How the Media Changed Kobe Bryant's Image

Ever since the establishment of newspapers, radio stations and live television coverage, the media has been one of America's most important and controversial institutions. As the sole provider for the latest information regarding the world, the nation and the rest of politics, the media remains responsible for the information that citizens read, hear and know.

Over the years, however, the media in America has continually expanded its control and influence of information, altering the way viewers, readers and listeners view certain issues. Reporters today have continued to present their stories with several underlying ideologies and perspectives in order to grab the attention from America and its news-seeking citizens.

In particular, the Kobe Bryant rape trial was one of several stories significantly affected by the media's coverage of the case.

In The Press Effect, authors Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Paul Waldman reveal how the media in America determines what information the public should and should not know and understand. Reporters withhold this power to dictate how real-world events will be told and which views will be presented along with the facts. These frames, or perspectives, used in describing stories not only inform citizens about what is important but also influence public opinion (Jamieson and Waldman, xii).

Through extensive coverage on the Kobe Bryant case beginning in July of 2003, journalists exposed a multitude of different frames emanating from recent pretrial proceedings.

Primarily, each story on the trial focused its content on the fact that a celebrity had been charged with sexual assault. Celebrities and famous athletes are always important subjects for the media to scrutinize and discuss because citizens want to learn about those that they admire and respect deeply.

In multiple newspaper stories published around the nation, Bryant was referred to as "the basketball star," "the Los Angeles Laker" or "the NBA star," emphasizing the fact that the suspected criminal held celebrity status (Sarche 2004). The trend of celebrities and athletes being charged with serious crimes, including NFL great O.J. Simpson and former NBA player Jason Williams, has had these stories often fighting for primetime and front-page coverage.

After all, it's no secret that fame and fortune dominate news coverage in America, summoning citizens to newspaper stands and televisions for the latest information on basketball's biggest star or Hollywood's newest actress.

While the public once saw Bryant as an intelligent and moral family man before any accusations of sexual assault or run-ins with the law, the media had its adherents questioning whether Americans can still perceive celebrities and athletes as role models for this country's youth.

In one of its stories, The Washington Post reported that Bryant could face "penalties ranging from 20 years of closely supervised probation to a prison term of four years to life" (Reid 2004).

However, BBC News reported otherwise, stating in one story that Bryant "could face up to life in prison" if convicted of sexual assault (BBC News Online 2004). This small but important disparity can easily transform a story involving a celebrity on trial.

It's important to remember that the maximum amount of time in prison Bryant would have had to serve adds interest for readers following the story. The media financially thrives on this sort of controversial coverage, headlining these stories on celebrities and athletes to market advertising and the rest of their news.

Another frame that reporters exposed throughout this trial was the mental instability of the victim and the question of credibility in her accusations.

In The Los Angeles Times, reporters indicated that this 19-year-old woman overdosed on pills and put her life in danger: "Bryant attorneys Hal Haddon and Pamela Mackey have asserted in court filings that the woman overdosed on pills February and May of 2003. They say the incidents undermine her credibility because they demonstrate she had engaged in a pattern of 'attention-seeking behavior' and had a 'scheme' to falsely accuse Bryant" (Henson 2004).

The media showed these issues with the victim on multiple levels, further describing her mental condition and her past problems.

A report by The Los Angeles Times even disclosed the victim's early suicide history: "According to police officials and court filings, the woman attempted suicide in February 2003 in a dormitory while attending Northern Colorado, in Greeky, and again three months later at her parents' home in Eagle, Colo. She ingested pills both times and received medical treatment" (Henson 2004).

With the history of the victim's mental condition put out in the public, the media quickly began siding with the defense, believing that Bryant was rather falsely accused.

The media didn't stop there, though, continuing with its focus on the victim's mental issues and even adding that the girl's schizophrenia could have alone caused this trial.

The Los Angeles Times reported that "Bryant's attorneys asserted in a December court filing that the woman was taking Seroquel, a medication used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder" (Henson 2004).

These psychological issues caused many of the problems for the young girl the night she allegedly encountered Bryant.

Several sources and ESPN.com included the prosecution's counter to this claim, stating that "none of the information contained in her medical records is relevant to whether she consented to sex with Bryant" (Associated Press 2004).

Other frames in favor of the defense showed Bryant as an innocent celebrity victimized and accused by a woman with a disturbing mental condition.

In December 2004, Bryant's defense explained that this case highlights another racial confrontation between black and white communities. The media described this racial barrier similarly to the O.J. Simpson trial, as a possible subplot in deciding justice for Bryant.

