On February 26, 2012, a seemingly innocent teenager was shot and killed while walking home through his neighborhood late at night. The murder and trial of Trayvon Martin has recently been one of the top topics covered by the American media. The reaction to the media coverage of the case was stunning. Students held marches wearing hoodies and created Facebook groups to protest the young man's unjustified killing. But is the American public as well informed as they claim to be? Americans have a disturbing susceptibility to media manipulation. In 1991, a similar event occurred in the case of the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, during which Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had his personal affairs exposed in the United States. This event sparked unrest among women's rights and civil rights groups across the country. Americans were surprised to discover that the nation had been blind to these alleged political injustices for years. The Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings concealed a stunning message to the American people about the media's role in manipulating American sentiment by sensationalizing media coverage relayed to the American public. The initial goal of the Clarence Thomas hearings was to determine whether George Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Clarence Thomas, was a legitimate candidate for the prestigious position of Supreme Court justice. However, the hearings quickly devolved into nothing more than a “political spectacle.” A political spectacle “is public in the sense that it deals with a…scandalous action that has immediate and wide appeal, no matter who performs it.” The show was designed to reach and capture the attention of millions of viewers. To reach the middle of the article......ide, "Deconstructing the Political Spectacle: Sex, Race, and Subjectivity in the Public Response to the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill 'Sexual Harassment' Hearings," American Journal of Political Science 37 (1993): 701. Dianne Rucinski, “Rush to Judgment? Rapid Response Polls in the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas Controversy,” The Public Opinion Quarterly 57 (1993): 575. Frances Trix and Andrea Sankar, “Women’s Voices and Experiences in the Hill-Thomas Hearings,” American Anthropologist 100 (1998) ): 32. Larry Hugick, “The Night Before the Vote, Support for Thomas Remains Strong,” Gallup Poll News Service 56 (1991): 2. Murray Edelman, Constructing the Political Spectacle (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 99. Thomas P. Kim, “Clarence Thomas and the Gender Politicization of Candidates in the 1992 Senate Elections,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 23 (1998): 399.