O.J. Simpson's death has the nation looking back on the infamous murder trial that resulted in his acquittal. Experts say one of the lasting impacts is news coverage and how people consume it.

The lengthy trial proceedings from the mid-1990s were televised, setting a pathway for cameras in the courtroom.

Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota's Hubbard School of Journalism, said it also ushered in a cottage industry of pundits brought in to analyze the events of each day. That made it easier for people to get a recap during a 24-hour news cycle, but she added that there was a drawback to getting so much information through analysis.

"It also meant that people could suspend their critical thinking, to a certain extent," she said, "and I believe we're still seeing that today. The rise of social media has only made it easier."

However, she said it did expose issues with how criminal cases are handled, and viewers were able to see it firsthand. Given how the accessibility of information has exploded since the trial, Kirtley said, news consumers can't lose sight of the need to examine where they're getting it from. That includes whether the source is producing the news themselves, and if the details are being vetted.

Tessa Jolls, president and CEO of the Center for Media Literacy, said the trial firmly established entertainment as a core element of news coverage, making it profitable. She said outlets still have to reel people in with this approach to survive in a challenging landscape, but added that a sensationalized case such as this one sometimes helps with engagement in a positive way.

"They were seeing what the news organizations chose to show, and that gave people a chance to talk to each other and compare notes," she said. "In that sense, I think people probably did become savvier."

The trial also touched on racial issues and domestic violence, and Jolls said it was natural for people to have strong emotions about the developments. But she noted that it serves as a reminder for audiences to not let their gut feelings cloud how they weigh the facts presented to them.

"We need to see that our emotions are definitely present and that they may be swaying our thinking," she said, "and so, it's important to ask questions, to be skeptical."


get more stories like this via email

In the last days of President Joe Biden's term, senators are tackling some of their highest priorities, like confirming judges. But that may also include passing a bill to protect reporters and their sources.

The Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying Act would provide a federal shield law for a reporter to protect the identities of their sources.

Lucy Dalglish, former dean of the Merrill College of Journalism, said the bill would protect all types of journalists, from independent reporters to those at mainstream publications.

"It covers more than just traditional, mainstream media journalists," she said. "It covers folks, such as ones who are working for this radio network, and others who regularly collect information, digest it in some way and disseminate it to the public."

She added the bill also bans investigators going to telecommunications or other internet companies to see who a reporter has been in contact with. Right now, 49 states and Washington, D.C. have a shield law or some legal precedent on the books.

In January, the legislation unanimously passed the House of Representatives. But last week, the bill failed after Sen. Tom Cotton, R-AR, objected to its passage. The only way now for the bill to pass Congress is if it is attached to another piece of legislation - or if the Senate has a stand-alone vote on the bill.

Dalglish said it's sometimes surprising how administrations vary in their subpoenas of reporters. For example, she explained, many thought the subpoenaing of reporters after 9/11 would stop with a new president. But Dalglish said President Barack Obama and his justice department accessed the phone records of more reporters than any other president.

"And you get more subpoenas during different times in history, what's going on in society. It hasn't been too bad lately, but it goes in spurts," she said. "And of course, we really have no idea what's going to be going on in this new Trump administration."

A slew of press freedom organizations support the proposed law, including the Society of Professional Journalists and Reporters Without Borders.


get more stories like this via email

Gov. Kristi Noem wants a big budget cut for South Dakota Public Broadcasting in 2026. That could hurt its nine television stations and 11 radio stations, and the South Dakotans they serve.

Noem is proposing just under $2 million for South Dakota Public Broadcasting, or SDPB, in 2026. That's a cut of about 65% - or more than $3.5 million below its 2025 budget.

Plus, according to SDPB Executive Director Julie Overgaard, less state funding would threaten another $1 million in grants.

"It's devastating news for SDPB," said Overgaard, "and - in my belief and others' - it basically puts us on a trajectory for insolvency within the next 12 to 36 months."

In addition to news, Overgaard said SDPB covers high school sports, streams live legislative sessions and provides public interest programming on topics like children's issues and tourism.

Local news sources have been shutting down or being bought out for years. More than 3,200 U.S. newspapers have gone out of print since 2005, according to a report from the Local News Initiative.

Overgaard said the state's last locally-owned commercial TV station was sold to an out-of-state buyer this summer.

"We really kind of are the last stand here," said Overgaard, "for having something locally owned that's telling stories and providing news and issue coverage that are unique to South Dakota."

According to the report, six South Dakota counties are without a local news source and 33 counties have only one.

Overgaard said after state funding and grants, SDPB's third major source of funding is private donations and gifts - including from viewers and listeners.

She said she's worried that source will also slow down if SDPB can't keep covering local events and news.

"It's a tough go right now, I think, for public media organizations like ours," said Overgaard. "But I still think there's enough public support and enough public need for the services that we provide. "

The budget cuts are likely to "disproportionately affect rural services, where SDPB's programming is most valued," according to a statement from the organization.




get more stories like this via email

The days of thumbing through a community newspaper are retreating into history.

A Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism 2024 report showed fewer than 5,600 newspapers are still in business and 80% are weekly publications. The data also found the Illinois counties of Hamilton, Wayne, Franklin, Jefferson, Perry and Saline have only one newspaper each. Four others have none.

Fewer publications mean more news deserts, which are communities without regular access to information.

Zachery Metzger, director of the State of Local News project at Northwestern, said news access nationwide will vary.

"I think that the crisis within newspapers, traditional print newspapers, is going to continue to deepen," Metzger observed. "A lot of those are going to continue to disappear. I think that the crisis of local news and the loss of news is not limited to rural areas."

Metzger pointed out few news options remain beyond nationally syndicated TV news from understaffed, overworked stations with limited coverage. He noted social media chat groups like Facebook are platforms which "amplify misinformation and disinformation." According to the study, people living in news deserts tend to be older and less educated, and 16% live below the poverty line.

Several locally-based independent news ventures have started in the last few years to broaden access to underserved communities. Metzger reported since 2019, 95% of philanthropic donations to the outlets have focused on heavily concentrated and centralized urban metro areas.

"That doesn't mean that they're not producing a really valuable resource for people within those areas but those areas have the most news already," Metzger stressed. "While these new startups are providing really great services, they're often not addressing the needs of people in smaller, more rural or less affluent communities."

Metzger believes the existence of for-profit and nonprofit news outlets "is always going to be a good thing." He added there are still some smaller papers doing good work and neighborhoods are engaged in keeping their local news sources active. He thinks local newsrooms need state legislative action, greater philanthropic diversity and donations to survive.


get more stories like this via email