Procès médiatiques

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.

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.

Trial by Media is another solid Netflix Docu-Series I set to my notification list long ago. It does not disappoint, nor exceed the thoughts that precede. I like the fact that they cover the b-sides of what has been televised. It doesn't cover the OJ Simpson Trial, or Michael Jackson's Trial, or anything like that. The cases covered are far removed enough, to only have been heard in passing, though not fully realized.

Interesting enough, the cases covered may be stenciled on, however not in the broadest of strokes. That is something I am grateful for. Is something like a podcast with visuals, the minimalist approach seems to work for me.

Covering societal impact through media's outward reflection. It ponders what that says about us, covering a wide range of topics such as race, consent, corruption, psychopathy, misuse of power, and capitalism's flawed infrastructure. The series never takes sides, only stating the facts one episode at a time.

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.