Trial by media can be defined as the act when the public media or a country presents a case in an opinionated manner and passes judgments according to it. Such judgments do not have any legal validity, however, since media has such a large influence over the general public, trials by media can have massive social impacts. I feel trial by the media is more of an intervention than a necessity.
The crux of the problem lies in the fact that such media judgments do not have any legal validity. Every country has a working legal structure established in place, which involves highly educated judges, lawyers and litigators and the system is aptly supported by the government. Any particular individual or entity does not have the right to pass judgment on the actions of other people.
Media, however, is an interesting case. The media of a country has a massive reach and is really influential in forming the public opinion. As such, any wrong judgment by the media can glorify a wrongful or demonize a righteous person even before the legal court judgment is out.
An example of this would be an incident in 2016 when two girls claimed to be molested by a couple of young men. Even before the case reached the court, the media had already started demonizing the boys as rapists. Finally, when the judgment came out, it was found that the boys were innocent and that the girls were lying. The intervention by the media did nothing to help the boys. In fact, it tarnished their reputation a lot.
However, there is a counter argument to this line of thinking. Our legal system is incredibly slow. It takes years at end for any given case to reach a conclusion. As such, an opinionated approach by the media can influence the masses to appeal to the courts to bring quicker justice.
Hence, in the end, it can be said that trial by media is more often than not an intervention than a necessity and should be kept in check.
As always, feedback is very welcome. Do follow me on Twitter and if you want to get in touch you can contact me.
Much love,
–SG
The Shining Gem 
And how do you propose to keep the media “in check”? Conservatives are far more worried about keeping the Second Amendment alive and well.. and preferring to “reign in” the role of the press in the First Amendment because they report only the “bad” about Trump… which, by the way, the First is far more important to our general freedoms than owning a gun.
No question there is a “trial by media” aspect as a result of media reporting, but you don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. What I have continually supported is a broader understanding on the part of the public of what comprises how the media reports the news.. events. We need to understand how to filter what we see and how to process it mentally to formulate our own opinion. One big start would be to start teaching “media interpretation theory” in the upper elementary school level, and into the high school level. But, as usual, education lags real life needs.
Absolutely not.. I do not want anyone “reigning in” the media. As far as the idea of someone (men) being falsely accused of a sex crime only to have the courts declare them innocent, yet in the public’s eye that person is damned for life… that is rare, thankfully.. but it most certainly happens. So… increase the criminal penalty for falsely accusing, for starters… and allow for a civil suit in attempting to recover some level of damages. Maybe even a law that covers the discriminating in any way a falsely accused person trying to get back into a life. If a legally vindicated person ends up with a life/career issue then maybe a variation of a witness re-location program.. set them up with a new identity to the point where any immediate identification is not so obvious to the general public; I’m not suggesting a complete “witness’ thing of course (after all, you’re not hiding from the mob)… but a simple name change and assistance to re-locate if necessary (you don’t even need to change Social Security numbers).
Anyway… you don’t mess with the First Amendment simply because you’re uncomfortable with it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
That’s an interesting perspective Sir. I feel being able to voice one’s opinion is definitely not a crime and shouldn’t even be looked down upon, but still, since media has such a great reach and supposedly is easily corruptible, stories start getting portrayed in a particular light (sometimes positive, sometimes negative), all for the coveted TV ratings.
But still, your point is very valid, the public should not behave as sheep and shouldn’t just take whatever the media throws at them at the face value.
Also, the Witness Relocation kind of solution sounds very interesting. Although I don’t think the authorities would ever think in that direction as far as such wrongful defamations are concerned.
LikeLike
Excellent post – very true. We live in an era of “fake news.” Half the time you have to fact check these days. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
If I may, Jan… if you have doubts on who is reporting the news then fact checking is a prudent thing. But if you don’t have the time.. or interest (as many people do not), then settle in with a particular news source that you have some measure of confidence with.. and there are “honest” sources out there. Where we get picky is “how” the news gets reported and most people have issues with how news is reported to the point that they flat out call that news “fake” when it’s not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re right about that, Doug – I do have a news source, in fact – what I was expressing was frustration about seeing blips of headlines reported as “news” at various supposedly legit sites on the internet which are not even close to the truth. An example was a blurb supposedly showing Sarah Huckabee Sanders as a child in a Klan outfit for Halloween – in fact, it wasn’t Sanders, it wasn’t Halloween, it was some other child at a long-ago Klan gathering. But how many people would see that and take it for granted? Just my own frustration – I’d know that to be fake, but meanwhile this story and many like it go out, and people buy in. This historically was called “yellow journalism” – now it’s just news for many folks. There seems to be no penalty for publishing outrageous stuff unless the parties involved take the time and expense to sue for slander. Sad. Okay, I’m off that soapbox, I promise 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is hope for the world if more were as objective as you. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very true. In fact, I’d say more than half the times we have to check.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi S.G
Yes there are fake news and judgements in media. I don’t knw how far it creates a positive effect. I have stopped watching news. Its so hyped also. Infact it seems news is also created. And hindi proverb goes like.. JO BIKTA HAI WOH DIKHTA HAI
The other side to it is that…it can pressurise and get things done. In our country where our legal system is slowest.
