> The article equates prosecutorial misconduct to force a guilty sentence with editorial choices in a documentary. Because both show "bias". In the one case it'

> The article equates prosecutorial misconduct to force a guilty sentence with editorial choices in a documentary. Because both show "bias". In the one case it's utterly illegal and it undermines the moral validity of the justice system and in the other case we're talking about a simple exercise of free speech, but apparently this distinction isn't meaningful in the eyes of the author. This is the most important critique point. I'm glad you noticed it and mentioned it.