from media.newtimes.com
Drudge appears to have an exclusive on a bizarre, impassioned 2,216-word statement by Judith Regan about her Fox interview with O.J. Simpson and publication of his book, both entitled: "If I Did It, Here's How It Happened." In her statement, Regan defends herself against the widespread criticism that she's crassly exploiting the tragedy (for sweeps, no less) and justifies it by referencing her own history as a victim of domestic abuse.
Regan recounts her own history with an abusive partner, describing herself as " the trusting girl...who believed in the beauty of romance," likening herself to the slain Nicole Brown Simpson.
Regan's story is an awful one, to be sure, but seems a strange justification for the publication of the book and broadcast of the interview, despite claims of seeking vindication in forcing "the killer" to confess and achieving some measure of a justice in the matter: "[I]f Marcia Clark couldn't do it, I sure wanted to try." Regan also invokes the religious symbolism of confession and penance, at one point writing "Amen."
Regan also justifies her actions by throwing the criticism back, pointing out that no one similarly demonized Katie Couric for interviewing O.J. or any other newspeople who interview people accused of heinous crimes. Of course, this is somewhat different, since the news peg is of Regan and Simpson's making, and the interview is one of opportunism, creating the new news rather than responding to it in the traditional sense of newsgathering.
Interestingly, though Simpson is careful to disclaim responsibility for the killings — barely — Regan matter-of-factly fingers him as the perpetrator. She says, "I didn't know what to expect when I got the call that the killer wanted to confess" (though does not elaborate) and repeatedly refers to him as "the killer" throughout the piece.
Though Regan's personal history is a sad one, it's difficult not to view her sudden confessional with cynicism, particularly given the timing of her personal revelations, and the fact that the publication and broadcast are both for-profit endeavors (she does note that the payment to Simpson was directed to his children). Considering the lurid nature of the special, its sensationalism, for-profit nature and dubious news value (other than the shocker bombshell that gee, maybe O.J. did do it), it's tough to ascribe much credibility to Regan's missive, given the overwhelming evidence suggesting her motives may be less than pure. Of course, that might be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt but in this case, that doesn't seem to be much of an indicator.
