Media assumes too much in coverage
But perhaps, as far as contemporary culture is concerned, judgment already has been passed. When mass media speak the words "Terror Cell Broken: 5 Jailed Yemeni Americans Allegedly Trained With Al-Qaeda" as The Washington Post of Sept. 15 did, public opinion is a foregone conclusion. While the suspects may be guilty, the initial story assumes guilt, forcing a suspect to prove their innocence.
Even later, more moderate stories, such as the Post's profile on the men and their place in the Lackawanna community, emerge. But the assumption of the initial article, that the men were guilty, still permeates the story. Media often tend to use the words "accused suspect" in an attempt to mask the very real accusations they are airing. But these code words are thoroughly understood by readers.
Media judgmental pronouncement has real and glaring consequences for trial coverage, for public safety and for individual liberty.
Coverage of the justice system becomes unfortunately "predeterministic," with the same story repeated over and over. The trial court throwing out evidence due to a police mistake or a judge excluding a confession because of a civil rights violation is common legal narratives. Ordinarily these stories could be told from a news perspective, both sides balanced, the law explained and the reasoning behind the decision in a newsworthy format. The added prejudice of the initial arrest story makes that all but impossible, framing the exclusion of evidence as a criminal getting off on a technicality, thus obscuring the very real possibility of police misconduct or a coerced confession.
Another common story relates the victim or victim's family's reaction to an acquittal or piece of testimony. Rather than considering that the police may have gotten the wrong person, the media tends to get the unfortunate comment that the justice system failed the victim today or that defense attorneys misrepresented a witness' testimony. Maybe it did. That would be a story. Unfortunately, that story is not based on the available facts: the verdict that has just been announced or the testimony that just occurred. Media prejudgment disfigures coverage of a trial in such a way as to negate its intended purpose as an impartial judge of fact.
One interesting example of this was the Skakel case, in which Michael Skakel was tried and ultimately convicted of the murder of Martha Moxley. Much of the case coverage focused on the unrelenting efforts of the victim's mother to bring the case to trial. Ultimately, she was vindicated. But, imagine if Skakel had been acquitted. The trial outcome wouldn't change the public image of a man on the run for years, who had escaped justice but had been caught finally. All that would change would be the happy ending.
Waiting in the political wings of this media environment are the prosecutors and sometimes the police, who use the court of public opinion to show their protection of public safety. In rushing to judgment, the media fails in its watchdog role over these public officials who wield the police power of the state. By fawning over the case presented by these individuals whose interest in protecting the public must be assessed in light of their very political offices, the media fails to critically assess the facts and the evidence as presented.
Instead they often choose to do a profile of the newly minted defendant, or the neighbor's critical "I couldn't believe he did that"/"I knew something was up" view. Problem is, when the wrong person is caught, the same stories run. The media attention has not improved the public safety, because the true criminal is still at-large.
Why should we as a community be scared about this state of affairs? Because when important civil rights come up against a system that assumes that we are guilty until proven innocent, then all attempts to protect ourselves with trials, rules and rights seem against the apparent public interest. Many claims of police misconduct or extracted confessions do not get the respect they deserve in the media. The public comes to see the assertion of rights as a red herring to stop the truth from getting out. This public view shapes public policy, and public policy ultimately shapes the future criminal justice system. Trampling on civil rights becomes permissible in many more circumstances when the purpose is to expose wrongdoers.
At least this country has not decided to lock suspects up immediately and imprison them indefinitely just on the suspicion of guilt. Society still demands a trial to impose jail sentences on the accused -- or rather, the "enemy combatants."