Courtroom Media Debate
In this new digital age of increasing access to information, and also the merger of news and entertainment, should cameras or social media be allowed in the courtroom or not? Are cameras to be used to give the defendant a fair trial? Or will cameras be used as footage for entertainment purposes? Although the media has First Amendment Rights, certain media outlets can fabricate facts about a courtroom case. One must truly question the practice of using cameras or other outlets of media in the courtroom and the effects it has before, during, and after the proceedings and verdicts.
One very good example of the media creating chaotic coverage is the very known trial of O.J. Simpson. This case was a media conception, even
…show more content…
Of course the media always has had a field day with this celebrity. From the moment the news broke the Jackson would be on trial, the media had already set their mind and opinion that Jackson was guilty. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Even though with this particular case, cameras were not allowed in the courtroom, but this does demonstrate how much the media can influence public opinion. If the media influences the public opinion, then there is also a possibility that the jury can lose focus on the case from the media attention as well, which can have effects on the proceedings and verdicts. Having the jury off focus because of the media attention could cause the innocent to be charged with a crime or the guilty to go free. According to the justice system, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. With both Simpson and Jackson cases this was not true, just because the media can have such a lasting effect and opinion. Something that both Simpson and Jackson have in common is that one thing they will be remembered by is their trials and how much the media impacted their private life, even if they were guilty or not, the media from their trial was always surrounding