Opinion
 

Trial distracting, Orwellian

By Sarah Ohmer

In the 1940s, a fantastic novel presented a disturbing view of the post-modern world. In George Orwell's 1984, everyone owns a telescreen constantly turned on in their living rooms, workplace lounges and schools. Several times a day, the telescreen airs Two Minutes Hate, a program designed to provide the people with news that violently upsets them, and surely enough the people react appropriately.

This is what the Martha Stewart trial feels like much of the time. Message boards overflow with anguish toward the woman, screaming things such as:

"She lied to the FBI! It's just like lying to the IRS; you don't do it!"

"If you get caught then you deal with the consequences. I don't feel sorry for her at all."

"It was so pathetic what she said after sentencing, asking people to buy her stuff. She cannot admit she lied but still has to do a sales pitch."

The Martha Stewart debate keeps American citizens plugged into the telescreens at the right times to exert their hate, regardless of which side they're on.

It does not matter whether she deserves her sentence, what is disturbing is how "media-tized" this trial has become. It diverts the citizens' attention away from actual instructive information and toward a television character, stocks and lies -- just another teaser from the fog machine of facts that blurs the road to the truth.

Prosecutor Karen Patton Seymour told the judge that "citizens like Ms. Stewart who willingly take the steps to lie to officials when they are under investigation about their own conduct, those citizens should not expect the leniency that Ms. Stewart seeks." 

A shadowy silhouette cuts through the fog. Look out, there stands the strict American legislative system, driven to the darkest places by a thirst for justice. The television watchers shall witness what may happen to them if they dare to lie to federal investigators.

This may be too daring of a comparison, but the people who point agreeably at Martha's misfortune are reminiscent of the masses crowding around a witch trial in 17th century Europe, gobbling up the trial's verdict like popcorn at a movie theater. Michel Foucault said it himself: "Now, the certainty of punishment, and not its horror, deters one from committing a crime. Conviction marks the prisoner; publicity shifts towards the trial and the sentence."

Five months in jail, five months of house arrest, and a $40,000 fine. The eyes and ears focus on a punishment that might not even take place. 

"Of course her attorney is appealing this case and it could be several more months before she actually serves any of this time," Michelle Malsbury wrote in a column on Useless-Knowledge.com. Useless knowledge indeed, as the only use all these facts will serve will be to remind us of the power structures that surround us, not their efficiency. Another powerless liar might stand behind bars, while the liars at the top preserve their credibility. How can people get so infuriated by an interior decorator but not at government officials? 

Let's not get sidetracked here, attention deficit disorder nation. Research your presidential candidates' history instead of cruising through Courttv.com's "Chronology of a Scandal." As you do so, remember that strict prosecutor Seymour's words: "Lying to government agencies during the course of an investigation is a very serious matter, regardless of the outcome of the investigation." 

Will the leniency toward all high-ranked citizens ever stop?

Ohmer, a columnist for The Daily Cougar, 
can be reached at dccampus@mail.uh.edu.