"The Dingo Ate My Baby" is a popular punchline when it comes to joking around about Australia and its people. Fact of the matter is that it really isn't something to joke around about, as Lindy Chamberlain used this as her defense back when she was accused of killing her baby back in 1980.
Let's go hop back in my Delorean... this time, we're going back to 1980, and going to Australia. Azaria Chamberlain disappeared on August 17, 1980, and it was thought by the parents that a dingo had captured their baby and devoured it. Ludicrous, right? Despite the fact that the baby's clothes had been found by a dingo lair, the parents were still prosecuted and were found guilty of the murder of their baby. Lindy got life in prison, and her husband got a suspended sentence.
During the trial, the media sensationalized the incident with all sorts of jokes and cartoons, depicting the incident. Then, they brought up how she didn't act like a stereotypical grieving mother. A literal witch hunt ensued from this point. First, the media attacked her religion, thinking that her religion was nothing more than a cult that kills babies as some sort of sacrificial ritual practice. They attacked the fact that this had happened in a remote desert location, and that her lack of emotion meant that she had done it in cold blood. Then the police received an anonymous tip from a man that the name "Azaria" meant "sacrifice in the wilderness", confusing it with Azazel (which is the name of a wilderness demon to whom a goat was "sent out" to in the Jewish ritual of Yom Kippur), and then the media ACTUALLY ACCUSED HER OF BEING A WITCH. This wasn't Australia in 1980, it was Salem, MA in the late 1600s. The media then sensationalized that Azaria was wearing black at the time of her death. However, it was fashionable to wear black or navy back then. The media's influence without a doubt impacted her right to a fair trial, and she had served three years of a life sentence with hard labor before conclusive evidence was found that dingos had in fact captured her baby.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is how defendants should be tried in a court of law. However, in the age of the media and the fact that they need to get their ratings, it's "guilty until proven innocent".
The Duke Lacrose Rape Case a few years ago had circled around three Duke Lacrosse players accused of raping a black stripper at one of their parties. There were many inconsistencies in her story (saying she had been raped by 20 players, reducing it to 3), and she had taken drugs and mixed it with alcohol beforehand. And she had a history of bipolar disorder. And she kept changing her story around. However, these three kids got put through the wringer, because the prosecutor was trying to win an election, and the media loved the story. It had all the makings of a media circus:
A.) Black vs. White
B.) Rich vs. Poor
C.) Liberal Faculty and Students accusing them of the crime before proven guilty
D.) Rush to judgment on rich white kids
E.) Elitist jocks possibly getting their comeuppance
F.) Jesse "Rabblerouser" Jackson pledging to pay for the stripper's education.
The three kids were ultimately found innocent, but not before their names got dragged through the mud and their parents had to pay exorbitant legal fees. The media didn't care though, in the end. They got their ratings, despite the fact that these three kids' lives were ruined, and collateral damage was felt through the team, between their teammates and the resignation of their coach. The media wasn't held accountable for sticking up for the stripper. They just moved onto the next circus that involved college sports, the Don Imus case, which is a completely other subject that I can rant and rave about.
Without further adieu, here are Falkon's points that I have to discuss:
Throughout the entire trial, which in essence all should be considered "fair," it seemed as if the side that was indeed on the incorrect being OJ Simpson, used underhanded tactics to try and persuade the jury that he was innocent. The first of which came from a field trip to Mr. Simpson's home where everyone relevant to decide the cases verdict went to gain a better understanding of the testimonies given. Due to OJ being African-American, the defense saw an opportunity to use this indirectly by changing furniture around and re-arranging some items in favour of OJ. One example is the use of Bible's in the household being quite visible in the tour, as well as many heartfelt photo's (something tour groups seem to stare at alot) with other African American's. How can this be a fair trial when one side is allowed to switch possible evidence or find a way to subliminaly trick the minds of the jury/judge to alter a decision?
This is a great argument if we're going to debate how a defense team acts unethical in trying to win their case. However, we're discussing how the media impacts the right to a fair trial for a defendant. This really didn't factor too much into the media's opinion of OJ. The media had believed OJ was guilty. The media's influence in OJ's trial was the fact that the defense seemed like they were in it for their own celebrity, and played up for the cameras in the courtroom, which shouldn't have been allowed in the first place, and this weighed negatively on the jury.
There was a point during the trial where the jury was feeling sympathy for the Simpson trial as well for what has been occurring over the family of the victims (founded by objective courtroom observers) Now, for a fair trial to occur, the jury aren't supposed to feel anything of sympathy or feeling as they are there to act as impartial objective judges to help define a decision for the case. The media did not influence the jury here to feel any emotion, but the testimonies and the proceedings of the courtroom only. The journalists reported the news to the American Public, with professional analysists (which I have defined later on) commented and gave their own opinion in formal discussions with no major implications. How can this be a fair trial if the jury have been swayed due to feeling and emotion for one's family?
Again, a great point if we're discussing ethics in a defense for a trial. A defense attorney is trying to prove their client is innocent. If it means to make him a sympathetic figure to try to win, then so be it.
The third point also factors into the whole "ethics in the courtroom" discussion, so let's move on.
This is where you are getting confused. There are two different types of journalists in the sector we are debating about. There are the reporters that work for the news segments whose jobs are to go out into the field and gather all the information they can deemed factual and sufficient evidence. These people view the situation and bring it forth without opinion. The second type are those that take into consideration the facts and evidence presented to form their own opinion about the situation, possibly debating with other important figures involved or those that hold key information.
