It was less bad than I feared.

The whole premise, of course, was wrong, unethical. This was an attempt to retry an innocent man by a media elite clearly feeling let down by the verdict from a majority female jury.

We heard the accusers’ stories again at length and their emotive expressions of disbelief at the verdict. We hear nothing at all of who they are, of any character flaws they may have, but the accused’s former colleagues are allowed to air repeatedly his many supposed flaws as a man.

Wark meets and chats with her own wee one-sided jury of Dani Garavelli, Sarah Smith and Maurice Smith and together, they fail to enlighten us with any insights but have a nice wee titter over what may have happened.

As we approached the last moments, I was ready, my forensic media analysis tools sharpened, to hear who got the crucial last words. Would we be left with the words of the wrongfully accused or the rejected accusers, ringing in our ears?

Second last, we heard Jim Sillars, former SNP leadinv figure, say:

Alex Salmond’s character and personality was turned outside in for ALL the flaws to be seen and I think once people see what was done in relation to Alex Salmond that did not need to be done, the volcano will go off underneath the SNP.

Last, we heard an accuser, mournful music rising behind her:

What you’re saying is a man can try to kiss a woman or he can say completely inappropriate things to her when he’s 30 years older than her and is the First Minister of Scotland. I’m worried about what this says more widely to other women or just to us as a society. I mean where does this leave us?

I’m worried too if only slightly.

These final thoughts are known to be influential in the opinions an audience takes away with them. Those two notions, that the SNP is damaged by this and that the verdict is in doubt, are both, if strengthened by this documentary, just what Scotland’s pro-Union media and political elites hoped for.

Luckily, as poll after poll has been telling us recently, the people are not that daft.