Avenging Angel you say? Some believe she’s a threat to the concept of fair trials for the accused.
Underneath the gentle appearance of a TV news reporter/anchor, Nancy Grace is really just an advocate. An advocate for the conviction of anyone and everyone accused of a crime that’s unlucky enough to get the unwanted attention of Grace.
Legitimate news media organizations have been fighting to get cameras into our courts as long as cameras have been in existence. The argument for cameras is to insure fairness and an accurate depiction of events in the court. Reporting the facts of a trial is a simple straightforward issue you’d think. It’s not simple anymore.
One day O.J. Simpson was involved in a legendary slow speed chase on L.A.’s 405 Freeway. Before that now famous Ford Bronco driven by Al Cowling turned on that Sunset Boulevard exit to Brentwood, new broadcasting careers were being born. Along with the new TV personalities, came the hordes of pundits with wide ranging opinions.
Soon O.J. found himself in a jail cell being held without bond and being shuttled back and forth to L.A. courtrooms. A media circus the likes of which nobody has seen before began. The media’s non-stop, wall-to-wall bantering of theories, legal arguments, and racial issues clouded the trial for a man’s life.
Did we get the real evidence? Perhaps we got some, but what we really got was an overload of evidence pollution instead. The pundit-filters were working overtime, telling the ignorant public what the “evidence” was.
In the middle of all this were the TV news organizations fighting for ratings. That’s a simple equation since sensationalism brings viewers. Viewers bring advertisers and their bags of cash. The best way to bring in the viewers is with some of the more outrageous pundits.
All the minds were made up based on the information and misinformation somewhere out there in space. The vast majority of the pundits, using that extraterrestrial evidence, pronounced Simpson guilty. Next came the TV trial, certainly the Big Top event of the century. What the American public got out of the TV reporting during the trial was 25% straight information and 75% pundit excretion.
Now let’s get back to Nancy Grace. Grace never saw an innocent defendant in her life. She blows hot air as her nostrils flair with the sarcastic and nasty delivery of misinformation. The criminal defense lawyers I know can’t really compete with Grace’s insidious influencing of jurors. Yes, most jurors are human and disregard judge’s orders to stay away from news reports of these trials. The irrelevant and immaterial information prosecutors can’t get in front of a jury in a courtroom; Grace can feed them over the boob tube.
Nancy Grace damages the basic and fundamental rights Americans have to a fair trial. I don’t think Grace should be allowed to keep her license to practice law under those circumstances.
As long as television clouds ongoing trials with the concept of Trial By Pundit, you can expect to see fewer cameras in our courtrooms.
I just put the words, "Nancy Grace is a disgrace" into into a Google search. I found out that I’m not alone in my low opinion of this vile wench. Page after page appeared with even less flattering comments then my own.This is real proof that controversy may bring better TV ratings.
A check of the ratings for her show indicated she was at the low end for viewers. Maybe there is a God after all and Grace will vanish into thin air just like Natalie Holloway.