On February 26, 2012, a seemingly innocent teenager was killed while walking home through his neighborhood late at night. The murder and trial of Trayvon Martin has recently been one of the main topics covered by the media in America. The response to news coverage of the case has been disconcerting. Students organized sweatshirt marches and created Facebook groups to protest the unjustified killing of the young man. However, is the American public as informed as they pretend to be? Americans have a disturbing susceptibility to manipulation by the media. In 1991, a similar event occurred in the case of the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, where Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had his personal business on display for America. This event ignited unrest in women's rights and civil rights groups across the country. Americans were surprised to discover that the nation had been blind to these perceived political injustices for years. The Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings concealed a disconcerting message to the American people about the media's role in manipulating American sentiment by sensationalizing news coverage delivered to the American public. The original purpose of the Clarence Thomas hearings was to determine whether George Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas, was a legitimate candidate for the prestigious role of Supreme Court justice. However, the hearings quickly devolved into little more than a “political spectacle.” A political show “is public in the sense that it deals with a scandalous action that has immediate and broad appeal, regardless of who carries it out” . The show has been adapted to reach and capture the attention of millions of viewers. In order to accomplish the… half of the article, “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, “Race to Judgment? Fast Reaction 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 of the Hill-Thomas Hearings,” American Anthropologist 100 (1998): 32. Larry Hugick, “On Night before 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 Politicization of Candidate Gender in the 1992 Senate Elections,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 23 (1998): 399.