Media Trial : how the media affects the court’s judgement

The media circus that appears at so many trials these days need a ringmaster to balance the media and the accused. It does not need more clowns. (Walton, 1998, p.588)

The above lines are taken from the book “Free Press Vs. Fair Trials” in which Walton can be seen addressing about Media Trials.

There’s a theory of the media, namely the Social Responsibility Theory, which conveys that the media acts as the fourth estate, as the fourth pillar of democracy, and that that it should objectively not only bring news to the people but also analyse the news, interpret so that people can understand and assimilate what is happening. So there are basically two ways to ensure whether the journalist is fulfilling his/her duty or not. The first one is self-regulation/self-censorship and the second is the public pressure.

Self-regulation means all media houses in their own interest will not bring out a news which is not verified or which is not objective in its facts and figures or will not behave in an irresponsible way because then they will lose their credibility and thus their business. So, in their own interest, they will serve their social responsibility because that will make them appear to be more responsible and thus more credible in the eyes of the people.

And if some defamatory thing comes out, then there will be public pressure. People may take a strict action against them, by filing a case, for instance. And eventually it will be rectified.

But we can only assume this theory as an ideal structure of the media because it’s not the same in reality since people aren’t criticizing those media houses which are spreading propaganda and fake news and in fact this process is going towards the opposite way where they criticise those who disclose the truth because of the lack of awareness among the larger section of the society since not everyone have that much capability of analyzing whether the news is fake or real. And only this unawareness has led to the publicity of propaganda and also media trials.

First of all, let’s know the difference between media trial and fair trial.

Fair trial is when a trial is observed by trial judge without being partial but when this court proceeding becomes slanted towards any specific party due to the impact of media coverage on a person’s reputation by creating widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a verdict in a court of law, then it is called media trial.

Media trial basically conveys the importance of media in our society, that how influential it can be, by even affecting the court’s judgement.

Media trials have turned out to be both — negative as well as positive in many cases.

Some of the examples of the cases in which media trial has turned out to be positive are the Ruchika Girhotra Case and the Priyadarshini Mattoo Case in which several campaigns by the media were held in order to create more influence among the society to punish the culprit which turned out positively and in the well-being of the victim.

But in most cases, it has had a negative effect in the court proceeding where the media even before the court’s final judgement assigns any person related with that case to be a culprit which leads to defamation of the specific person as was in the Gorakhpur Tragedy Case, Beena Ramani Case, Jessica Lal Case and the Aarushi Case.

The media can portray a person as a victim, but not as a culprit before the court’s judgement, and it’s important for the media to report accurately because it affects a larger section of the society. Media should hold its own responsibility for what they are reporting. Media has the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1) (a), but at the same instance, citizens also have the right to life and liberty, right to privacy and also the right to fair trial as mentioned in our constitution.

People always blame media for increasing levels of propaganda, fake news or media trials... But aren’t we the ones who are appreciating this kind of biased media by watching those channels and increasing their TRP. People never take this seriously that how huge impact it can create. By watching these biased channels we are suppressing those which are honestly working in the field of Journalism.

There is another case of Umar Khalid, a student of JNU, in which even the renowned newspapers and news channels defamed him by portraying him as a member of the terrorist group, Al-Qaeda & also as a Naxalite.

Even if the innocent ones get justice through the court, then even, because of their defamation on a larger extent through the media, it leads to the formation of an evil image of them amongst the people because of which they lose their authenticity in their jobs.

According to the TRA's consultation paper on media ownership, most of the newspapers and radio & TV channels are owned by the political leaders & businessmen. Because of which the genuine and impartial news channels aren't being able to inform the people about what's actually happening inside the country as well as around the world.
Moreover, the problems of grassroots people aren't being publicized much because of the lack of resources given to that specific reporter or journalist to perform ground - zero reporting and also because of the comparatively less strength of the audience taking interest in local issues.

But sometimes those with power misuse the term 'media trial' as an excuse to silence the media to get rid of the crime which they have performed intentionally.
So, be aware of what you are watching on your television, which newspaper you are giving money to, which radio channel you are listening, because only these are the ones which shall exist in the nearer future.