Stream It Or Skip It: ‘The Crash’ on Netflix, Another Likely Firebrand of a True Crime Documentary

✕ Sensationalism: The headline uses dismissive and emotionally charged language ('Another Likely Firebrand of a True Crime Documentary') that frames the documentary as inherently sensational rather than neutrally describing its subject. The phrase 'Stream It Or Skip It' positions the piece as entertainment critique rather than news reporting.

"Stream It Or Skip It: ‘The Crash’ on Netflix, Another Likely Firebrand of a True Crime Documentary"

✕ Loaded Language: The opening paragraph sets a derisive tone immediately with 'Typically Depressing True Crime Theatre' and 'reiteration of an awful tragedy,' implying the story is overfamiliar and exploitative before engaging with facts. This frames the audience’s expectations cynically.

"This week on Typically Depressing True Crime Theatre is The Crash, a reiteration of an awful tragedy that fits the Netflix-documentary template perfectly."

✕ Loaded Language: The article uses emotionally loaded descriptions like 'awful tragedy,' 'wannabe model and influencer,' and 'duck-lipping into the lens' to mock Mackenzie Shirilla’s character, introducing bias rather than neutral observation.

"She’s an apparent wannabe model and influencer, duck-lipping into the lens, flipping the bird, doing bong hits..."

✕ Editorializing: The reviewer characterizes the parents as 'clueless, silly and utterly incapable,' which is a clear value judgment not supported by direct evidence, thus editorializing rather than reporting.

"This is not the first time Mom and Dad Shirilla will look clueless, silly and utterly incapable of viewing the tragedy their daughter seems to have purposely caused with even the tiniest bit of objectivity."

✕ Appeal to Emotion: The review frames the documentary as cynical and manipulative, using phrases like 'jerk us around' and 'hope to make our jaws drop,' which reflect the reviewer’s emotional reaction rather than objective critique.

"bent on building to a couple of third-act reveals that jerk us around and hope to make our jaws drop"

✕ Framing by Emphasis: The article repeatedly emphasizes Mackenzie’s selfies and online persona while downplaying legal or medical explanations for the crash, structuring the narrative to focus on her character flaws rather than factual ambiguity.

"He also shows little interest in delving deeper into her character..."

✕ Cherry-Picking: The article relies heavily on the documentary’s use of Mackenzie’s selfies and commentary from authorities and victims’ families, but notes the absence of voices that could provide psychological or sociological context. It acknowledges some defense perspectives exist but criticizes their underuse.

"Johnson’s talking heads are primarily authorities, friends and family, and the film struggles to contextualize the narrative beyond presenting some firm facts from the legal case..."

✕ Omission: The reviewer critiques the documentary for not including experts on adolescent behavior or mental health, which would have balanced the portrayal of Mackenzie, but the article itself does not seek or cite such sources either.

"It doesn’t even bother to ask the question in general, or present an expert on the subject."

✕ Omission: The article fails to explore broader context around teenage social media use, mental health, or legal standards for proving intent in vehicular homicide, despite these being central to understanding the case. It acknowledges the absence of expert analysis but does not attempt to provide any.

"It doesn’t even bother to ask the question in general, or present an expert on the subject."

✕ Omission: The documentary’s failure to investigate how social media culture influences youth behavior is noted, but the article itself does not attempt to fill this gap, missing an opportunity for meaningful commentary.

"Most damningly, The Crash never truly interrogates how or why social media plays such a significant role in Mackenzie’s life, or many teenagers’ lives, for that matter."