Sometimes people offer objections to FIJA, and need convincing that it's a good idea. FIJA is quite unique in its appeal to groups who have opposing political views. It is probably because, unlike most issues, everyone wins if anyone wins. This is because group decisions are less likely to be extreme or unique than individual decisions. Telling jurors the truth about their rights is not likely to change this.
Media often make matters worse, by setting and aggravating fads in law enforcement.
The worst offenders are prosecutors whose plea bargaining is too often based on race, creed, politics, and ability to pay. Once the courts again focus on trying crimes against persons and property, it will become pointless and rare for defendants to ask juries to nullify law, because laws against actions which inflict damage are inevitably supported by the community. Defendants are likely to be both more satisfied and less inclined to try an appeal after conviction by jurors who knew they could have nullified the law and acquitted, but did not. And all the jurors would have to agree to nullify a good law in order to get an acquittal on that basis, so the chances are infinitesimal. This is probably why none of the states whose constitutions have explicit provisions acknowledging the right of jurors to judge the law have reported problems in administering justice as a result of jurors being informed of that right.