Open Thread on the 20/20 Shepard piece

My quick thoughts are that the 20/20 piece felt poorly reported and sensationalist, particularly smiling Vargas’ approach, which at times seemed almost sympathetic to these murderers, as if she were talking to someone who was wrongly convicted. And by the way, being high on crank and being a self-loathing homophobic bisexual are not mutually exclusive—of course, addressing the facts that both of these elements could have been involved at the same time would sully ABC’s ability to market this story as a revelation.

During the interviews, Vargas appeared less interested in whether or not she was getting the truth out of these people than if she were getting a juicy soundbyte for her alternate theory, which, as GLAAD’s episode guide points out thoroughly, is full of holes and reinvented stories.

McKinney seems like a total liar. If he won’t fess up to his bisexual experiences doesn’t it make sense that he would lie that Shepard’s being gay had nothing to do with the killing? Vargas, how are we expected to believe an argument based around a murderer who tells the truth half the time and lies the other half? If you believe him, Henderson now is painted as a much milder character, but he was still an accomplice. He was right. He could have done something.

Thoughts everyone?

Posted November 27, 2004 at 12:40pm ETC by Andy Towle
in Film and TV