One assumes that the first of the two parts of this "event" will revolve around the "Yeah, I fuckin' did it" angle, without explicitly saying so, because, see, that would be vulgar, possibly even unseemly. The second part should properly cover the "ain't a goddamned thing you can do about it, neither" side of the story, and will be about as enlightening as your average Nanny 911 marathon.
The natural temptation is to burst forth with the usual "what the fuckety-fuck?!?" spasm of contrived outrage at the barrel-scraping mentality of it all. But that would be inadvertently aligning oneself with the usual tiresome kulturkampfers who spend their waking hours fisking animated Simpsons, and going on about some war on Christmas in which, sadly, there never seem to be any actual casualties. Edroso has the right idea about these idiots -- why would anyone in their right mind want to be caught in the same room with them?
As these things generally do, the very notion of a supposedly reputable (heh) television network not only broadcasting an "interview" with a murderer, but milking two parts out of it, says more about its expected audience than it does about the subject, the interviewer, or the network willing to televise it. The only people who are going to bother to even peek in on something like this are the sort of drooling morons who have trouble keeping up with Breaking Bonaduce or Deal Or No Deal. It's the only thing that stops the voices in their heads from telling them to shoot up their workplaces, I guess, but you'd think there'd be a slightly less revolting way by now.