3 ms·

>The article equates prosecutorial misconduct to force a guilty sentence with editorial choices in a documentary. I don't think the article is actually equatin

>The article equates prosecutorial misconduct to force a guilty sentence with editorial choices in a documentary. I don't think the article is actually equating the two offenses. despite the quote you highlight. The point I took away is showing how easy it is to create a narrative. The show isn't a neutral piece, you can't get past the title without seeing that. I understand your point that the authorities have a much higher responsibility to be truthful and honorable in their duties. I just won't attack the entire article because they care to mention that a lot was left out. It's always important to think about anything you consume in this way.

gizmo 11y ago
Of course the show isn't a neutral piece, because there is no such thing as true neutrality. Editorial choices have to be made and those choices will in part reflect the opinions of the producers. That's always the case. I don't think the documentary is biased in the sense that it deliberately distorts the truth to fit a preconceived narrative, and the article doesn't certainly doesn't make a strong case contrariwise. I didn't totally hate the article. For instance I liked the points they made and the statistics they gave about the structural nature of forced confessions, false testimonies by police officers and the like. But they chose to emphasize the horrors of the narrative instead, even though the article itself -- by making that editoral choice -- is doing the exact same thing they condemn the documentary for. They highlight one thing at the expense of another thing, thereby creating a "biased" narrative. It's either sheer hypocrisy or the entire argument is asinine.
- thieving_magpie 11y ago
  I don't think they're "condemning" the documentary. They're just pointing out realities. >It's either sheer hypocrisy or the entire argument is asinine. A bold declaration. Everything doesn't boil down to right and wrong. There is nuance in the world and there is nuance in the article.

gizmo 11y ago

Of course the show isn't a neutral piece, because there is no such thing as true neutrality. Editorial choices have to be made and those choices will in part reflect the opinions of the producers. That's always the case. I don't think the documentary is biased in the sense that it deliberately distorts the truth to fit a preconceived narrative, and the article doesn't certainly doesn't make a strong case contrariwise. I didn't totally hate the article. For instance I liked the points they made and the statistics they gave about the structural nature of forced confessions, false testimonies by police officers and the like. But they chose to emphasize the horrors of the narrative instead, even though the article itself -- by making that editoral choice -- is doing the exact same thing they condemn the documentary for. They highlight one thing at the expense of another thing, thereby creating a "biased" narrative. It's either sheer hypocrisy or the entire argument is asinine.

thieving_magpie 11y ago
I don't think they're "condemning" the documentary. They're just pointing out realities. >It's either sheer hypocrisy or the entire argument is asinine. A bold declaration. Everything doesn't boil down to right and wrong. There is nuance in the world and there is nuance in the article.