Who needs a jury when we have Nancy Grace?
I can’t stand Nancy Grace.
That she has a program and can stay on the air suggests to me that this country doesn’t believe in due process; it believes in snap judgments and stringing people up. Either that, or there are a lot of people who tune in because they either find Extreme Umbrage compelling to watch, or want to feel it themselves in watching this annoying harridan squawk.
I’ve seen Nancy Grace’s unwatchable program one or two times, in stretches lasting no longer than five minutes, for the reason that if I had to watch for longer than that, I would be forced to put a gun in my mouth and pull the trigger. She represents, in my opinion, all that is wrong with opinion-based cable “news” programs.
It’s not merely that exceptionally annoying voice that makes me recoil, it’s her utter contempt for people she doesn’t know and situations she’s apparently barely more privy to than the layman. The overriding sense of her is: If it’s on my show, then a crime has been committed, these people are guilty, and it’s my personal responsibility to bring them to justice in the court of public opinion. Hey, I’m scorching the earth on your behalf!
No, thank you.
There’s a time and place for moral outrage, but the news broadcast is not one of them. Besides, I don’t think Nancy Grace represents moral outrage except in the most glib and over-the-top hyper-emotional fashion. This is all a sideshow for ratings (although I find the would-be appeal mystifying), which exploits sensational crimes and dresses that exploitation in the false guise of a victims advocate’s voice. I find it distasteful.
With the Duke lacrosse players being cleared of wrongdoing in that false rape case, “The Daily Show” last night aired an edited-together anthology of Nancy Grace’s coverage of the case that sums up my feelings on her better than even my own words could.
Revenge is a dish best served hilariously, using their own words.
The legal system: It do what it do.