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 re

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.