Trial by Media

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.

But those camera angels are just awfully distracting.

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.

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.