Wrongful conviction

Two heinous murders.

A trial filled with lurid testimony about family dysfunction and incest.

A killer sent to Death Row only to be released on appeal due to legal "technicalities."

A story made for Nancy Grace or Bill O'Baxter.

For over twenty years Dale Johnston lived under a cloud. Most people in southeastern Ohio believed he got away with murder. His family was destroyed. Some one burned down his home.

And then, the real killer was caught, convicted and sent to prison.

So, it turns out, the "legal technicalities" kept Ohio from executing an innocent man.

As is often the case, the press failed in its watchdog role. Instead, it was complicit in the injustice as it amplified the prosecutions charges and ignored the manifest weaknesses of the case against Dale Johnston.

The iconoclast as willing idiot (UPDATED)

Jack Shafer is a contrarian. That usually makes his media column a valuable read. But in his latest offering, he pushes so hard against the conventional wisdom that he comes off as obstinately perverse.

In praise of tabloid TV

If you read HLN’s transcripts from Nancy Grace’s shows about the Zimmerman case, you’ll absorb enough information about how the criminal justice system works to write a MOOC on how to defend or prosecute a murder case. Most of what a layman needs to know about police investigations, police interrogations, witness rights, evidentiary standards, jury selection, and courtroom strategy can be found in Grace’s shriekings and those of her commentators. A week’s worth of her Zimmerman coverage probably contains as much civic education as any half-dozen Frontline documentaries on PBS.

Any one who has watched Nancy Grace in action knows that this is bull.

First, Frontline documentaries actually uncover and convey information to their audience. The cable tabloid shows are all about holding an audience when you have little or no information to impart.

Related:

Cable news, vox populi, and professional sleaze

Cable news: get it fast, get it wrong

Media's Shifting Business Model

Nancy Grace differs from her sleazy competitors only in the particular and malignant bias she brings to the story. When Grace sets her sights on a defendant, truth and fairness go out the window. The facts presented and the commentary are as fair and balanced as a Stalinist show trial.

UPDATE:

Jay Rosen replies to Shafer here:

Criticizing CNN: Goodbye to that

Also Dan Gilmor:

CNN’s transition is now complete. The entire channel is basically a version of the Nancy Grace show.

Which raises a question for Comcast, et. al. Why  are cable customers forced to pay for both networks when they have merge-morphed into the same channel?

James Joyner:

Shafer is right: journalism is a first and foremost a business and ignoring the wants of the audience is a surefire way to go out of business. But, at some point, you’re no longer in the news business at all. And it’s quite possible CNN has reached that tipping point.

I told you Rupert Murdoch wants the murderers to win

The End of America's Most Wanted: Good News for Criminals, Bad News for the FBI

The fugitives of the U.S. may be heaving a sigh of relief at the news that the television show America's Most Wanted is no more. After 23 years of profiling the dregs of the criminal underworld — directly leading to 1,154 arrests by law-enforcement agencies — the show was canceled in May by Fox, and its final episode aired last month. The close working relationships that host John Walsh cultivated with the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service over the years was an unprecedented collaboration between law enforcement and television. It was one of the very first reality shows that resulted in great TV and did a lot of good. Its cancellation leaves a hole both of those agencies will now need to fill.


"This is a big hit for us. The show is invaluable," says Geoff Shank, assistant director of investigative operations for the U.S. Marshals Service. "We have arrested so many heinous people and we've saved so many lives because of America's Most Wanted." Kevin Perkins, assistant director of the FBI's criminal-investigations division, echoes the sentiment. "I personally hate to see it go," Perkins tells TIME. "We had 17 of our most wanted fugitives captured because of them and over 550 different cases solved as a result of tips."

It is worth noting that AMW had ratings that dwarfed the freak shows hosted by Jane Velez-Mitchell and Nancy Grace on HLN. This puts the lie to the idea that networks put on trashy tabloid shoutfests because "that's what the viewers want." Nancy Grace prospers while AMW is canceled because her show is CHEAP (and here) More viewers "wanted" AMW than Grace. The bean counters get the final vote, not the audience.




