FBI True

I find the show interesting because the perspectives of the agents are intriguing and well told. They seem to choose good cases. That are relevant and interesting. My question is why is it set in a bar? It seems like a poor choice of background and seems distracting that they are drinking beer. Unfortunately it makes Kristy Kotits look like an alcoholic. Maybe it's poor lighting, but she looks kind of rough in the show and a little buzzed. It takes away from the credibility of such an intense and trusted position that they have held. I get that a lot of agents drink after work and maybe it's set so that it feels like they are unwinding together after work, but to me it takes away from the incredible work that these folks have done.

This show shares a very shallow retelling of famous FBI cases. It would have been much more interesting and compelling to dive deeper into these cases from the perspective of the investigating FBI agents. A huge opportunity was missed here. We really don't find out anything about the agents other than a ten second bio line in an early 2000's Dateline-like interview structure which feels very manufactured and superficial. I already knew the majority of the details covered in these cases already. Any other viewer could find out more about these cases by reading a few Wikipedia pages. Again, this could've been such an impactful series. I'm pretty disappointed.

After watching this all the stories missed key details that put the FBI in a bad light just so that they looked like they did the right thing. For the Ruby Ridge one they made it sound like all the FBI agents were all heroes. They totally skipped the part that they charges where are a setup by the same FBI agents just so that they could arrest the group. They failed to point out that Vickie Weaver was holding her 10 month old daughter and was not a threat when one of the FBI snipers shot her in the head. They said he son pointed a gun at him which when it went to court proved to be false.

For the Atlanta Olympic bombing they totally glossed over the fact that they the FBI ruined Richard Jewell's life because he was the security guard that found one of the bombs and reported it and was more than happy to give them any info he could about what happened that day. Instead of treating him like a witness they treated him as he was the one that actually did the bombing and ruin his life. This was never once brought up in this propaganda for the FBI that this show is.

And those are just two of the stories that I hit all. All the other ones are fully of the same propaganda and not the full stories of what actually happened. Simple historical research will prove all this.

As much as I try to watch this series, I become frustrated with how the stories are shared. The first setback for me involves the hubris attitude that surfaces when the agents share the information. Most of the dominate speakers seem to seek recognition for fulfilling the very job they are hired and trained to do, so that prideful arrogance really isn't necessary.

Another obvious fact is the homogeneous culture that the bureau employs or prefers to interview. Those who share seem to reflect one who boast of their experiences as if theirs is paramount in professionalism. Again, an FBI agent is hired and trained to deal with terror threats and terror suspects; boasting about it seems a bit embarrassing. Some episodes do convey a retelling of a popular case. But for some reason, many of the episodes I have watched caused me to grow weary of the arrogance that comes across very strongly.

And lastly, if there are two or three agents involved in the retelling of the case, PLEASE LET THEM ALL SHARE THEIR EXPERIENCE!!! Gosh!!! I just stopped "Part 1" of season three's episode one. In that episode, ONE GUY WILL NOT STOP TALKING!!! Why have three guest if only one dominates the entire retelling of the event??? We are ONLY hearing HIS EXPERIENCE. That is ONE SIDED!

So, PLEASE, make adjustments to this interesting series. A few adjustments might make it more enjoyable. But remember, not all people like hearing barroom stories, some of us don't drink alcohol when watching this show. That means we are not under any alcoholic influence to tolerate the long winded speaker. So, the setting of this show could also benefit from a new setting.

"FBI True Documentary" casts the FBI as the paragon of justice, but this portrayal might be an attempt to shift focus from the agency's contentious actions. Here's a brief review alongside some examples of alleged FBI misconduct:

The Steele Dossier: The FBI used this dossier, filled with unverified claims about Trump, to justify surveillance on Carter Page. The DOJ's Inspector General later criticized the process, pointing to potential bias.

Clinton Email Investigation: The FBI's decision not to charge Hillary Clinton over her email server use has been seen by some as preferential treatment, questioning the agency's impartiality.

Epstein Case Handling: The FBI's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein has faced scrutiny for possibly not pursuing connections to influential figures as aggressively as might be expected.

Use of Informants: The FBI's tactics in cases like the Michigan Governor kidnapping plot have led to accusations of entrapment, where the FBI might be seen as manufacturing crimes.

Historical Context: COINTELPRO's legacy reminds us of the FBI's past in overstepping legal and ethical boundaries.

"FBI True Documentary" offers a sanitized view, potentially serving as a counter-narrative to these controversies, which raises questions about the documentary's role in shaping public perception of the FBI.