TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE LATEST LUIGI MANGIONE DOCUMENTARY                

Do not threaten. You don’t want to catch a case! Stay respectful but clearly state your issues with the documentary.

WHO ARE WE TARGETING?

COMPLAINT TEMPLATE 1:

Re: Ethical Concerns About Potential Violations of Judicial and Constitutional Principles

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you out of concern with your upcoming programme “Who Is Luigi Mangione?”.

Luigi Mangione’s trial has not started yet, as of today. Moreover, the defendant in the case has pleaded “not guilty”. I am sure you are aware that the fifth and sixth amendment of the Constitution of the United States contains the due process clause, and that due process means the government cannot deprive a defendant of their freedom or property unless they follow the proper procedures. The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is fundamental to due process.

The programme that has been mentioned above does not grant Luigi Mangione the right to a fair trial under the presumption of innocence. The preview shows several comments as being made online by Mr Mangione, when in fact those quotes are incorrect or taken out of context.

Examples include the line “The doctors don’t have f**king clue what’s going on!!!”. The actual quote from the reddit post is “... the doctors won’t have a fucking clue what’s going on.”, and it refers to a post about brain fog and doctors not knowing the cause for this.

Another, more egregious example is the quote taken from the Goodreads review of “Industrial Society and Its Future” by Ted Kaczinsky. In the programme the quote that is attributed to Mr Mangione is “It’s not terrorism… It’s revolution. Violence against those who lead us to destruction is justified as self-defense.” This quote has, in fact, not been made by Mr Mangione himself. In his review, he quotes someone else’s view on the book, prefaced by the words: “A take I found online that I think is interesting”. The words attributed to him in the trailer for the programme are not his own words at all.

Furthermore, many of the people interviewed have confirmed to knowing Mr Mangione for only a short period of time, which really casts doubt on how relevant their testimony as to his character is.

With all due respect, it is not the task of the media to influence potential jurors, or to bias them towards a certain outcome of a trial, especially when the trial has not even begun. The media should report objectively on current events, without personal bias – it is not the media’s task to sensationalize criminal cases, to meddle with the judicial system, or to influence public opinion. This would not even come close to the standards for journalistic integrity, as it is not impartial reporting.

I am very concerned about the violations of judicial and constitutional principles this programme poses. Ideally, this programme should not be aired at all. Additionally, I would like to see an immediate investigation into these practices and the ethics of programmes such as yours. Any programmes about ongoing trials should strive for absolute objectivity, as well as clearly show that the presumption of innocence is taken seriously.

I trust you will address these issues and take the appropriate actions.

Best regards,
[YOUR NAME / PSEUDONYM]

COMPLAINT TEMPLATE 2:

Re: Legal and Journalistic Objectivity Violations Regarding Your Programme

Dear Warner Bros.Discovery representative, 

As a customer of multiple Warner Bros. Discovery’s products & services, I want to express serious legal and ethical concerns about the upcoming documentary ‘Who Is Luigi Mangione?’ produced by your Investigation Discovery network. Mr. Mangione - who has pleaded “not guilty” and awaits trial - is evaluated by people with little personal connection, the trailer selectively misquotes him and attributes statements he never made. All of this coupled with dramatized narration, ominous soundtrack, and selective editing result in a biased portrayal that undermines journalistic standards, legal principles, WBD’s credibility. 

Firstly, such editorial choices raise constitutional issues under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, which guarantee every defendant’s right to due process and a fair trial - including the presumption of innocence. While media outlets are not legally bound to uphold this presumption as courts are and while they do enjoy First Amendment protections, they still have legal and ethical responsibilities. As established in Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966), prejudicial media coverage can compromise a fair trial by improperly influencing potential jurors. 

Secondly, misleading coverage of ongoing legal matters can tarnish WBD’s reputation as a trustworthy content provider. Interviewing individuals who barely knew Mr. Mangione questions the credibility of their statements. Established journalistic standards from SPJ and RTDNA call for fairness, accuracy, and minimized harm, while WBD’s own Guiding Principles emphasize commitment to integrity, ethical behavior, and legal compliance. Failing to adhere to these erodes public trust in your brand. 

Lastly, the lack of objective reporting not only misleads viewers but also exposes WBD to potential defamation liability. Cases like Richard Jewell (1996) and Nick Sandmann v. CNN/Washington Post (2019) demonstrate the severe consequences of media misrepresentation for both the individuals involved and the organizations responsible. 

Given these concerns, I urge you to reconsider airing this programme in its current form. Please revise it immediately to not mislead audiences or prejudge an ongoing legal case by reaffirming Mr. Mangione’s presumption of innocence, removing misquoted or falsely attributed statements, and eliminating dramatizations that distort reality. I look forward to your response and to seeing responsible reporting practices upheld. 

Sincerely, 
[YOUR NAME / PSEUDONYM]