I say media is an intervention big time and nt a necessity as such.
Keeping a check where everything is commercialised…is difficult.
Great topic as always…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks. A teacher suggested it to me. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Greatt…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Seeing you after so long.. Good one..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank You Riddhi.
LikeLike
This post reminds me of Arnab Goswami 😂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Being the fourth pillar of our democracy, media houses assumes tremendous responsibility without substantial accountability.
As far as Indian National movement is concerned press had played one of the key role and actively aroused nationalist sentiments among the masses of the country.
Although in contemporary time, excessive commercialisation has undermined the distinguished persona of Media.
Therefore it’s imperative that media houses must realise this thing.
#Remarkable post✌
LikeLiked by 1 person
Point of order, sir. The media is NOT some Constitutionalized fourth estate as it relates to our democracy’s checks & balances. It’s simply an extension of the First Amendment.. a social by-product. Media accountability rests with the interest of the population in reading, watching, or listening to it; the population deciding for itself the level of credibility, entertainment, and objectivity to bestow on any particular media entity. Thusly public interest in a specific media entity translates to that entity’s profitability as a business. Media accountability is defined by how it holds the attention of the public… as, we the people, judge what we see, hear, or read.. and that’s the whole point of a free press.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sir, with due respect, let me tell you that Today, media is considered the fourth pillar of the state all over the world; first and foremost British Member of Parliament Lord Macaulay had given this status to the media.
And in particular whatever I opined, it was in the context Indian media. Here they show little accountability towards population.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, well, I certainly cannot answer to how the media is portrayed outside of the U.S. and in that you are likely far more knowledgeable than myself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Excessive commercialization! Why did I not think of that point while writing this? Haha. Great insight Rishi.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s my pleasure to read your meticulously analysed article.
Keep posting buddy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
☺
LikeLike
I missed our posts😁
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s so sweet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A lot of people react on key words without taking any effort to analyze what is serving to them by tv or “information”. People are susceptible to control and the media, politicians, businessmen and other types of fraudsters use it. It’s classical conditioning/Pavlovian conditioning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The problem with your Pavlovian application as it relates to the media is that the entire media.. all thousands of employees among hundreds of different media companies… would 1. have to be let in on the fraud, and, 2. have to agree to it in order to carry it out.
LikeLike
What does it have to do with classical conditioning? What I’m saying is, that people react on key words rather than listening and watching carefully to understand what is the conversation about.
LikeLike
That’s also called marketing technique… as in your average TV commercial or print ad. The quest for impulse triggers to manipulate our actions through swaying our emotions. Classical conditioning is alive and well in humans… bombarded on us daily. Oddly… I tend to think one of the more reliable “objective” examples when classical conditioning is less used is, in fact, media news stories. Why? Because I honestly do not believe there is a person or persons receiving breaking news just sitting there in some cubicle at CNN or Fox or wherever… making some conscious decision to manipulate words to affect viewers to some self-serving end. Stories happen much too quickly, news cycles shift constantly, and everyone is looking to be the first to get something on the air. While there is truly some originators of “fake” news… I think that it rare compared to the overwhelming reporting of responsible media. We’ve been “conditioned” to think that fake news is indeed fake.. when the vast majority of the time fake news is simply factual news reported differently… whether you see life as the glass half full or half empty. Both can be correct.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ok, now I get your point 🙂
LikeLike
A glaring marker of our time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A great post with good analysis from both sides. Although, it would be better if you gave more examples both for and against it. Example is the best teacher after all. I believe as Rishi had said earlier that media is the fourth pillar of democracy and is indeed needed to steer the public and the court in the direction of justice. Media covers and brakes the news, where nobody else is interested or wants it hidden. Sometimes, the court fails in delivering justice and the media again brings its up, questions it and motivates the public to protest which is highly needed and appreciated in a democracy. Example being– Section 377 of IPC criminalizing homosexuality. It was decriminalized by the Delhi High Court in 2009 and then again criminalized by the Supreme Court in 2013. Now after the Right to Privacy being declared fundamental in 2017 it is once again come up and all the while the media has given facts to form opinions. Sometimes the courts can delay in delivering justice and the media puts them on the right track. Checks and balances is the name of the game. But yes, as rightly pointed out by you, the media is commercialized and we shouldn’t forget that detail. They work for TRPs but we shouldn’t also forget that there are some highly moral journalists working day and night to spread awareness and call for action. It is very important that media shouldn’t work for the government of the day, they have to report from the sides of those being governed and not those who are governing.
Indeed a remarkable post and a great topic 🙂
LikeLike