COMMENTARY : THE SIMPSON MURDER CASE : The Art of TV News Speculation, or How to Fill Air Time

Millions of Americans witnessed accused killer O.J. Simpson’s dramatic but futile attempt to elude custody Friday. And why not?

It was extraordinary television. What could compare to it? Live TV coverage of the first moonwalk, perhaps? Live TV coverage of the Gulf War, especially the initial bombing of Baghdad, reporters flinching in the face of possible Scud attacks and Iraqi desert troops surrendering to the media?

Friday’s story had its own special aura, though, its own unique niche. Yet. . . .

Question: Did Simpson run because he was guilty or because he was convinced--based on last week’s media coverage of this double-slaying case--that he had already been judged guilty by the press and public and could not get a fair trial? We may never know.

But if the latter was his reason, Simpson’s panic was at least understandable. Remember the sometimes breathless, tabloid-style reporting? The damaging leaks from anonymous police sources? The destructive quotes about Simpson from a therapist who had scant contact with one of the victims and who may have had a self-promoting agenda of her own? And worst of all, the coverage whose sometimes speculative tone appeared to indict Simpson even before he had been charged with the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Lyle Goldman?

But enough about the Los Angeles Times.

Do those people on television also know something about the art of speculation or what? There was NBC’s “Today” host Bryant Gumbel on Friday morning, for example, trying to wring an important psycho-scoop on Simpson from psychiatrist Peter Breggin. Gumbel was careful, he was responsible--assuring the shrink opposite him that he understood that neither of them was qualified to say whether O.J. Simpson was guilty or innocent. Whew! Thank goodness for that. A real pro, that Gumbel.

But, Gumbel added, “O.J.’s lawyers say he’s feeling depressed, he’s distraught. To your mind, does that indicate innocence?” At that point it was Gumbel’s brain you were speculating about. Breggin replied that Simpson’s sadness indicated nothing except that he was, well, sad.

Continuing his attempted mind-meld with his guest, Gumbel mentioned all the material things that Simpson had going for him, then asked: “How unlikely is it (that) someone with no history of extreme violence . . . would throw all that away in anger and rage?”

In addition to ignoring the “extreme violence” implicit in Simpson’s no-contest plea to spousal battery in 1989, Gumbel was again pressing for the kind of long-distance, knee-jerk conjecture that television talkers are famous for, but that no responsible professional would indulge in. Breggin certainly didn’t.

Meanwhile, here are some more Simpson-coverage afterthoughts.

* Although not necessarily blessed with TV skills, staff specialists can pay big dividends when it comes to covering crime. Thus, KNBC-TV Channel 4 reporter Manuel Medrano--a former Los Angeles prosecuting attorney--was especially effective Friday when called upon to assess the legal ramifications of Simpson’s attempted flight from police. Reporter Harvey Levin’s experience as an attorney also showed Friday on KCBS-TV Channel 2, and KTTV-TV Channel 11 benefited from having staffer Rod Bernsen, a former Los Angeles police officer, reporting from the field.

* If live coverage of the freeway chase and the subsequent surrender of Simpson were something to behold, other live shots were not. With time on its hands while waiting for Simpson to show up somewhere earlier in the day, Channel 4 gave Los Angeles a lingering live close-up of the door to Simpson’s Brentwood home. And station after station went for a live close-up of the unoccupied podium at Parker Center where LAPD spokesman Cmdr. David J. Gascon would have been standing--had he been there.

In fleeting quotes that are beamed across the airwaves and (reporters hope) quickly forgotten, moreover, there was this from Channel 2’s Levin outside the Criminal Courts Building: “I’m getting word O.J. Simpson may be arriving here very soon.” Levin said that at 1:03 p.m., nearly eight hours before Simpson would finally surrender to police in the driveway of his Brentwood home.

This waiting for word on Simpson--who the media would learn later from Gascon was a fugitive after reneging on a promise to turn himself in--was more than merely excruciating. It was highly perilous. It’s when stations committed to live coverage have time to fill that their anchors and reporters, left to their own devices, sometimes do goofy things. And Friday was no exception.

Left to twist helplessly like a shish kebab on a spit, solo Channel 4 anchor Chuck Henry at one point resorted to talking to himself, a la this attempted exchange with reporter Jim Avila deployed in the field. “Is it possible that O.J. could turn himself in at another location? Jim? Are you there, Jim? Jim? I don’t suppose that could happen. We’ll wait till Jim gets back on the line.”

And here was KTLA-TV Channel 5’s Ron Olsen, amid a crush of other reporters on a paparazzi -style Simpson watch outside the fugitive’s Brentwood mansion, frantically responding to a car leaving the grounds.

“Somebody’s in the back!

‘Somebody’s in the back!

“I can’t see who it is!

“Now they’re pulling away!”

“No . . . that’s a woman I can’t identify!”

You had the impression that the coverage would not have differed had the subject been Homer Simpson.

Finally, there was Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti responding defensively at a news conference to a suggestion that authorities had goofed in letting Simpson get away: “How many members of the media have been surrounding Mr. Simpson’s home and he was able to get away somehow?”

How exotic: a top criminal justice official accusing the media of letting a fugitive slip through their fingers.

They could always plead not guilty by reason of insanity.