Related:

Cable news, vox populi, and professional sleaze

My vote is "Yes"

The threat of Nancy Grace

Here's a question to consider: Is Turner Broadcasting's abuse of its power as a news organization through the biased coverage of criminal trials really any less a betrayal of public trust than the Murdoch tabloid scandal now underway in Britain?

Did the Casey Anthony jury prevent a miscarriage of justice?

Software Designer Reports Error in Anthony Trial


Assertions by the prosecution that Casey Anthony conducted extensive computer searches on the word “chloroform” were based on inaccurate data, a software designer who testified at the trial said Monday.


The designer, John Bradley, said Ms. Anthony had visited what the prosecution said was a crucial Web site only once, not 84 times, as prosecutors had asserted. He came to that conclusion after redesigning his software, and immediately alerted prosecutors and the police about the mistake, he said.

If this story is true, then a key part of the case for premeditated murder was based on a faulty analysis. Furthermore, the police and prosecutors knew they were presenting misleading data to the jury in what was a death penalty case.


That's Mike Nifong territory.


As per usual, the spittle-spewing, self-appointed Furies at HLN have no interest in this possible crime that occurred right in front of their eyes. Instead, they are intent on determining the whereabouts of Casey Anthony and vilifying the jurors who dared to defy the cable lynch mob,


Related:

Atticus Finch doesn't work here

Nancy Grace: Unifying left and right, bloggers and the MSM

How Nancy Grace has reinvented journalism’s ‘Sob Sister’

Professional vigilante and mawkish sentimentalist, Nancy is full of something, but it’s not grace. While accusing other lawyers of avarice and opportunism, she makes her own fortune by angry denunciations of defense efforts, almost always accompanied by lachrymose attention to the plight of the victim, especially if she is white, female, pretty — and missing.

A Sordid Cast Around Casey Anthony

She doesn’t serve the cause of victims with such histrionics. She serves the cause of Nancy Grace. And she succeeds only in trivializing everything — and getting ratings. A record 5.2 million viewers turned to HLN on the judgment day. Apparently many of us share her appetite for gross caricatures of good and evil, and come out of this as graceless as she.

Nancy Grace hates America and the Founding Fathers

How Democracy Crumbles: Implosion of the Jury System

First, in our system of criminal justice, the State must prove its case. This is such a fundamental concept for the American system that it is almost embarrassing to mention. Nonetheless, it seems that many people in the media and protesters outside of the courthouse have forgotten that all-important concept. But this idea that the State must prove the guilt of the accused, and prove it beyond a “reasonable doubt” to a jury of peers is the key stone that protects us from arbitrary oppression by the State. The Founding Fathers considered this an essential bulwark of liberty. So when the jurors in the Casey Anthony case explain that they could not convict Ms. Anthony because the State had not proven the allegations, that is an extremely serious charge and one that indicates that the system is working.

Not to be missed

The dangerous spread of the Nancy Grace virus

Until you look into the shifty eyes of Nancy Grace, until you hear the poisonous accusations rolling smoothly off her tongue, you cannot understand what cable TV has done to American criminal justice. On 24-hour U.S. television “news,” the law has become a morality play narrated by media stars who believe they know what viewers should think.

In other Nancynews, Bill O'Reilly decided to defend the belle of the freakers ball on his show last night. He even had her on to spew her usual mixture of toxic bile and maudlin self-justification.


Seemed strange that Fox News would ride to the rescue of a competitor. Are they trying to recruit her? Or is it just a reflexive anti-MSM reaction: if Time magazine is against it, then FNC is for it?


My theory, Bill O'R doesn't see Nancy as a competitor and he relates to her as another pseudo-populist bully.

Casey Anthony: Strange priorities of cable news

UPDATED

Cable news, especially Nancy Grace and her flying monkeys at HLN, keeps beating the dead horse that is the Casey Anthony case. The jury is now in their crosshairs for the unforgivable act of rendering a verdict that was out of step with the wishes of the cable mob.


