“We realized that the important thing was not the film itself but that which the film provoked”

- Fernando Solanos

(300) Intro – More Documentary  - Then touch on MaM and the miscarriage of justice and disability. (Perhaps start with something about documentary and renaissance of the genre in recent years? You also need to discuss (and define) the concept of institutional bias in the media. You could then move on to the idea that the media can now influence criminal justice and also offer a more enlightened or modern representation of mental illness)

(600) Section 1:

 P1: MaM (Ignite Presentation)

 P2: (Textual analysis is the key in this section. Media key concepts, film language etc. Very detailed deconstruction please! Associated theories and research) Dassey IQ e.t.c

(500) Section 2:

P3: Historical Text (The Thin Blue Line) & Real Life miscarriages of justice (and their media coverage) (OiTNB)

(400) Section 3:

P4: Documentary as a genre – Impact on society and audiences (audience effects theory)

Section 4:

(400) P5: Should there be more regulation? – Institutional Bias – Regulation over criminal justice cases – has Netflix and new technology exacerbated the problem. MEDIA THEORY AND NEW/DIGITAL MEDIA.

(150) Section 5:

P6: Future of Documentary - how MAM might influence criminal justice system and future cases.

(250) Conclusion: Media Related

It is difficult to dispute…

Most evidence suggests…

Many would argue…

It could be argued that…

“We realized that the important thing was not the film itself but that which the film provoked”

- Fernando Solanos

To what extent does Making a Murderer illustrate institutional bias in TV documentary – particularly regarding disability and the Criminal Justice System?

(323)

Anne Fischel believes that documentaries can create their own narrative by changing aspects of the narrative: “Documentary films are problematic...They organize information, integrating and synthesizing it into a coherent picture of the world^[1].” The sheer fact that the information is being edited and organized into a documentary for public consumption means the bias is unavoidable. Even if events are filmed as close to reality as possible simple things such as camera angles and lighting can and will influence the audience’s perception. Not all bias is accidental though, some institutions aim to operate in a way that means groups of people are at a disadvantage. Disability, rather than being left to the audience’s mind, has been consistently represented as something that is supernatural and dangerous across all forms of media whether traditional or not. Historically little has been done to understand it and what has been done in an attempt to educate oneself in such a taboo subject has been unsuccessful in being positive. Making a Murderer, although being narratively based on Stephen Avery and the two investigations, has made people more aware of certain injustices that are consequences of issues such as bias, ignorance, and prejudice. Recent developments in the Halbach case – the second case to be investigated in the documentary – has now resulted in a judge order to release Brendan Dassey where it was stated that "We believe the magistrate judge's decision that Brendan Dassey's confession was coerced by investigators,” This is a perfect example showing how media can now influence the  Criminal Justice System , The substantial response to the documentary show, particularly on social media, shows that there is an affect or at least pressure law enforces to makes sure they abide by the law to which they are supposed to be serving. However, although awareness has been created and a positive result has come forth in this case, Netflix are still in the firing line for being bias themselves.

(410)

Making a Murderer is a TV Documentary created by Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos and was a Netflix exclusive. The first episode solely explores Stephen Avery’s wrongful conviction over the brutal sexual assault of Penny Beerntsten in 1985. There is a lot of reference to police manipulation and the plantation of evidence – this is more suspicion based on actual evidence. However, one thing that particularly shocked me was Eugene Kusche’s (Chief Deputy at Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department) solid belief that because his drawing, based on the description given by Beernsten, looked like Avery, he was automatically guilty despite DNA results stating otherwise and resulting in his exoneration. This entire episode despite being based on Avery’s wrongful conviction did seem to have quite a bias approach. Firstly interviews with his family were almost always in a domestic setting, medium close up and had the subjects directly addressing the audience rather than the interviewer. This was particularly prominent with his parents’; scenes with them –highlighting their pain and strong belief of their son’s innocence – would usually be followed