Quite clearly, the first example of journalism does not include any bias at all. As Seth Rogen's Movie indicates, they just Observe and Report. The second example are the people that discuss the topic on a number of different levels in finding a logical answer. From what they have gathered, they have formed their own opinions and are inclined to share their viewers albeit their passion for their own views. This is what they are employed to do as their skills in determining a resolution are unparalleled.
I'm not getting confused... I'm well aware that of course there are reporters that act ethically and in most cases, what is presented works itself out in a court of law. But in high profile cases, that's where media scrutiny comes into play, and whoever has the slightest bit of association is immediately a prime suspect. When Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped, the media immediately accused a handyman of kidnapping her. I've already brought up two mainstream examples where the media act as bloodthirsty sharks so that they can get their ratings and sensationalize the hell out of stories. The media likes people to get talking about what's in the news. Being controversial in their delivery of the news is what creates ratings. It gets people watching. It taints juries. Larry King brought up a great point back when he still wasn't senile, that about 60% of America believes that if you're accused, you did it. This is facilitated by the second type of journalist you brought up, and the culture it has created.
Do you see any of these bright intellectuals on the jury seats? No... all there is are a bunch of normal citizens called in to review a case. In the court of law, there are only two different perspectives given for the situation with no other variants available to fill the missing gaps. How can this be a fair trial if not all bases are being covered to make the required decision, especially with impressionable minds as you say who could get intimidated by seeing certain lawyers/attorney's at work in person. With the television broadcasts, the American Public has a decreased chance of being intimidated or frigthened into believing one persons' perspectives and allows for them to choose from multiple examples as you have stated before to gather a wider understanding.
Once again, a great point if we're discussing courtroom ethics. But what is on a news show, or what is read in newspapers (Jurors aren't supposed to watch them or read newspapers, but you know they do), they see what the sensationalist journalists report to the public, and this weighs in on them just as much as the intimidation of attorneys does.
I would like to re-iterate my initial point before getting started on the response, in which I will speak in Layman's terms. Essentially, the court room has a higher degree of occurrances whereby people like the jury or the judge may have an agenda, being offerred bribes, etc. and can influence the decision of the debate. Journalists don't have this option as their credibility as a key figure on national, possibly international, television will be demolished that will in turn ruin their careers.
First point, again, courtroom ethics. Second point: Of course the "regular Joe" journalist will be as unbiased as possible in trying to report their story and present the facts as face value. They present the facts and the public gets them and concludes from there. I don't think anyone has any issue with that whatsoever. It's journalism the way it should be. This type of journalism does not impinge on a defendant's sixth amendment right to a fair trial. But what does influence juries, and what does impinge on a defendant's sixth amendment right to a fair trial are the Nancy Graces of the world who are trying to drive ratings. Again, as I stated before: Journalists are not prohibited from reporting exaggeration, falsities, opinion, hyperbole, inaccuracies, rumors, or other information which could be detrimental to a defendant's right to a fair trial. As long as the information they are reporting is not libelous, and is obtained through legal means, it's fair game to be reported.
As for your points, yes... the judge and the jury are the ones in charge of compiling a sensible decision for each and every case, I will agree with this naturally. But to claim that the media are the ones influencing the decision just solidifies my argument. The randomly-selected jury are supposed to enter the proceedings with clear minds and thoughts, discussing and using what has been presented into the court room to base their final decision upon. Everything from the media in the direct manner should be discarded by the judge and the jury. The media is acting as the middle man per se for the public who may want to understand current events but don't want to research it themselves.
That's the ideal. And in an ideal world, there's world peace, and no problems in the economy. The fact of the matter is that the jurors who wind up serving are stupid to begin with, as they couldn't find a good enough excuse to get out of serving on the jury. These people aren't the brightest bulbs, and are probably looking for someone or something to tell them what or how to think. Let's throw out minor cases where there's no media coverage. Let's talk about a high profile murder case where the defendant didn't commit the crime, but is vilified in the press. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests he did it. The juror turns on Nancy Grace and sees her frothing at the mouth that the defendant is guilty, and she hammers that point home like there's no tomorrow. That's going to weigh on a juror, and it could be the catalyst for giving an innocent man life in prison.
So, what you are trying to put forth here is that Lawyers, Attorneys and the like are allowed to try to persuade the jury into believing their side of the story when most of the cases one side is clearly false, fighting for a cause that is incorrect... yet having professional analysists using facts to base their own opinions to the public is immoral? The media and this form of journalism are allowed to gain the facts they can to form their own messages and show them to the interested public so they can comprehend the situation and create their own opinions. That is what the news is for. The trials are supposed to expose the truth of the discussion at hand to find who clearly is the victim and who is the assaliant in the case, not a fight for supremacy.
Once again, the defense wants to win their case. However, in the court of public opinion, when an innocent person is vilified in the press, and they wind up innocent in the end, they'll still be guilty in the court of public opinion. That person's life is effectively over, as the stigma of being involved in a case like that will always be tied to them. That will undoubtedly follow them when they try to apply for a job, and even when they're just going about their business in public. I've stated before that I have no problem with the regular Joes which are journalists that are just trying to go about their job, and trying to present a case as normal with as much unbiased evidence as possible. What I do have a problem with, and what I feel that this debate centers around, are the senationalist journalists that act as rabblerousers that try to create a ruckus for ratings regarding cases. This impinges on the jury, and impinges on a right to a fair trial for a defendant. After the luster of the flavor of the month wears off, they just move on to the next case that drags someone through the mud. It's a neverending cycle of sensationalism.
