Truthfully speaking the future of media is in the hands of the public. It will follow any path that the public desires. According to the public sphere model theorized in the book The Business of Media: Corporate Media and the Public Interest, the more support and interest the public shows toward a subject, the more access the media is going to gain on the issue. Although in an ideal society it would be advisable for media to stop worrying about ratings and focus more on reporting accurate information, the future of media seems to lie in a very different direction.Noting current trends of media tampering in court cases, the media is going to continue to gain a more influential and powerful place in our society. Even U.S. Senator Larry Craig realizes the power of the media. In early September he claimed that his guilty plead was a result of pressure from media. Although Craig may have used the media as an excuse to protect his status in society, the fact that he used such a claim shows the power of media. If a politician who is constantly being exposed to media coverage can be pressured by the media, who’s to say that an average citizen cannot?Unfortunately, it is clear that trial by media will be a common trend in the future. It is a concept that directly conflicts the seventh amendment (Trial by Jury) and should be considered unconstitutional. If media continues to influence juror’s thoughts, then more and more citizens will be deprived of their basic rights. Unless the media’s boundaries and limitations in court cases are spelled out the ambiguity of media’s role in society will continue.
A standardized law limiting media power should be created in the future. It should spell out the power given to each form of media and how it can be used during, before, and after a court case. It would also be beneficial to completely ban any type of pre-trial media. This way they jury will only be presented with evidence when from the trial. This will allow individuals to have a fair trial under law rather than the media.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
With the number of news and radio stations increasing, I feel as if placing boundaries and limitations on the media is nearly an impossible task. I agree with the fact that the media plays a large role in influencing public opinion about high-profile court cases. There is no doubt that the media often inferes with the happenings of the court system; new reporters seem to get the "inside story" in situations that often, in my opinion, should remain disclosed from the general public. Though placing these limitations seems to be the solution to guaranteeing the seventh amendment rights to all US citizens, I don't feel like it is a plausible solution. Since we, as US citizens, place so much emphasis on the first amendment rights guaranteed to us, any limitation and restriction will receive tremendous opposition. The ideal situation would be if we could find a balance between too much information and not enough of it, but is this really possible? I highly doubt it.
Personally I cannot stand the role the media plays in personal lives and private trials. While on one hand, I think the media gets too involved and pushes their limits as to what is acceptable information to publish. But at the same time, I think people get too involved with what the media says to be true and what they report; we give them too much credit. If people would stop caring what the media thought and would start forming their own opinions, media wouldn't have such an impact. People need to realize the biases put forth by the media and think for themselves about the issue.
I personally think the media can be extremely detrimental as well as helpful. Regardless of whether or not the media is bias in their presentation of the material, the information is still lying within and the viewer will still learn about what is going on in the surrounding world. However, on the other hand, the media presents a specific viewpoint that the viewer must be careful not to get sucked into too easily because the formation of ones own opinion is vital. Within this negative is a positive though, because hopefully the presentation of the idea in a certain light will either stike harmony or discord with the viewers own feelings.The influence of the media therefore can be a postive OR negative influence on a jury.
I think the issue is complicated because the media plays a fundamental role in the communication between the general public and what is happening in society. However, because of the large role they play, it can also be harmful because they have too much influence. What the public knows and sees is limited by what the media chooses to present, and this reliance is extremely unhealthy.
I agree with Kelly and feel as if the media should not play a role in people's personal lives. They have become way too involved in things that should not be publicized. However, I also think that it goes the other way too. The public pushes the media farther and farther. If people are interested, the media will do whatever it takes to get the story. This is a huge problem that can only be fixed if the public and media work together.
I think that you need to be more specific when you say that the media is in the hands of the people. This idea sounds good in theory but it becomes a little less credible to me when you make broad statements about whole groups of people. The media is not a giant blob controlled by all these people sitting in a room talking with one another about what they will make it do next, and I feel that you should make that more clear. Other than that, your article is clear and coherent.
I think your argument is a bit simplistic. You should expand more on the example of Larry Craig, instead of assuming that readers know about it (even though you put a link to it). Also, at the end you ask some questions that you don't answer, and you basically conclude that there is no conclusion. You should state what your own opinion is and not be so ambiguous.
I just think that your argument could be more clear. I feel that the focus should be more on how the media will change verdicts? I think that you focused a little more on the media then was necessary. I also hope that one day society will prefer the truth and justice over an exagerrated story.
I think you have to clear up the image you're depicting and acknowledge the relationship between public support for more access and the media gaining influence. You should also elaborate on a lot of the points you are making. How is the future of media in the hands of the people? What current trend of media tampering are there?
I think in your first paragraph, you need to be just a little bit more specific on why its in the hands of the public and why media behaves to get better ratings etc. And how it will continue to affect court cases. You seem to only cover the surface of what is at stake in the second paragraph. I feel like your third paragraph could be more compelling if you stated your opinion on the issue and what it could mean with our rights as citizens (seventh amendment).
I agree with you though that in high profile cases, it is very hard to deal with the media. You also make a very serous connection with the constitution and how the media can interfere with people's basic rights. American citizens should have the ability to have an untainted jury, but sometimes this is not the case. However, the future you describe for trials with intense media coverage and interference is somewhat vague. You could be more specific on the ramifications of what the media does, and how that will change justice.
Post a Comment