I particularly wanted to comment on a specific portion, but was not given the opportunity. So, concerning events 35-24, I will point out several significant flaws. In the discussion of birth control pills, they really whitewashed the record of Margret Sanger, holding her up as a paragon of women's rights when in fact, she was a self-avowed racist who praised the racial theories of Adolph Hitler.
While praised for giving women "control over their own bodies and sexuality", there was no note that she also supported the forced sterilization of women who were minorities, poor, or intellectually disabled (Eugenics). The difference between Margaret Sanger and Adolph Hitler was more a matter of degree and presentation than of character!
Moving on to the OJ Simpson case, they ignored the conflict of interest for the Judge who was married to the superior of one of the key prosecution witnesses and used the civil finding to imply criminal guilt without any mention of the reality that the burden of proof for a civil case is minimal, compared to a criminal case. Civil cases are often defined by sympathy rather than evidence. I studied Criminal Investigation, and I'd have likely voted "Not Guilty" had I been on the criminal jury because of the misconduct of the police, and the incompetence of the prosecution.
Finally, the discussion of the attack on Pearl Harbor included a comment that "NOBODY understood that aircraft carriers would dominate the war..." when in fact, the Japanese planners DID understand exactly that and the entire plan was designed with the hope of knocking those carriers out!
Most of the "experts" quoted seem to be Australians, and I've found a consistent history of anti-American bias in "documentaries" done from an Australian perspective. They consistently seem to come from a liberal bias.
While praised for giving women "control over their own bodies and sexuality", there was no note that she also supported the forced sterilization of women who were minorities, poor, or intellectually disabled (Eugenics). The difference between Margaret Sanger and Adolph Hitler was more a matter of degree and presentation than of character!
Moving on to the OJ Simpson case, they ignored the conflict of interest for the Judge who was married to the superior of one of the key prosecution witnesses and used the civil finding to imply criminal guilt without any mention of the reality that the burden of proof for a civil case is minimal, compared to a criminal case. Civil cases are often defined by sympathy rather than evidence. I studied Criminal Investigation, and I'd have likely voted "Not Guilty" had I been on the criminal jury because of the misconduct of the police, and the incompetence of the prosecution.
Finally, the discussion of the attack on Pearl Harbor included a comment that "NOBODY understood that aircraft carriers would dominate the war..." when in fact, the Japanese planners DID understand exactly that and the entire plan was designed with the hope of knocking those carriers out!
Most of the "experts" quoted seem to be Australians, and I've found a consistent history of anti-American bias in "documentaries" done from an Australian perspective. They consistently seem to come from a liberal bias.
