Hollywood Lawyers: Drunk Drivers Good, Auto Manufacturers Bad

I have watched the first few episodes of a new show Eli Stone, which stars Sick Boy and the alien from Species, mostly because it appears after Lost. I am done watching it after the latest episode, however.

The premise of Eli Stone is that he gets visions—either due to a brain aneurism or sent by God—that tell him what he should do; this is a unique premise. What is not unique for a Hollywood production is the rest of the set-up. Eli is a greedy, bloodsucking lawyer, surrounding by other greedy, bloodsucking lawyers who work for greedy, bloodsucking corporations. His visions have begun to show him the errors of his ways—he now works for the "little guy," those who are suing the greedy, bloodsucking corporations, and all they want in return is a few million dollars.

Ordinarily, this wouldn't bother me. I realize that there are many companies that deserve to be hit with big civil suit awards, and several legitimate, heart tugging cases against big companies. But Eli Stone has shown just how anti-corporate Hollywood is.

In the latest episode, Eli has to work an old case (from his days as an evil lawyer), and defend an auto manufacturer, which is accused of making cars that tip over when crashed. Eli feels bad, and I think the audience is supposed to as well, when he goes after the plaintiff, finding out that he was drunk (and fighting with his wife) when the accident occurred. "Oh boo hoo, it wasn't the drunk driver's fault he got in an accident and got hurt, it is the fault of the evil, greedy car company," we are supposed to say. But "good" Eli breaks the case by discovering that these SUVs might tip over when they have low tire pressure (note: low tire pressure also reduces grip and braking ability, so I guess car manufacturers are to blame for that too), and the auto manufacturer hid the results from a test they had run showing just that.

This is the second episode in which a case has hinged on test results run by an evil corporation (in the pilot, a pharmaceutical company had test results which linked their vaccine to autism, but also covered it up). Why are these evil companies running safety tests on their products at all, when they they don't care if they're safe or not? If the companies are going to ignore the tests results and cover them up, why not simply not run the tests at all? Is there a possibility that evil, greedy corporations actually want to ensure their products are safe?

And what about 3^rd party testing? Car and Driver and other magazines run safety tests on cars, shouldn't they have found a safety hazard? And in the vaccine case, shouldn't the FDA—which would have tested the vaccine and then approved it—have discovered its side effects? Why not sue the FDA and Car and Driver?

I have a theory that there are three groups it is acceptable to stereotype (and Hollywood does so). 1) The unsophisticated, uneducated, probably racist and homophobic, simple-minded Southerner; 2) The bigoted, hypocritical, judgmental, unforgiving, uncharitable Christian (and if Catholic, throw in child-molesting); and 3) The greedy, selfish, mean, no-time-for-family businessman and lawyer.

I don't expect Hollywood to start makings shows with corporate lawyers as the protagonist, even if they defending their clients against junk lawsuits (e.g. suing McDonald's for their coffee being too hot), but why not start a show about those who defend small businesses against lawsuit abuses that would cripple their business—such as cases over at IAmLawsuitAbuse.org (video below). Or what about a show about the heroes at the Institute for Justice who defend individuals against the abuses of government—eminent domain, economic freedom, and the like?