Some good posts that go against the grain:

Justice was done: Casey Anthony is not the new O.J. Simpson

Casey Anthony and the Law And Order Effect

The Casey Anthony verdict: the jury was right and Nasty Nancy (as always) is wrong

HLN's obsession with the verdict reveals what passes for justice in Nancy Grace's world. It is a perverted thing, twisted by a manipulative demagogue who is both dishonest and cowardly. HLN is delighted that she draws viewers by stoking their sense of outrage. It says something about the journalistic standards at CNN that they are happy to have her on their team. (I wonder what fearless media critic Howard Kurtz will say about Grace's ravings on "Reliable Sources"?)


Poor Paddy Chayefsky. He Pulled out all the stops when he wrote "Network". Yet, even his rich imagination could not conceive of the nightly freakers ball hosted by Jane Velez-Mitchell and Nancy Grace. Did he even suspect that the executives at CNN would look at his masterpiece and see a business model instead of a prophetic warning?


It says something about the ethos of cable news that they have spent many more hours discussing this single “not guilty” verdict than they devoted to the dozens and dozens of wrongful convictions and the innocent men who spent years on death row.



UPDATE (11 July):

"Reliable Sources" did a pretty decent job on the Anthony case. They, at least, acknowledged that Nancy Grace led the charge on this media circus and that the overkill was excessive. OTOH, Kurtz did not play up Grace's most outrageous statements (e.g. "Somewhere ou there, the Devil is dancing tonight" after the verdict came in). For a show and critic that always hammered Beck for his most extreme statements, HK was much such nicer to Nancy his fellow CNNer.


Related:

Attticus Finch doesn't work here

Duke lacrosse: how important is the Gang of 88?

Finally, someone did it

A satisfying smackdown of Nancy Grace

Finally, someone has told off Nancy Grace, of CNN’s HLN network, while on the air.

Of course, Nancy could not handle the truth, so she cut the guy's mike and tosssed him from the show. No matter. McGraw Milhaven is still a hero in these parts

The wheels of justice still turn

A federal judge denied the motions to dismiss the case against Nancy Grace in the lawsuit stemming from the suicide of Melinda Duckett.

Attorney Jay Paul Deratany Expects to Depose Nancy Grace in Wrongful Death Suit

As for Nancy Grace, she has said publicly that she does not believe the suit has any merit. She believes Melinda Duckett knew where the child was, and what caused her suicide, was guilt.

Although Grace and CNN asked the courts to dismiss the suit, a federal judge recently ruled that it can forward.

“The case is not really about the interview itself,” says Deratany. “It is about the deception used to get her on the show.”

“In the next six months,” Deratany says,”depositions with the show producers will demonstrate that.”

I wonder if CNN will settle now.

Discovery will lead to a host of embarrassing disclosures. Not to mention, there are more than a few ex-employees of the show who have no great love for the La Grace. I have to think that CNN will cough up some money to prevent the airing of all that dirty laundry. They don't want the public to see how Nancy concocts the rancid stew that CNN calls a news program.

Maybe the tide is turning

Nice article on the antics of Nancy Grace and Co.

Media's Influence on Jury Trials

For modern pundits, "presumed guilty" has more entertainment value than "presumed innocent"

It doesn't say anything that bloggers did not say hundreds of times during the Duke lacrosse case. But it appears in Readers Digest.

It's kind of appropriate given today's big crime news"

Family cleared in JonBenet Ramsey’s death

For almost twelve years verminous scum like Wendy Murphy made their accusations. Now, it turns out, they were persecuting innocent family members and crime victims. Nice work for some who proclaims herself a "victim's advocate".

UPDATE: No surprise really, but Wendy Murphy was on Nancy Grace and still eager to malign the family. It's probably worth linking to KC Johnson's analysis of her performance on the Duke lacrosse case.

Is this really journalism?

A peek behind the curtain of how the "experts" make it onto the Nancy Grace show

At noon on April 4, Dittrich said she will be e-mailed a copy of the show's topic for the day, and will appear on the show at 8 p.m.

Dittrich said her portion will be filmed from Cleveland. The show is based in New York City.

"It's very exciting and a little intimidating," she said. "I think what scares me the most is not knowing the topic until that day.