by something surrounding the law enforcers and would be in a particularly harsh and negative light. The binary opposition of this can potentially show that they are siding with Avery. The police/jurors e.t.c are all villainous characters whom are only there to make sure the hero doesn’t reach their goal, to make sure Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey remain in prison. In the ‘villains’ defence there were allegations aimed at both Riccardi and Demos that they had left out ‘important facts’. In the majority of cases with both law and documentaries information is left out so a chosen narrative can be followed closely, there is also the problem of having a specific timescale nevertheless, even if there are valid reasons as to why information was left out there would still be a creation of bias. Helga Reidemeister states that “filmmakers cannot record reality "like^[2] it is." And that they are also faced with “TV Censors.” Even though Making a Murderer was never shown on a traditional TV platform, they would still have faced censorship to a certain extent. Netflix isn’t traditional, but are still responsible to make sure content is suitable and appropriate in order to be successful they have to ensure they follow even the simplest regulations^[3] such as age ratings. Furthermore, many things such as cinematography and lighting can influence the audience’s perception of events, so the scenes shown may not have been what the audience had interpreted.

(398)

Both images are both very similar but incredibly different. The first (left image) is taken from the original interrogation that led to Dassey’s conviction. He was an intellectually disabled minor being interrogated without legal/parental support. Given his body language it isn’t particularly evident as to whether he completely understood what was going on. Mark Wiegert is pictured left at the other end of the frame creating a binary opposition of the two, given that he is closer to the camera he appears larger and more authoritative. This could also represent how he had complete control of the situation where he was in fact feeding Dassey important aspects of the case and encouraging him to expand on these points, ultimately leading to a coerced confession. Both scenes have only been cut when it moved to talk about other parts of the narrative, the lack of cuts during its sequence could suggest that this is completely unedited footage. However a full video has been released and is almost an hour long. Thus, showing that there was more. There could have been even more coercion or even Dassey confessing something that had nothing to do with what was being fed to him. In the right Image both subjects seem to be on a somewhat level ground, no one is closer in the frame, although they are at opposing ends. The feeling of them being less important can suggest that the interrogators have got Dassey in a situation that they want, they have entrapped him both visually and metaphorically. The walls are in frame and show a quite claustrophobic scene. However there is little different to the first interrogation which shouldn’t have stood as evidence in the court. He still had not parental/legal support. The frame doesn’t show whether there is anyone behind the camera, more people could be saying things that do not make the final cut. Information is being said and then repeated back. And most importantly Dassey is wearing prison clothing, which presents him as a criminal before a conviction had been put in place, showing that before any certain decision was made by the judge and jury, these people had already made up their mind. The image could also influence the audiences initial decision, the high angle, clothing and slightly dark lighting insinuates that he is a criminal and was a part of the murder of Theresa Halbach.

 (498)

The Thin Blue Line(1988)  is a documentary film made by Errol Morris. It follows the story of Randall Dale Adams whom was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering Texas Police Officer: Robert W. Wood. The film ‘is cited as being instrumental in his exoneration the following year.’ This is similar to Making a Murder and the pressure/influence the Active audience had in ensuring that Dassey’s case was taken as seriously as it should have been. Despite the changes occurring with the Halbach case, it was not the same with the Woods case, in 1989, Adams was released but it was decided that there was to be no re-try due to the length of time since the crime. Perhaps this was due to the lack of new/digital media, it wouldn’t have been easy to share your opinion and try to make a stand, the investigation into the original case may not have ever happened had it not been for social media. If this film/case had occurred 20+ years later there would be reason to believe that a retrial or even official investigation would have taken place. However this may only be a result of the film trending online, trends can be incredibly unpredictable so there may not have been enough attention brought to this issue in particular. Yet, this doesn’t mean that future cases that may arise and/or be made into a media production, would see a positive and just result. Another real life example that has certain reflections of Dassey’s trial/retrials in Making a Murderer is Derek Bentley’s case, in 1953 he was hanged for the murder of a policeman, a crime which was later quashed in 1998 and had a 45 yearlong campaign that created widespread controversy. In 1990 M J Trow had written a book Let Him Have It, Chris which explored the inconsistencies in the police version of events. Even though this is a more traditional medium, given the time of the events and publishing, it could be suggested that this had a similar effect as Making a Murderer. Events had been explored and it was left to the audience to develop their own opinion, ultimately resulting in the favour of the subject’s innocence. Even more recently, the miscarriage of justice has been hinted on in American dramas. Orange is the New Black is a drama situated on a female prison in America, ther have been some light hints such as Piper creating a fake anonymous tip which resulted in her love Interest Alex Vaus being sent back to prison. To having a more serious event, that reflected police brutality within society, where a peaceful protest was turned violent by prison officers, Poussey Washington died as a result, but a fabricated story was sent to the media, stating that she was violent and that it wasn’t a peaceful protest. Rather than the truth of her being murdered by an untrained officer during the chaos created by a senior officer who was abusing his power.

