Welcome statement


Parting Words from Moristotle (07/31/2023)
tells how to access our archives
of art, poems, stories, serials, travelogues,
essays, reviews, interviews, correspondence….

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Not as I naively advertised

I apologize for recommending last week that you watch Paula Zahn Sunday night on Ray Krone's case. I of course did not then know how the show would be, especially since I'd never seen any other of Zahn's episodes. In my judgment, the show sucked.
    It was an uncritical, exploitive act of pandering to emotion. The repetitive re-enactments, done in a dramatic, grainy, documentary style, quickly became tiresome. Paula Zahn didn't seem to be interested in much besides the obvious sentiments of the case.
    Netflix has a category for shows like On the Case with Paula Zahn: tearjerkers.
    The person whom I quoted as having told me that Paula Zahn "is definitely someone that public officials don’t want in their offices, much like Mike Wallace or Dan Rather" must have been thinking of someone else. Zahn on Ray Krone's case let the prosecutor get away with about as big a lie as gets uttered in the criminal justice context. "Justice was served." How can justice have been served when an innocent man was wrongfully imprisoned for ten years and his family and friends suffered all that loss and pain? Not to mention the family and friends of the victim, who mistakenly assumed for ten years that Kim Ancona's murderer had been prosecuted and sent to prison for the crime.
    Zahn had a juror on the show, but she failed to bring out the real reason for the second jury's ignoring the copious doubt ("Shadow of Doubt," the episode's title, was a gross misrepresentation) and finding Ray Krone guilty. That reason, I think, is that they were more afraid of failing to convict someone who might have committed the crime than they were of convicting someone who didn't do it. Some juries can't stand the thought that they might possibly let a criminal go free. It's the same fear thing, I think, that politicians (especially Republicans these days) depend on to stir up voters' emotions and win elections.
    Jim Rix could have made much better use of thousands of hours (and tens of thousands of dollars) than by traveling all over and writing Jingle Jangle if true justice had been served and the real killer(s) prosecuted for the murder of Kim Ancona.  In case you didn't already realize it, Jingle Jangle's subtitle, The Perfect Crime Turned Inside Out, refers not only to the fact that the likely killer(s) are still at large, but also to the crime of justice's-not-having-been-served, and to the fact that the police and prosecutor (and their hired forensic "expert," whose mission was to hoodwink the jury into buying their foregone conclusion) got away with the crime for all those years (and of course will never be held accountable for it).
    I have to hand it to Paula Zahn, though. She sure can act.  She really seemed to care when she looked at Ray and Jim so awfully sincerely and asked them how they felt about what happened. I wondered whether she took lessons from Barbara Walters or Oprah Winfrey.
    The only solace I derived from the show (which aired on the Investigation Discovery channel) was that it acknowledged Ray Krone's heroic and stoic acceptance of his incarceration, and saluted Jim Rix's generous devotion to the cause of freeing a cousin he'd never heard of until his mother told him he had a cousin on Death Row in Arizona. "And he's innocent," she'd told him, although he didn't believe it at first.
    But the show's failure to serve justice (even to the extent of reflecting some of Jim's book's criticism of our criminal justice system) was appalling. The fact that it merely exploited Ray and Jim's story to titillate viewers and try to sell them merchandise and services leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.
    For therapy to recover from watching the program, I think I'll re-read Jim's book.

3 comments:

  1. ok, first, wow you changed your layout.

    second, i didn't watch it but it sounds as bad as "Nancy Grace"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ah, Nancy Grace! I hadn't thought of her. I'm not sure about the comparison. I think that Nancy Grace is out to get the bad guys (including the guys who might be bad guys, like Ray Krone); Paula Zahn just seems out to titillate and entertain.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My friend Bill, a retiree from the legal profession, gives his permission for me to share here his email comment to me earlier today. As you will see, he viewed the program about the same way I did:

    I was very disappointed in this presentation. Paula Zahn appears to have the warmth of a blasé whore house madam. This show is just another exploitation of the seemingly inexhaustible demand by a large segment of the American public to be titillated by real-life presentations of violence (including violent sex), gore, and retribution. It's a first cousin to Cold Case Files, but not as well done. It appeals to the same crowd that loves reality TV shows.
        Jim's analysis of why this wrongful conviction occurred was totally missing. Instead, the producers presented a superficial analysis of the evidence—without even raising the issue of whether the prosecution's bite mark evidence was spurious. Instead of leaving the viewer shocked at the time an innocent man spent in prison because of prosecutorial power and misconduct, the message conveyed is "Ain't America grand! We have a justice system that releases an innocent guy from prison after a little persistent push by his relative and his lawyer."
        None of Paula Zahn's questions to Jim were designed to bring out the important issues Jim raised.
        Was she trained at Gannet newspapers (stick a microphone under the mouth of a representative from each side of the issue and get a 2-minute sound bite from each, and the truth will out)?
        I hope that there are many others who would have the same analysis we have—even if they haven't read Jim's book. I will never tune in to that drivel again!

    ReplyDelete