Now there is a fine example of the "journalism of verification".

I know that Nancy Grace is the worst sort of tabloid dreck. OTOH, it is part of the CNN family. During the show the screen crawl frequently reminds viewers that CNN is the "most trusted name in news."

Cable news, vox populi, and professional sleaze

For two weeks all four cable news channels have wallowed in the Anna Nicole Smith story with breaks to bring us the latest on Britney Spears. Hogs love slop almost as much as the people who run the "news" networks love tabloid sleaze.

Interestingly enough, bloggers--those hopeless amateurs -- have not followed suit. Instapundit, Powerline, Michelle Malkin, et. al. find it easy to resist the tawdry allure of these stories. For some strange reason the blogosphere sees no need to wallow in the sordid details of celebrity death and self-destruction.

Bloggers are supposed to bow down to the great god Journalism? Viewers are supposed to believe MSNBC because the network has Professional Integrity? They tell us that we can have faith in their reports on Iraq because they are Serious Newspeopleso serious that they devote five solid hours to the ANS body grab hearing.

On Reliable Sources Catherine Crier of Court TV blamed the viewers. ANS meant ratings and the networks have to follow the ratings. John Gibson of Fox News uses the same argument when callers to his radio show complain about cable’s obsession with Natalie Holloway, Jon Benet Ramsey, or ANS. Of late, he has complained that Neil Cavuto’s refusal to cover ANS on his FNC business show has hurt Gibson’s ratings on TV.

Gibson and Crier are only telling half the story when they lay the blame on the audience. It is not that these stories grab the biggest audience; it is that they grab a big enough audience at the lowest expense and least effort. Nancy Grace and Greta van Susteren have honed their skills to the point that they can crank out a sixty minute show on these cases even when there is no real news. They managed to keep the Holloway case going for months when there was nothing significant to report. These shows (even Crier’s) are still making hay out the Scott Peterson trial even though he has been convicted and sent to Death Row.

Here is a typical night on GVS when she is in full Holloway overload:

10:00 pm Hype "shocking new details" in the case.

Break for commercials

10:02-10:10 Talk on phone to someone in Aruba who can only repeat what was on the AP wire at 3.00 pm. Have them speculate about meaning of new revelations. Establish that they do not know if revelation is true or meaningful. Draw a blank when attempting to fit new information into the welter of fact, opinion, and myths that surround the case. Bash Aruban authorities.
Show video of Natalie Holloway throughout the segment.

Break for commercials.

10:13-10:23 Interview Beth Holloway Twitty. Let her emote. Have her lash out at Aruba, the Dutch kid, his father, their lawyers, whoever.

Break for commercials.

10:26-10:37 Bring in panel of lawyers or barking seals. Let either group run through their well-rehearsed routine. Bark, speculate, bark, denounce, joke, bark.

Break for commercial but first remind everyone that the lawyer/seals will be back to discuss missing bride/ cruise ship crimes/ Duke lacrosse/ Anna Nicole Smith.

10:40-10:51 Seals bark/ lawyers bloviate. No one has any new insight or information.

Break for commercial.

10:54-11:00Dim-witted observations by host. Promise of new revelations tomorrow. Hype next show in the line-up.

Fade out to commercials.

What an easy way to fill an hour of TV. All it takes are a couple of amateurs willing to play straight men, some trained seals or shameless lawyers, an even more shameless host, and advertisers willing to pay for that handful of brain-dead obsessives who happily tune in every night.

The four "news" networks are racing to the bottom while trying to grab the biggest share of 2% of the audience. They have nothing to appeal to the healthy 98% of America who care nothing for these stories. Breaking away from the cable pack would require effort and imagination. These are in short supply on television.

I’m also surprised that there are advertisers who find these shows a good venue for their commercials. Although, come to think of it, the traits that mark a true-blue Nancy Grace fan -- limited education, poor reasoning skills, a preference for emotional release over cold logic--are traits that a slick ad man can exploit.

Is that what cable news has become? Shameless attention whores working for cheap con-men? Now there is something for a journalist to aspire to.

