I am occasionally amused/fascinated by the spectacle of news people having to fill time with nothing to say. They don't say a lot when they do have something to say but it's even worse when, for example, a high-speed chase is entering its second hour and all the known information could be summarized in about five minutes. Drawing it out and pretending to have new angles and perspectives is something of an art — one many of us dabbled in back in school when we had to write a 1000 word essay on some topic where we knew one measly fact.
The last few days, I've been peeking in on Court TV's "Verdict Watch" and, boy, those people are good at talking for hours and saying nothing. The situation around the Michael Jackson case has changed little since the case went to the jury a week ago. You could list every significant development in under two minutes: The jury sent out a note, contents unknown. Michael dropped by a hospital again. His lawyer said that he has not authorized anyone to speak for the family despite the (until yesterday) constant presence on the news of Jesse Jackson and/or some woman named Ramona Bain as spokespersons. And that's about it. I just watched ten minutes of speculation on whether a long deliberation bodes well or ill for the defense. Each "analyst" says it can mean anything…and then itemized all the different things it could mean.
As I write this, the "Jury Clock" is at 27 hours, 24 minutes and change…and Gloria Allred has joined the throng of Talking Heads who don't know anything but won't let that stop them. An awful lot of sentences begin with, "If Michael Jackson is convicted…"
This morning, the Court TV analysts were trying to suggest that Friday is often "Verdict Day" in a trial and that while nothing had been announced, there was something in the air. Now, passing 1:00 PM, they seem to be talking more about how this jury is so diligent that they could take a lot longer.
A little while ago, one gent explained that they'd tried and failed to get a glimpse of how the jurors were dressed this morning, operating on the premise that a well-dressed jury is one that expects it might be giving interviews later in the day. But of course, no one saw the jurors when they arrived for today's deliberations. I think it would have been great if they'd all marched in this morning dressed as various barnyard animals. It wouldn't have meant anything to the case but it would have given the trial analysts plenty to talk about. ("I once covered a case where they were all dressed in cow costumes and that jury voted to acquit…")