Procès médiatiques

I wasn't thinking this would be as compelling as it was. Some of the stories are fascinating not so much a media critique as just a perspective on society's reaction to crime. There are some episodes that are better than others 41 Shots and Dan's Bar are both heartbreaking. Keep watching as some episodes are good but not great.

Finished it in two sittings, very well done in my opinion

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.

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.

This documentary has grabbed my attention because if the unique concept it introduces. Looking at the influence of media coverage on criminal justice system in the US. One of the most interesting parts of this documentary is when they interviewed defence attorneys and prosecutors in order to get highlight how they were thinking while trying to represent the victims or the defendants. I particularly enjoyed episode 4 as the two defence attorneys were brilliant and they had outstanding narrative to influence the jury by using every possible means from exploitation of the witnesses' darkest and deepest secrets And using it against them to try to tailor stories and make up some facts to play mind games and influence the jury even more. What I missed in this series is two things, digging deep in the facts related to the crimes themselves and not explaining the crimes committed in more details and the other point, not analysing and showing how the media played a role in changing the dynamics of the trials. In the series, the focus was shifted towards how the media covered the trials and has been in the middle of the courtrooms not on how it made a difference in the final outcomes or the verdicts.

I thing it's a great work but if the producers are planning to make a new season, they need to elaborate more on the crimes committed and the real influence of the media on the final outcomes of the trials.