Duke lacrosse: Nancy Grace

Durham in Wonderland looks at her "coverage" of the case.

Graceless

Sadly, her behavior during the lacrosse travesty is just her SOP.

Which raises the really important question: Why does CNN still give her a show?

CNN executives: obtuse or liars?

CNN defends 'provocative' talk-show host Nancy Grace

PASADENA, Calif. -- CNN defended Nancy Grace's integrity Tuesday as the cable-news giant unveiled plans to celebrate Larry King's 50 years in broadcasting.

"The CNN brand stands for integrity, accuracy, class, timeliness," Jim Walton, president of CNN Worldwide, told television critics.

One critic asked whether Grace, who hosts a show on CNN Headline News, exemplified those qualities.

"Absolutely," Walton said. "I am not judge and jury, nor am I the morals police. One of the responsibilities of CNN is to be unbiased and present multiple perspectives and points of view. We feel in this case we're doing that."

Nancy Grace: Insight into the PR offensive

Rebecca Dana has a piece in the NY Observer that is not to be missed.

Nancy Grace’s Unmanageable Crisis

In the days after Melinda Duckett’s suicide, Ms. Grace utilized the services of Anna Cordasco, who is the managing director of the New York firm Citigate Sard Verbinnen, which specializes in below-the-radar corporate-image resuscitation.

Ms. Cordasco, who has Martha Stewart as another high-profile TV client, is old friends with Ms. Grace’s executive producer at Headline News, Dean Sicoli. Ms. Cordasco and her colleagues immediately set to work restoring the fire-breathing former prosecutor to her pre-Duckett level of dignity and national esteem.

Except, according to three sources close to Ms. Grace, once the crisis manager stepped in, the crisis just got worse.

Well, as Nancy herself would say, "you can put lipstick on a pig....."

I find it interesting, though, that Ms. Straight Shooting Former Prosecutor opted for a PR firm that "specializes in below-the-radar corporate-image resuscitation."

Nancy Grace: Still trying to ride the dead mother bounce

Sadly, some local cops are willing to help her. From an outstanding column by Lauren Ritchie:

Marion officials jump on Grace's bandwagon

Having Nancy Grace come to town is bad enough.

The CNN Headline News host last week put on two fast-moving, error-laced, psycho-babble shows that consisted of repetitive speculation on what happened to Trenton Duckett, the 2-year-old missing from his Leesburg home since late August.

But to have law enforcement wallow in Grace's theatrical caldron of gossip is just plain bizarre. It is unprofessional. It cheapens the life -- and perhaps the death -- of a child whose destiny seems to be as a victim.

RTWT

Is all publicty good publicty?

Of sketches, Hugh Laurie and 'SNL'

Amy Poehler is wonderful even in sub-par sketches, and her recent Nancy Grace imitation captured that anchor’s condescending monstrousness perfectly.

Commentary: Who needs Halloween? TV is scary enough

We savor the madness of Nancy Grace. (What's scarier than that?)

Nancy Grace: Another batch of shameless lies

Lauren Ritchie of the Orlando Sentinel has the sad details.

Grace's search for Trenton is about ratings

Grace's rantings are stale. So rev up the Trenton ratings machine.

The overblown, error-filled announcement of her arrival is typical of the "it's-all-about-me" way that Grace pathetically clings to the only story that has given her a recent ratings bump.

It's sickening to watch her play on emotions in a real-life tragedy to increase her dwindling viewing audience.

Read the article and then read Grace's "response" on her Friday show here.

Note especially how Grace continues to twist the facts (blaming Ritchie for the errors that NG's PR person made in the email.) Beyond that, however, the rambling response-- incoherent, bathetic, belligerent-- is an embarrassment to any news professional. It sounds like the rantings of a drunk in a bar.

It is no longer surprising when Grace is caught distorting the truth. Such revelations have become as predictable as the full moon. The really important question is why she still has a job at CNN. How can that network remain the Most Trusted Name in News when it gives an anchor chair to someone who is so uninterested in getting the facts right or thinking logically.

UPDATE: Lauren Ritchie prints some of the email she recieved after her column.