Depp v Heard
Call the social media bigmouths!
Thanks to the experts of the internet, we no longer have to rely on fusty legal correspondents for commentary on court cases.
Instead, we have instant opinion from online observers with reassuring names such as Popcorned Planet and Legal Baddie. For real gravitas and nuanced analysis, be sure to watch DarthN3ws, a pundit in a Deadpool mask and a woolly hat.
Depp v Heard (Ch4) doesn't only provide a condensed account of the war of smears and counter-accusations waged between two Hollywood stars, the very-much-divorced Johnny and Amber.
It also gives us a glimpse of how toxic the future of court reporting could be, if newspapers and TV are replaced by gibbering attention-seekers on TikTok.
The decision last year by a U.S.
court in Virginia to broadcast this defamation trial live for the first time unleashed a celebrity circus even more inane than the 'Wagatha' libel trial between Rebekah Vardy and Colleen Rooney in the UK.
What made Depp v Heard so different was the running commentary by video bloggers and YouTubers, a stream of moronic reaction that began at the lowest possible intellectual level and burrowed downwards
One especially depressing element was the vitriol Heard attracted simply for being female
These American proceedings generated waves of sensation, from the secret recordings of the couple arguing drunkenly, to the accusations of physical violence and revolting vengeance 'pranks'.
A three-part summary, which continues tonight and tomorrow, edits their conflicting testimonies into a back-and-forth of allegation and rebuttal, interspersed with remarks from lawyers and witnesses.
Something similar was done earlier this year with the Vardy-Rooney trial, though this was recreated with actors because British courts don't permit filming or live broadcasting.
The dramatisation was a rather laboured, plodding business, wahana138 lacking imagination or surprise.