TELEVISION / HOWARD ROSENBERG : THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL : With Time to Fill and Little to Say, Reporters Stray From Neutrality

Out of order.

Clearer heads have to be appalled at this week’s goofy vote by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to ask Judge Lance A. Ito to bill the news media for costs of the O.J. Simpson trial, including jury sequestration, on the basis that they are earning a profit from their coverage of it.

Pay up or leave, right? Sure, and on the same grounds, why not charge the media each time they cover the supervisors? The money could be used to pay the supervisors’ salaries and expense allowances, saving the taxpayers a fortune.

Back on Earth, meanwhile . . .

Equally appalling is the spectacle of TV anchors and reporters--who are hardly disinterested parties in this matter--popping off in front of live cameras about the supervisors’ vote. Their antics on the airwaves affirm that nothing is scarier than newscasters verbally twiddling their thumbs on live TV during an unexpected delay in the Simpson trial.

Shouldn’t neutrality (on the surface, at least) be expected from journalists assigned to day-to-day reporting of stories, even from those brain-damaged by the surrealism of the Simpson craze? Shouldn’t commentary be separated from straight news? Or at the very least, shouldn’t it be left to--hold your hats-- commentators ?

Yet posted inside the Criminal Courts Building, KTTV-TV Channel 11 reporter Jane Wells opines off the top of her head so often during her station’s frequent live coverage that she’s about two inches shorter than she was when the Simpson trial began. So naturally, before Tuesday morning’s long-delayed court session, she weighed in on Supervisor Mike Antonovich’s contention that the media should be liable for expensive trial costs because they are making a bundle on their coverage.

“As for making bunches of money on this,” Wells declared from her usual hallway position, “I’d like to have him talk to our sales department. . . . This is not a moneymaking enterprise!”

It is supposed to be a journalistic enterprise, right? So Wells (whose trial reporting is sometimes very good) should take a few deep breaths, as Ito might advise, and report only the facts, keeping her opinions to herself.

Ditto for the KCBS-TV Channel 2 news staff.

Channel 2 has assembled an interesting mix of commentators as part of its Simpson trial coverage, none more worthy of an audience than civil rights writer and lecturer Earl Hutchinson. He wondered aloud Tuesday morning about Simpson coverage: “Does the media have any responsibility as to the kind of information that goes out over the airwaves? Is it skewing certain things?”

Nahhhhhh.

His perceptive co-commentator that morning, attorney Cynthia McClain-Hill, worried aloud about the things that the TV coverage focuses on “when you have a lot of air time” to fill.

Like a sage from Mt. Rushmore speaking in an echo chamber, anchor Bob Jimenez added stonily: “We do have to be very, very careful how we handle this tool that reaches millions and millions of people.” Ooooooh. Edward R. Murrow could not have said it better.

Yet earlier that morning, Jimenez himself had filled time during the trial delay by engaging in an ill-advised phone debate with Antonovich--obviously with the station management’s assent--regarding the supervisor’s advocacy of making the media pay for Simpson trial coverage.

“It sounds like you want to hold us hostage here,” the outraged Jimenez harrumphed, with co-anchor Tritia Toyota silent at his side. “We are a check and balance to the Constitution,” he later lectured the supervisor.

If only such stations had their own internal checks and balances.

Throughout the ‘90s, television’s line separating news and commentary (usually mislabeled as analysis) has gotten blurrier and blurrier. The “tag” on a reporter’s story, the profound ending message that’s supposed to linger in viewers’ minds, has evolved into a euphemism for opinion.

But on this occasion, there was no line to blur. It appeared, in fact, that Channel 2 was deploying Jimenez not only to fill time while waiting for the court session to begin, but also to lobby viewers on behalf of the station’s campaign for continued free coverage of the trial. While castigating Antonovich, Jimenez repeatedly glanced down to his right, as if reading something from his anchor desk. Yet whether he was being fed questions, relying on his own notes or ad-libbing, this sorry spectacle should not have occurred.

Unless, that is, Jimenez has replaced Bob Navarro as Channel 2’s editorialist and official spokesman.