The Pitfalls of Shapiro’s Switch to Trial Analyst

I’ve been hanging out with a new colleague, Robert L. Shapiro, who defended O.J. Simpson on murder charges and is now analyzing the O.J. civil trial for CBS.

As a cub reporter, Bob has a little learning ahead of him. For example, take the look. Most male reporters affect a sloppy version of Ted Danson, who plays a columnist on the TV show “Ink.” Shapiro dresses like a top-of-the-line movie agent--Barney’s but more expensive, a look that goes with his red Porsche convertible.

Shapiro is also used to demanding and receiving better treatment than the other journalists at the Santa Monica courthouse. On Tuesday, those without assigned seats couldn’t get into the courtroom to hear the much-awaited testimony of Brian “Kato” Kaelin. Shapiro, also without a seat assignment, cruised right up to the front and settled into a place given to him by a member of the new Simpson legal team.

But the biggest difference between him and us is this: We reported on the Simpson criminal trial. Shapiro was there in another capacity--defending Simpson. And now he’s a network analyst, offering his own slant, which has a potential for conflict of interest and for misleading the public.

*

The pitfalls were apparent Monday on Shapiro’s first day on the job.

During the morning session, I happened to be assigned a seat next to him in the press section.

Shapiro didn’t take many notes, but that’s understandable. Too many quotes ruin a good analysis. He listened carefully and exchanged whispered comments with the regulars.

As a vet, I felt a certain obligation to help the novice. But what happened during the noon recess turned out to be completely outside my experience. Reporter Shapiro was ambushed by another reporter--one employed by his own company.

The reporter was Harvey Levin of KCBS Channel 2, which is owned by Shapiro’s CBS employers. Levin had gone on the air the night before with a story that Shapiro, while defending Simpson, had failed to present to the jury a post-murder picture of Simpson with a bruise on his left arm. The picture had been obtained by reporter Michelle Caruso of the New York Daily News.

Levin, hoping to get Shapiro’s comments for a follow-up, cornered him outside the courthouse. He shoved a microphone into Shapiro’s face and demanded an answer. Now.

A real reporter, toughened by years of abuse from news sources, bosses and the public, would have driven Levin away with a torrent of profanity. Shapiro tried to soft-soap him.

“I’m going to be doing what you’re doing,” he told Levin. In other words, he was saving his comment for his own broadcast. Levin would have none of this excuse. “I want to talk about the criminal trial,” he said.

No, said Shapiro. “My role as a lawyer is finished. I’m here as a legal analyst. I will be giving my reports later.”

On Tuesday morning, I turned on the CBS morning show for Shapiro’s first appearance as a newscaster.

But basically all he told his audience was that “the defining moment for O.J. will be when he testifies” later this week. We never did hear about the picture Levin had broadcast the night before. Journalist Shapiro couldn’t be straight with his viewers.

*

The questions raised by Shapiro’s performance, and his exchange with Levin, extend beyond him and CBS. Other Simpson trial vets have signed up with TV--Barry Scheck with NBC, Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. with Court TV, Alan Dershowitz and Christopher Darden with Geraldo Rivera and CNBC.

These lawyers have taken a pledge of confidentiality about their relationships with past and present clients. Doesn’t analyzing the Simpson case on TV break the promise?

Jon Klein, executive vice president of CBS News, assured me that Shapiro won’t violate the attorney-client relationship. “He can’t talk about things he . . . gleaned as O.J.’s attorney,” he said.

Still, who knows what secrets one of the lawyers might spill in the heat of live television or under the pressure of competition and just plain ego?

A more serious question is television’s obligation to the viewing public.

Shapiro and the other O.J. celebrity lawyers have just emerged from an intensely bitter trial. They can’t help but having deep feelings about every trial issue--and having many scores to settle. I find it hard to believe they won’t settle them on TV, in the guise of impartial analysis.

They’re like recently dismissed coaches, hired by the networks to analyze their old team’s games. This has always seemed like an outrageous violation of journalistic ethics. It’s a blatant conflict of interest and clear-cut deception of viewers conned into thinking the ex-coach is impartial.

The networks hire the coaches to boost ratings, but nobody cares, because it’s just sports.

The Simpson civil trial is about life and death. The networks shouldn’t treat the trial as if it were the Super Bowl. Neither should the lawyers.