Trial by media

Template:Short descriptionTrial by Media occurs when intense news coverage influences how the public views a criminal case before the legal system reaches a verdict. Social media makes this problem worse through platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok allow unverified information and personal opinions to spread within minutes, creating a court of public opinion that operates faster than actual courts. People form judgments based on headlines, viral posts, and incomplete information rather than evidence presented in court. This rush to judgment can permanently damage a person on trial's reputation even if they're later found innocent, and it can pressure juries and judges who may be exposed to biased coverage, undermining the fundamental right to a fair and impartial trial.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> Template:For Template:More citations needed Template:Use dmy dates 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.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> 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.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>

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.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> 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.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>

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.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>

Although popularized in 1967, 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.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>Template:Original research inline 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.<ref>Template:Cite bookTemplate:Page needed</ref>

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.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>

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. Newspapers like the Daily Mirror and The Sun have been prosecuted under these regulations, although such prosecutions are rare.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> It is also within the power of the courts to prevent the jury from accessing electronic devices during the course of the trial.<ref>Template:Cite act</ref> 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.<ref>Template:Cite act</ref> 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.<ref name="foo">Template:Cite news</ref>Template:Self-published inline

See also

• Amanda Knox
• Brett Kavanaugh
• Casey Anthony
• Calciopoli
• Court of public opinion
• Courtroom photography and broadcasting
• Day-care sex-abuse hysteria
• Death of Azaria Chamberlain
• Duke lacrosse case
• Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
• Femme fatale
• Fishing expedition
• Huw Edwards
• Jasleen Kaur harassment controversy
• Karl Muck
• McMartin preschool trial
• Media circus
• Nancy Grace
• Presumption of guilt
• A Rape on Campus
• Richard Jewell
• Richard Ricci
• Sam Sheppard
• Sensationalism
• Trial by ordeal
• Witch-hunt

External links

• Condemnation of trial by media Template:Webarchive. Complete text of the judgement by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, India.