(242)

In 1895 the Lumiere brothers developed a camera that could hold 50 film stock. The ability to film footage for prolonged periods of times inspired people. To products inspired and influenced people. Documentaries provide information. Typically, on events, institutions and culture. Anne Fichel believes “that documentary films provide one of the most powerful means we have to represent communities to one another and to address social issues and problems.” It is a form of education that is vital for an audience to ensure they are educated on the world around them, influenced by as little bias as possible. An active audience would subvert the hypodermic needle theory; they don’t always believe the information that is being ‘injected’ into them. A Marxist ideology on the other hand would definitely dispute that statement and suggest that the pure purpose of documentaries was to make the audience believe a certain idea. This is simply untrue. If a Marxist ideology could be applied completely moral panics would be rife as a consequence of almost any documentary film. The audience uses the text for certain gratifications. They choose to use texts for things such as entertainment, surveillance, education and escapism. Making a Murderer is a perfect example for this, there was a particularly dramatic delivery of certain parts to make it entertaining for the audience. CCTV footage and old camera footage would have offered a sense of surveillance and assurance of details as they weren’t re- enactments.

(461)

In order to appeal to an audience and enable them to develop their own opinions completely, there would have to be some kind of appeal, whether it be entertainment or education. But in order to follow an easy narrative to follow and to suit a timescale, information has to be left out. The information removed can inadvertently create bias. Sometimes institutions intentionally do this, they want to make a group of people seem a certain way. Sometimes it is so subtle that it is actually difficult to apply theories such as the hypodermic needle as the evidence is either well-hidden or miniscule. So how do we know when there is an intentional desire to discriminate or be prejudice? Where is the line of privacy when it comes to Criminal Justice cases? Because this is such a new phenomenon, regulations need to be adapted to suit this. Something to ensure evidence being left out, is being removed appropriately and that the people involved are not being persecuted by users of new and digital media. Social media and potentially even Netflix are responsible to an extent. Typically, younger audiences wouldn’t be inclined to watch a documentary but Netflix and new and digital media has made them more inclined under certain conditions. If something is trending on social media, there is already a desire amongst the users (typically 13-25 year olds) to find out more about it. Due to it being on Netflix, there was ironically, little reason to suggest that they wouldn’t want to watch the documentary. Sites such as twitter has become the centre of a new kind of justice system. Once there is a dominant ideology that someone is innocent or guilty people are stuck in echo chambers where their opinion almost never changes. One little piece of information can be changed if you remove another part. Said information can cause people to view something in a certain way. Social media means that those views are being reinforced by facts that people are sharing. People are sharing something that may not be 100% true. Essentially, Netflix and new and digital media has exacerbated the problem, and more needs to be done to regulate it.The future of documentary is in question. It is definitely not going to be the same. New and digital media means that there is going to be a direct response to the content. It can also be used to investigate the subject, creating the issue of validity and accuracy. Documentary will still exist but the way it is viewed and created will most definitely change. In terms of documenting the criminal justice system more regulations will be sought after to not only protect those involved, but to ensure it is accurate and showing things in the correct light.

(163)

Most evidence suggests that Making a Murderer Is bias, but all documentary is to an extent. In terms of institutional bias, it would be difficult to dispute that law enforcement is shown in a bad light, but there isn’t enough evidence to suggest that this was intentional. The negativity may have been due to the situation itself rather than an intention created by someone. The audience is definitely active; the show has proven this as even though there is an overwhelming support for Dassey. There is a lot of debate over Avery and Ken Kratz meaning the audience is not just believing what they are seeing or being told. Even if there was some institutional bias it’s effect may not have been like what it would have been in the past. New and digital media allows us to view opinions that oppose what is being said and explored. There is never going to be one line of argument with regards to documentaries anymore.