My final blog will place the media representations of courts under the microscope and I will link the themes to an article I sourced from the Sydney Morning Herald about the NRL player Brett Stewart called ‘Brett Stewart ordered to stand trial’.
In the criminal justice system the courts represent the pole of open justice as opposed to prisons which are hidden away. Whilst anyone is allowed to just walk into open court and watch trials (transparency), the reality is that no one has the time to do this, so once again, we are reliant on the media for our information. So the question is, how are courts represented in the media? Brennan (1997) asserts that the scant media attention that courts receive in contrast to the executive and legislature is due to the nature of the courts proceedings which are complex and boring. The courts are focused on the individual, not on grand questions of policy and for this reason they can be seen as out of sympathy with popular sentiment. The court proceedings are encased with legal jargon which requires sound legal knowledge of the court processes from the journalist who must decipher the terminology and present to the public.
Court cases which involve celebrities however seem to be able to transcend and overcome these difficulties, and causality could perhaps be attributed to the media’s obsession with the celebrity which increase a story’s newsworthiness (Jewkes, 2004). The OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson trials are testament to this rhetoric and so is the story concerning NRL player Brett Stewart who assaulted a 17 year old girl. The article fails to mention legal opinion or reference to any breach of legislation (in depth analysis is sacrificed for simplification) yet has several short quotes from Brett Stewart ‘I didn’t touch her bro’ (Kontominas, 2010) which caters to the public’s thirst for entertainment. These short statements also make for excellent sound bites. The exclusion of an in depth analysis, reminds me of the point made be Jacinta the guest lecturer who stressed the difficulty of expressing legal opinion in such a short time frame.
However, one can’t be too critical towards the journalists, because according to Kirby (2002) the blame, in part must be shouldered by judges themselves, who make it difficult for communication by making no summaries, interviews or press conferences for the press, which highlights the animosity between the courts and the media. This problematic relationship has been somewhat offset with the introduction of public information officers, who are a conduit to the judiciary by providing access to materials like evidence and transcripts for journalists (Johnston, 2008). This remedy has not counterbalanced the media/ court relationship to a functioning equilibrium and I think allowing TV cameras in some courtrooms is an idea that has much merit.
References
Brennan, G. (1997) ‘The third branch and the fourth estate’, Broadcasting, society and the law, Dublin: University College of Dublin.
Jewkes, Y. (2004) ‘Media and Crime’ 1st ed. London: Sage Publications.
Johnston, J. (2008) ‘The court media interface: bridging the divide’, Australian Journalism Review, vol.30 (1) p: 27-37, (Online) http://search.informit.com.au/fullText;dn=20081031;res=APAFT Accessed 1st September 2010
Kirby, M. (2002) ‘Media and courts – the dilemma’, (Online) http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/kirbyj/kirbyj_dilemma.htm Accessed 1st September 2010
Kontominas, M. (2010) ‘Brett Stewart ordered to stand trial’, Sydney Morning Herald,(Online) http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/brett-stewart-ordered-to-stand-trial-20100322-qpo7.html Accessed 1 September 2010
You might just want to clarify and say that Stewart was cleared of allegations of assaulting the 17yo.
ReplyDeleteI like how you have discussed both sides of the argument as to why the courts are not sexy/oversimplified in the media. I do wonder if court events were streamed live on the internet, or via tv, whether this would improve matters, or whether we would see court becoming a less formal process. I guess the other thing to add here, is if the reporters and public find it difficult to decipher events in the court room, then how are the victims and offenders faring in this setting! Reminds me of some of the work of Carlen and McBarnet on magistrate's courts.
Alyce