This piece first appeared on Moyo Aflame on October 9, 2011
I now have enough evidence to firmly support my belief that something very shady is going on over at ABC/ABC News when it comes to how the network and in particular its various news programs, report on LGBT themed stories. Last month I reported on Primetime Nightline's biased program devoted to transgender teens. And now the network has done the exact same thing with this past Friday's report of the recent Brandon McInerney murder trial.
If you are unfamiliar with the case, here are the highlights (or lowlights, whatever the case may be). In 2008, in Southern California, a 14 y.o. Brandon McInerney (who is white) shot and killed his 15 y.o. classmate, Larry King (who is part black). He killed him execution style by shooting him in the back of the head at close range--twice. The murder occurred in their classroom. The presumed motive was Larry King's gayness and because he reportedly flirted with McInerney on numerous occasions culminating, by the report of many, with Larry asking Brandon to be his valentine. A few days after the "valentine" episode, Brandon brought a .22 caliber gun to school and murdered Larry.
Now, like almost any murder case these days, there are all kinds of twists and turns and side stories and allegations that come into the mix in some way or another. If you want those, just do a google search using either of the boys names and you'll get hits to your hearts content. The twist and turn that most interests me and many members of the LGBT communities, particularly members of the African American LGBT communities is that Brandon's defense team settled on one of several defense strategies that is generally an anathema to members of the LGBT communities and that is the dreaded "gay panic" defense. Again, for those not in the know, the gay panic defense essentially asserts that a heterosexual person being hit on or flirted with by an LGBT person is such an incredibly and absolutely horrifying experience that it literally justifies homicide as a reasonable response.
My overarching problem with the entire broadcast right out of the gate:
A few weeks before this broadcast, the County Prosecutor's office who is prosecuting the case announced they are going to re-try the case (the first trial ended in a hung jury). Once again, they are going for a murder one conviction. The show was aware of this development and admitted to such at the very beginning of the program. Here is my problem with this and its a big one. Doesn't broadcasting this program anytime before that re-trial takes place run the big risk of tainting the jury pool? I believe the obvious answer is yes. For some reason however, ABC seems more than willing to take that risk in order to produce a propaganda piece for Brandon McInerney, his family and his defenders. I don't know what 20/20s ratings are. Whatever they are, its still a program that's seen across the globe and that includes southern California. I'm not employed in the criminal justice system but this seems to me to be a problem. And as we'll see, since the program takes a decidedlypro McInerney stance, the program is going to potentially--no make that will almost certainly be a problem for the prosecution. The defense, on the other hand, with this program in tow, just got a type of free advertising and sympathy that all the money in the world could not have bought them. Unbelievable!
Who the program spoke with:
I watched the program twice. First, I watched it simply as a viewer. The second time I watched it with the eyes of a same gender loving man of African Descent who was working as a consultant for the prosecution. In this role I paid special attention to who the program chose to interview (and not interview). Before watching it the second time I took out a piece of paper and made three columns. Those columns were labeled, "interviewee for the defense," "interviewee for the prosecution" and "neutral interviewee." There is only one person who may be seen as fuzzy when it comes to this breakdown. I'll deal with her in a minute. I would defy anyone including anyone currently working as a defense attorney or as a prosecuting attorney to disagree with me after watching the program. Here is the breakdown: The program interviewed sixteen people (including the controversial one) who can without question, in my opinion, be viewed as interviewees squarely in the corner of the defense. The show interviewed one person who can without question be viewed as an interviewee squarely in the corner of the prosecution. This is a teen aged girl who is reported as having been Larry King's best friend. She comes across authentically as such. The show interviewed one person who can be viewed as neutral. Additionally, that sixteen includes both the mother and the brother of Brandon McInerney and the 20/20 reporter (Juju Chang) comes back to them multiple times. In all fairness, she comes back to the lone defender of Larry King multiple times as well. But its not the same. I'll get to that in the next section.
The neutral person is a reporter who covered the case from the very beginning. Fair enough. Good choice.He basically just reports the facts more or less. The controversial person is a former teacher (she now works at Starbucks and we are not told why this career change was made) of the two boys and who was a witness for the prosecution during the first trial. Now however, not only does she rejoice in the fact that the first trial resulted in a hung jury, she also criticizes the prosecutions decision to re-try the case. Even Juju Chang questions/opines out loud during the program, "would she still be considered a witness for the prosecution?" Indeed. Good question. The answer---I think not!
The only agonizingly prolonged shot in the entire program:
The only lingering shot in the entire program comes near the end of the program (That's important. More impact, better remembered). And it is a shot of Brandon McInerney's mother as she is crying after being asked how she deals with the thought of her son being transferred from juvie hall to the adult prison. I timed the shot. It lasted approximately 10 seconds. And this is what ABC calls impartial reporting?
Odds and Ends:
1. Six of the seven jurors who wanted Brandon to receive the lesser conviction (manslaughter) were interviewed (replete with "Save Brandon" wrist bands on their arms that at one point were proudly shown to the camera). None of the five jurors who wanted him found guilty of murder one were interviewed and no explanation was given for that choice.
2. None of Larry King's family members were interviewed and no explanation was given.
3. Other information that is damning to the defense was included on 20/20s further exploration of the case on the shows website but was not included in the broadcast. Who goes to a website to get more info? I'll tell you who, people like me who were shocked by the broadcast (and likely already in the corner of Larry King), not people who believed they got all they needed from it.
4. The main prosecutor in the case refused to be interviewed on camera and I understand that decision given the case is going to be re-tried.
5. In 2004 when interviewing the two men who murdered Matthew Shepard, the reporter, Elizabeth Vargas, presented their initial and almost universally viewed as completely unproven defense that the murder was the result of a drug deal gone wrong rather than the hate crime framing that it truly was. This essentially gave the two killers a huge platform in which to do nothing but drag a murdered gay mans name through the mud on national television for no reason other than ratings. So ABC has been doing this for years.
Go here if you wish to view the entire broadcast online. Here's my previous piece on Primetime Nightline's September story on transgender teen-agers.
No comments:
Post a Comment