The danger of news media creating a
prejudiced jury is very real. True-crime television shows are gaining
popularity, but few are as damning as irresponsible media coverage of ongoing
murder trials. Crime is sensational, and according to Ray Williams of Psychology Today, “Media
studies show that bad news far outweighs good news by as much as seventeen
negative news reports for every on good news report . . . Humans seek out news
of dramatic, negative events.” Words like “alleged” and “speculate“ may
keep journalist and networks out of hot-water, but they do little in the way of
preventing bias in viewers.
No one in news media plays on that
psychology quite like Nancy Grace. Daniel D’Addario of Time Magazine said, “Today’s
highbrow true crime is full of visceral, passionate emotionality; it has the
you-be-the-judge rhythms of Dateline and
the jazzy verve of Nancy Grace trying to convince her viewers that one or
another chosen target should fry.” In
fact, HLN’s own had an online petition calling for her removal from the
network. Said petition claimed:
“Nancy Grace does not produce fair
and unbiased journalism, as outlined in the Society of Professional Journalists
Code of Ethics . . . Grace is guilty of broadcasting biased and
prejudicial opinions AS FACTS in high profile cases.”
Grace has given her two cents on a
number of “high profile” cases including those of defendants Jodie Arias and
the recently popular Steven Avery. Her televised personality is spastic to say
the very least. This might be attributed to her notorious, highly speculative
statements. During the case of Jodi Arias, Grace was there to give her weekly
analysis. On week ten, she made the following statement:
“Who in their right mind packs five
or six huge gas cans, filled with gas, for a long trip by car? No body, she
obviously did that so there would be no record at any gas station by credit
card or debit card, or video surveillance of her stopping for gas That’s very
clear, or worse, burning a body or burning evidence.”
It isn't necessary to point out
every thing wrong with televising such a statement regarding a defendant during
an ongoing trial. Some might say it’s a good thing speculation alone doesn’t
prove guilt, but this type of journalism plants ideas in the public's mind that
cannot be removed nor easily overcame.
Tim Rutten in an article from the Los Angeles Times stated that Grace, “appears to have never met someone arrested who she
believed should not be charged, nor anyone charged who should not be convicted.”
He begins the article entailing a denial to sequester the jury in the trial of
Conrad Murray - the doctor accused of causing the death of Michael Jackson.
Murray’s lawyer, J. Michael Flanagan, made the request because of a very
specific threat: Nancy Grace. Unfortunately, the judge denied the request
because, “the court could not afford and supervise a jury for the many weeks
the trial would probably take.”
It is arguable
that few people have been the victims of said injustice than that of Steven
Avery and Brendan Dassey. Both Avery and Dassey were convicted of the murder of
Teresa Halbach because of a circumstance that draws a frightening parallel to
that of the West Memphis Three. The media took and ran with the portrait
painted of both defendants in a pre-trail, later redacted confession by Dassey
who, like Jesse Miskelly, was proven to have an IQ in the low seventies. Much
like in the case of the West Memphis Three, Avery and Dassey were televised as
horrific, heartless monsters. Ironically enough, the confession(s) didn’t add
up with the hard evidence provided by the prosecution. None of them were even
allowed in Avery’s trial, but it was arguably far too late to erase the media
impact or sequester the jury. Avery and Dassey were both found guilty of
Halbach's muder.
Now, post-trail,
Grace is living up to her expectations. US
Magazine quotes her, “I
think he's guilty of the murder because he told me to my face that Teresa was
there in his auto salvage pit the day she goes missing around 2 'o clock.”
There is much controversy surrounding the evidence presented or not in the
Netflix documentary Making a
Murderer which entails Avery’s
case. But in no way is it new information, or an admission of guilt to claim
that Halbuck was indeed on Avery’s property the day of her disappearance. Who
can walk into any trial for Avery without this bias which continues to grow.
Avery was in a
civil lawsuit with those who had formerly been involved with his conviction of
rape, a crime which he was exonerated of years before being convicted of
murder. Avery has made several appeals as he did with the rape conviction,
but his reputation as a killer is not disappearing any time soon.
There are going to be those who always believe Avery, Dassey, Arias and the West Memphis Three are guilty of all the crimes of which they are/were accused. For that the media receives some amount of credit, but small or large any amount is too much. Media cannot be completely unbiased, however, it is the job of journalists everywhere to report the facts, and not fuel ignorance or speculation. Someone should get around to letting Nancy Grace in on this ideology.
Links of Cited
Articles:
