On CNN talking overhyped Conrad Murray coverage: People most endangered may be the jury
After a few days watching the overhyped coverage of the Conrad Murray trial, it strikes me that the doctor accused of killing the King of Pop may not be hurt the most by some outlets' shameless pro-prosecution attitudes.
This may be the lesson of the Casey Anthony trial, where jurors seemed to obey the judge's instruction to avoid media during proceedings- - which is why they seemed so thunderstruck when the general public turned on them after their acquittal verdict.
Expecting logical behavior from a California jury may be a bit much. But if history repeats itself, Murray may get verdict from a mostly unbiased jury looking hard at the evidence to deliver their best verdict in a complex case.
But the people really on the firing line are those selfsame jurors.
HLN harpie Nancy Grace is already knocking Murray on air, making quote marks with her hands when she calls him a doctor and complaining prosecutors undercharged him. That may mean a serious public backlash for the jury if they provide a verdict Queen Nancy hasn't predicted and/or doesn't severely punish him.
What do you expect from a woman who calls this proceeding the Michael Jackson Trial (who most people know), instead of the Conrad Murray trial (who many people don't)?
This is one result I didn't get to discuss much while on CNN's Reliable Sources Sunday, though I did get to ding CNN on its own air for outsourcing coverage of tabloidy subjects to the scandal-addicted HLN.
See my appearance below: