Do we still need courts snce we have CNN?

Over the past couple of months I have been subjected to many news stories on the "Big 3", CNN, Fox etc. regarding Scott Peterson, Kobe Bryant and Michael Jackson.

At first, I tried to ignore this often repetitive coverage, but then a strange thought occured to me. If you listen carefully, (and not so carefully in some cases) IMHO, the media has already completed these trials.

Kobe is not guilty.
Michael and Scott are guilty.

Now i personally am the kind of person who wants to wait until the trials are over to make up my mind. But it seems to me that some in the media have already decided the outcomes andcover the stories as such.

Take a looke at these articles by CNN regarding Kobe's case.

search.cnn.com...

On the surface, they seem to try to be fair, but when you take them as a whole, again in my opinion, they seem to have a "not guilty" slant.

The opposite seems to be true for Jackson and Peterson:

search.cnn.com...

search.cnn.com...

I don't mean to pick on just CNN here, they are justthe example. I'm sure a similar search of any othe news site would yield similar results.

Now I am not saying that any of these people are guilty or not guilty, nor do I want that to be the topic of this thread. I am interested if others see the coverage as I do, and am particularly interested if some see the media bias in the other direction.

What do you think?

Yes Seth....I am seeing this media court coveradge just like you......Kobe ~NOT~....and Scott & Micheal ~VERY~
I think there is NO DOUBT about the media having EXTREME IMPUTIS on the corts outcomes.........

Its embarassing really........to see this REALITY in my face....and still be told that our court system is the best solid system.

Clearly not.

Our MEDIA system is the SOLID system........Courts can be swayed by this media, NO DOUBT!

God help you if you're arrested for a crime and CNN gets to decide your innocence or guilt...

I filed an appeal in the ninth district court of appeal in san francisco. The appeal was to reverse a motion to dismiss a Federal claim against Santa Barbara County for failing to appear on subpoena.



Could the above have any thing to do with this

truthasaur.com...

Im not sure I understand what the point of that subpoena is.

A very interesting comparison, Mr. Bullock. I would agree with your interpretation of the articles in question - the faint but detectable innocence of Bryant, and the presumption of guilt in the cases of Peterson and Jackson.

I do believe that legislation should be introduced to prevent any news or media outlet from presenting unfair and unbalanced information regarding an upcoming trial. The problem is, of course, that as soon as we introduce said legislation, every single trial will be stuck in appeal hell while overpaid lawyers argue that some one-column story in the Puckville Echo prejudged the defendant. The solution, to my mind, is to appoint an independant regulator who would monitor every single broadcast, and issue warnings and punishments to networks which violated the rules.

I would also observe that these companies employ extremely dedicated and talented individuals to decide on their editorial line. You can be damn sure that if CNN is advocating Bryant's innocence, it is because the best brains they employ have judged that he is innocent. Equally, if they condemning Michael Jackson, it's because -

Well, come on. That case in particular is a no-brainer, isn't it?

Finally, I think there's an interesting extension to your observation. In high-profile criminal cases, the judgement of the media is often more important, more lasting and more damaging than anything which comes from a court of law. Take OJ Simpson - the court may have found him innocent, but ask any person in the street and see what they say.

In the end, I suppose the only defense we have against this type of trial-by-media is our own intelligence, skepticism and wit. Once you accept that everything you get from CNN is biased, things become a lot clearer.

Thanks for the links and an interesting topic!

I see the same trends, but having listened to the coverage rather than avoid it....there's more to it.

I think the legal eagle pundits are leaning towards Kobe being actually guilty but aquitted...if you get my meaning.

And possibly the same for Petterson.

Jackson, probably guilty and the verdict a toss up.

They walk a fine line when they talk of guilt or innocence since it's more the legal terminology and betting against verdicts rather than actually saying whether or not someone did it IMO.

Like O.J. He did it. He did it. He did it. And we all know it. But aquitted.

That's supposedly the point of all the analysis. What the jury's will see and do. What the legal strategies are. It's kind of like watching Law & Order.

Theoretically they have remedies when selecting jurors and believe it or not, not everyone has cable...but I know it taints juries.

When there was still the possibility Rush Limbaugh would face trial, I thought it absurd he could go on the air and preach his innoncence to 20 million. So it goes both ways. Kobe, Petterson and Jackson's attorney's have played the media like a harp attesting to innocence. So you can't just get mad at CNN.

While I agree that the media's (over) involvement with these stories is annoying, I don't think it has a direct impact on the jury's ultimate decision. Hence the following:

Researchers William E. Loges, of Oregon State University, and Jon Bruschke, California State University at Fullerton, outline their argument in a new book called "Free Press vs. Fair Trials: Examining Publicity's Role in Trial Outcomes."

Though pre-trial coverage usually casts the defendant in a negative light, the authors say, their studies of more than 1,100 felony murder and bank robbery trials found no statistical difference between guilty verdicts in trials that were heavily publicized and trials that received virtually no media attention.

This is significant in that CNN, Fox and CourtTV can judge and pick apart the prosecution's case and the defense missteps, but ultimately cases are decided on their merits. OJ not withstanding.

oregonstate.edu...

edit: sorry forgot the link


[edit on 9-6-2004 by Bleys]

What I love about this media courts is when they bring their own lawyers and discuss the cases like they were the ones actually in charge, everybody have and opinion and the heck with the real lawyers that are defending the accuse.

[edit on 9-6-2004 by marg6043]