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...

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.

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]