Juicios mediáticos

The show Trial by Media was an eye opener. It was amazing to see how a medium such as media had such a diverse impact on the lives of so many people in the United States and over the world. How a medium could have such an impact on the judicial system, the victims, the families, communities, and so on. It was heart breaking at times to see the system fail you, sometimes you never understood the system at all. Trial by Media shows how the system functions, the effect the Jury has, the efforts put in by the lawyers on both sides of the coin. Many of the cases that have been covered in this TV show were unfamiliar to me, and it was educative to me. The show has documented each event very well, giving as insight to how the media functioned in each of the cases. It was astonishing to understand the power of media, the concept of Court TV and its impact on so many lives. How people would be interested in watching the events of one's life rather than their own. The show has managed to get all the important characters together and talk about the events that happened years ago. Trail by Media will make you question everything about the system and the media itself. Voyeurism will be the best word to explain this show.

Expected to see some more commentary on the media's role in criminal trials. These are more like one hour summaries of trials that lean heavily on presenting one side over the other.

I don't really see a thesis here. Feels like a drawn out A&E special from long ago. I kind of see how out of control these trials can become, but that is not the emphasis. It gets into legal strategies, but only slightly.

Side note: just from my own naive perspective, I remember Al Sharpton being a punchline in popular culture through the 80s and 90s. Here, he is treated as a modern day Dr. King.

This could have been a great docuseries because of the concept of it, but I feel like they fell short on delivering what was promised all in all. They didn't dive in to the media's involvement in a majority of the episodes, but rather showed how some characters used publicity stunts in their own cases. It was not really a critique on the media in those cases.

However, there was two episodes where I felt like they gave us what the show promised - a look on how the media can put people on a public trial with severe consequences. Those two episodes were ep. 2 "Subway Vigilante" and ep. 5 "Big Dan's". These two episodes show how the media fed the public a specific narrative on how to look at the cases' victims and perpetrators, which then led to serious consequences for everyone involved.

Episode 4, "King Richard", is a good recommendation for the absurdity of the trial itself. But it is less about the media's involvement and more about the legal strategies of a very charismatic defense attorney. I thoroughly enjoyed it though.

The rest of the episodes you could watch just for educational purposes to know about the cases (like with ep. 3 "41 Shots" for example) but you could really learn as much by watching 10 minute youtube clips that explain the cases much better. Even if the production was good at laying forward evidence from two or three sides of a story, it criticized the characters involved more than it did the media's involvement. If they do a season 2 (which I think they should), they should study 'Dirty Money' on how to present a story with a clear focus.

John knew it could be a bloke and not a woman on the show, he still chose to go on it As for that vile defense lawyer, try letting people speak and stop shouting over them.

Enlightened me on a few stories I didn't previously know about. Important to consider how justice is served in contemporary civilized society but the series doesn't get in depth enough on those very broader topics.