Additionally, Bryant's lawyers claimed that the sexual history of the victim was uncertain and necessary for examination, creating a major predicament for prosecutors to prove what violence Bryant created.

The New York Times reported that "the woman's sexual history is relevant to a fair defense. They contend that other sexual partners she may have had before or after Mr. Bryant could have caused or aggravated injuries she had at the time of her medical examination" (Johnson 2004).

Sexual activity from even a month ago substantially caused the case to be thrown out, leaving the door open for a no-decision.

Along with these uncertain health conditions, The Los Angeles Times continually reported that nevertheless, Bryant was confident about his innocence: "Bryant admits he had sex with the woman, but says it was consensual. His attorneys assert that if a jury finds his version to be truthful and he is acquitted, there is no 'victim'" (Henson 2004).

From this statement, the public may believe that Bryant is not guilty of the crime, and this mentally-troubled accuser has plotted a scheme against one of basketball's greatest players. But while most of the frames demonstrated in the Kobe Bryant rape trial have proved to be in support of Bryant, many of the views and opinions from the victim, her family and the prosecution weren't heard in court.

As reporters use frames to define problems and shape what is important in news stories, The Press Effect also explains that journalists adopt their own role in media coverage. These various roles in covering an event are known as a lenses, in which they also they shape facts and stories like frames (Jamieson and Waldman, xv).

In the Kobe Bryant case, many reporters focused on who could crack the story first. To sell their product at higher prices, the media watered down their reporting accuracy and content to get the story out as fast as possible to inform the public.

While this sort of news did not occur in the pretrial ceremonies, this rush to break the story often led to hasty investigations as well as unreliable sources and facts from the media. Other reporters covering the case focused their roles on stirring up controversy and revealing the corruption of America's celebrities and athletes.

Some journalists, in their own way, used the Kobe Bryant trial hearings as a way to teach morality to American society and ask questions like, "Should we forgive Bryant even if he only had consensual sex?"

The Kobe Bryant rape trial effectively revealed the power of the media and its ability to shape our views in depicting a story through various frames and lenses. In essence, the media's involvement in the Kobe Bryant case showed how wealth and power can control the outcome of a trial.

As seen before during the Rodney King and O.J. Simpson trials during the 1990s, racial issues emphasized by the media can also sway public opinion and create borders between African-American and White communities.

It is the media who has the power to color the views of potential jury members and decide what information is relevant to our daily lives, which in principle undermines our judicial system and questions our democracy. But while the media can infringe upon people's right to privacy and leave people disillusioned with our judicial system, it American citizens who ultimately crave to know and understand the truth.

So should we continue to believe that athletes are heroes and role models in the midst of their sexual assaults, drunk-driving incidents and double murder charges? The media can crucify them one week with disillusioning accusations and exonerate them the next with attacks on a victim's credibility and past history. It's the nature of the media, an institution that has grown notorious for its fickle, flip-flopping manners in covering athletes and celebrities on trial.

Perhaps we should not be putting these athletes on pedestals and instead realize that they are merely the products of fortune and fame. The public at times feels batted around like a referee caught between a heavyweight title match between George Forman and Muhammad Ali. The media can dazzle us with bold headlines, sensational words and eye-catching photos all in the name of free speech and the public's right to know.

But what we know is not always so clear or accurate. And what should we rightly know? Who are we to be the judges?

If Kobe Bryant were just another ordinary American citizen, we probably would not have even known anything about this case. Instead, we learned more than we ever thought we had the right to know.

The media's unscrupulous addiction to breaking news is not new. We've all heard of Monica Lewinski.

The problem now is that the media's obsession with up-to-the-minute information is a never-ending conversation, one that has the power to influence our perception of what is important, what the facts are and what is truly real.

With that mind, it is our job as citizens of this country to remain informed about current news and read it with a critical eye while developing our own individual opinions. In a country that teaches accountability and equality, it is only our right as citizens to oversee that the media grants everyone the common right to privacy and with an impartial eye.

Bibliography

Associated Press."Kobe defense suffers crucial setback." April 27, 2004.

Henson, Steve. The Los Angeles Times. "Wheels of Justice Turn Slowly in Bryant Case." April 27, 2004.

Jamieson, Kathleen Hall and Paul Waldman. The Press Effect. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Johnson, Kirk. The New York Times. "Judge Limits Access to Medical Records of Bryant's Accuser." April 22, 2004.

BBC News Online. "NBA star faces accuser in court." March 24, 2004.

Reid, T.R. The Washington Post. "Bryant Loses Bid for Alleged Victim's Medical Files." April 22, 2004.

Sarche, John. Associated Press. "Bryant Judge Opens Closed-Door Hearing." April 22, 2004.