Interesting article. It didn't all display for me but I got the gist.
I think he's pointing out that some are deliberately (my words) misrepresenting the show. Lawyers have had the opportunity to have a say in juror selection forever, so it's not a foreign or new concept. The show is about making a science of it.
I don't know how much Dr. Phil's firm did it like the show does it (after all, it is television) but the concept has always been around. I know if I was on trial, I'd want the best chance of a fair trial. I don't know why that bothers some so much. If you were in the Boston area when the Marathon bomber went on trial, the jury selection went on for days. You wanted in the end, that the bomber had no way he could say that the jury was against him from the start (even though of course they would play that card). It's only smart to put the time and effort into getting your client a fair shake, whether he's a monster or not. It shouldn't just be for people we like or think are innocent. When we start differentiating between who we "think" is guilty before the trial, and who is not, we're in big trouble IMO.
The critics want their pet This is US to be a hit so the show is being slammed unfairly in some cases, IMO. I swear, some reviewers read the snopsis, saw the Dr. Phil angle and then trashed it. Anyway, I'm enjoying it so far. I'm in no way a Dr. Phil fan but it doesn't bother me in the least that he is involved as a EP or whatever, and if I didn't know it was based on his company, I'd have no clue (no pun intended!)
reply
share