Trial by media is a phrase popular in the late 20th century and early 21st century to describe the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a verdict in a court of law.[1] It is particularly relevant in cases where high-profile individuals stand trial, with the concern that the impartiality of the jury may be compromised by extraneous information, disrupting due process and resulting in an unfair trial.[2]

Etymology and early use

The concept was popularized for the first time as Trial by Television in response to the 3 February 1967 television broadcast of The Frost Programme, hosted by David Frost.[3] The confrontation and Frost's personal adversarial line of questioning of insurance fraudster Emil Savundra led to concern from ITV executives that it might affect Savundra's right to a fair trial.[4]

Description

During high-publicity court cases, the media are often accused of provoking an atmosphere of public hysteria akin to a lynch mob which not only makes a fair trial nearly impossible but means that regardless of the result of the trial, the accused will not be able to live the rest of their life without intense public scrutiny.[5]

Although a recently coined phrase, the idea that popular media can have a strong influence on the legal process goes back certainly to the development of the printing press and probably much further.[6] This is not including the use of a state-controlled press to criminalize political opponents, but in its commonly understood meaning covers all occasions where the reputation of a person has been drastically affected by ostensibly non-political publications.[7]

Often the coverage in the press can be said to reflect the views of the person in the street. However, more credibility is generally given to printed material than 'water cooler gossip'. The responsibility of the press to confirm reports and leaks about individuals being tried has come under increasing scrutiny and journalists are calling for higher standards. There was much debate over U.S President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial and prosecutor Kenneth Starr's investigation and how the media handled the trial by reporting commentary from lawyers which influenced public opinion.[8]

In the United Kingdom, strict contempt of court regulations restrict the media's reporting of legal proceedings after a person is formally arrested. These rules are designed so that a defendant receives a fair trial in front of a jury that has not been tainted by prior media coverage. The newspapers the Daily Mirror and The Sun have been prosecuted under these regulations, although such prosecutions are rare.[9] It is also within the power of the courts to prevent the jury from accessing electronic devices during the course of the trial.[10] Furthermore, court security officers are authorized to search for electronic devices that they suspect a juror may have failed to surrender as per the judge's request.[11] Consequently, to conduct research into the case using electronic devices, and indeed share this information with other jurors, is punishable by a fine or imprisonment for up to two years.[12]

Notable events

In 2015, Jasleen Kaur, a woman from Delhi, India, posted a photo of a man, Sarvjeet Singh, on Facebook and accused him of sexual harassment.[13] The Facebook post went viral which was followed by a media trial labelling the man with terms like 'pervert' and 'the predator of Delhi'. Four years later, the man was found innocent by the Delhi court and was acquitted of all the charges. However, during the time, the man had lost his job and could not find any other source of income due to the media coverage.[14]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Middleweek, Belinda (4 May 2017). "Dingo media? The persistence of the 'trial by media' frame in popular, media, and academic evaluations of the Azaria Chamberlain case". Feminist Media Studies. 17 (3): 392–411. doi:10.1080/14680777.2016.1235054. hdl:10453/123672. S2CID 151827061.
  2. ↑ Phillipson, Gavin (2008). "Trial by Media: The Betrayal of the First Amendment's Purpose". Law and Contemporary Problems. 71 (4): 15–29. JSTOR 27654682. Gale A191514423.
  3. ↑ Jeffries, Stuart (1 September 2013). "Sir David Frost obituary". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 1 August 2023.
  4. ↑ Jeffries, Stuart (1 September 2013). "Sir David Frost obituary". The Guardian.
  5. ↑ Nanda, Neelam (March 2016). "Impact of Media activism on Social renaissance". Amity Journal of Media & Communications Studies. 5 (3): 41–47.
  6. ↑ Christie, Suzanne (1 July 1998). "Trial by media: politics, policy and public opinion, the case of the ACT heroin trial". Current Issues in Criminal Justice. 10 (1): 37–51. doi:10.1080/10345329.1998.12036112. ISSN 1034-5329.
  7. ↑ Statham, Simon (2016). Redefining Trial by Media: Towards a critical-forensic linguistic interface. John Benjamins Publishing Company. ISBN 978-90-272-6682-8.
  8. ↑ "Legal News: News Hour with Jim Lehrer" (Transcript). Public Broadcasting System (PBS). 19 October 1998. Retrieved 12 March 2011.
  9. ↑ Bowcott, Owen (5 July 2011). "Contempt of court rules are designed to avoid trial by media". The Guardian.
  10. ↑ Article 69, Act of 13 April 2015. Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
  11. ↑ Article 70, Act of 13 April 2015. Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
  12. ↑ "Pulling at the Curtain, Social Media and Jury Trials – Paul Wragg". Inforrm's Blog. 17 November 2017.
  13. ↑ "Complaint doubtful: Delhi court acquits Sarvjeet Singh in 2015 sexual harassment case". India Today. Asian News International. 26 October 2019.
  14. ↑ Archana, KC (25 October 2019). "4 Years After Fighting The Jasleen Kaur Case, Sarvjeet Singh Bedi Has Finally Been Acquitted". IndiaTimes.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.