channel 4 rushed him on camera for instant analysis even before he knew what was happening. In fact, the confused-looking Medrano was so unprepared that he had to ask on camera whether the judge had ruled in the media’s favor. When told that Ito had, Medrano immediately proceeded to base his entire analysis on that information, saying that the judge’s ruling on the photographs was legally sound.

It was a definite scoop. No one else had the story.

Small detail: It was erroneous.

The story didn’t merit a bulletin in the first place. At the least, though, had Channel 4 taken the time to carefully read the judge’s entire opinion before zooming on to the air live because of competitive pressures, it would have learned that Ito had rejected media requests to view photos of the victims, and instead had granted them access only to other photographs of the crime scene.

Later that morning, as if its earlier report hadn’t existed, Channel 4 aired another bulletin that correctly stated the judge’s ruling. Not that it removed any egg from Medrano’s face.

Although Ito’s order called most news reporting of the Simpson case “factual,” he also noted “glaring examples of rank rumor and speculation, prurient sensationalism and outright fabrication that are the result of competitive commercial journalism.”

In Los Angeles? Nahhhhhh.