Generally, I think the video format is responsible for a lot of disinformation getting swallowed wholesale. The people I know who fall for disinformation get it from videos. They usually have no other sources than themselves, nobody to challenge in the video itself, and it's very difficult to reference parts of the video for critical discussion. It's the perfect medium for a Gish gallop.

So I read it because I didn't want to take in information passively. 4-hours is too much information to process critically in one go. It's easy to watch that and be led to the conclusion the producers want with cut scenes, music choices, etc. After hearing so many falsehoods and retractions, I wanted to digest it properly.

The word "documentary" does not mean truth. In some cases it means a completely unchallenged and biased narrative led to deceive, such as the documentary Vaxxed, which was also promoted by a massive platform when it came out. It's hard to put the genie back in the bottle after something like that.

I'm not necessarily judging the individuals in the video. If they have a case, it was badly represented by a documentary that did not check some facts that are essential to their core claims. Their director is also very odd. Regardless of what happened, to say Jackson was "worse than Epstein" is just not something a thinking person would say in an age where those victims are also trying to get justice.

Are you going to explain what specific audiovisual component might, if seen, lead someone to conclude that Michael Jackson shouldn't have been acquitted? Or is this just some vague allusion to nonexistent super-important context that invalidates all the legal proceedings so you don't have to actually make a solid case for your accusation?