![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The last paragraph (on the Indian case) uses language that is not quite neutral. While a source has been cited, I feel that this paragraph can be rephrased to be comply with NPOV. Also, the language can be edited to match that in the rest of the article. (It is quite jarring right now.) -- Aveek 18:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
the famous dreyfus-affair should be mentioned also-- Tresckow 21:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I think more recent cases like Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, and very recently the DSK and Casey Anthony cases can be added. There has certainly been a fair number of criticism leveled at the media about their coverage, for example here and here. Batjik Syutfu ( talk) 02:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, the only evidence I've found of headlines using the phrase "Casey Anthony gets away with murder" all belong to blogs and opinion pieces. Hardly reputable. It reflects poorly on the rest of the page's information, which talks about more reliable media sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteBayern ( talk • contribs) 05:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The case file of Snr Sargeant Chris Hurley also reads with some bias, ignoring much of the inquest and information given at the time. User:PeteBayern ( talk) 05:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Pete Bayern, this section of the article is biased and ignores the results of the 2010 coronial enquiry that Hurley punched Mulrunji in the face and that other police officers had shielded Hurley from blame. Is something really a trial by media if a later court finding is that they are at fault? Not a good example. The coverage surrounding Joanna Lees would be a better example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.67.204 ( talk) 14:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
There is a header for Myra Hindley and Maxine Carr, but no paragraph. This really needs to be fixed. Also, the paragraph about Clinton is far to conversational in style. Overall, after the dingo example, the list is pretty thin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.15.81 ( talk) 02:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
User:Rupertslander proposed this article for merging with Court of public opinion back in June 2011, but didn't create an area for discussion, so I'm doing so. That proposed merge seems sensible to me: 'court of public opinion' and 'trial by media' refer to slightly different aspects of essentially the same phenomenon, and they could be covered in the same article. Robofish ( talk) 16:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Since public opinion is largely influence by the media, and legal trials occur in courts, these pages refer to the same thing. I agree with the merger. TYLER ( talk) 23:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
In his later years, [Nixon] started to drink a lot, probably to try and forget the things he had to do in his early years. ... As he had been doing on and off for days, he compared Ellsberg to Alger Hiss, the State Department official imprisoned for perjury after investigations driven by a young ... Try him in the press. Try him in the press. . . . leak it out. We want to destroy him in the press. Press. Is that clear?-- Richard Nixon, on Daniel Elsberg in the Nixon tapes, Richard Reeves, President Nixon: Alone in the White House - Page 338. '
The next day Nixon told Haldeman and Erlichmann, "We won the Hiss case in the press." -- http://books.google.com/books?id=fHIGQTGemnAC&pg=PA162&dq=Nixon+Hiss+try+him+in+the+press&hl=en&sa=X&ei=621MUa_0Kazq0QG1kYGYDw&sqi=2&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Nixon%20Hiss%20try%20him%20in%20the%20press&f=false
Shouldn't these notorious statements appear somewhere in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.11.200 ( talk) 14:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I would question the unsourced statement "In the United Kingdom there is a heated debate between those who support a free press which is largely uncensored and those who place a higher priority on an individual's right to privacy and right to a fair trial.". I would say instead that in the UK there is a consensus that fair trial should have precedence, and I'm not aware of any "heated debate" on privacy either. Geebee2 ( talk) 03:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)#
I removed the following text: "In the United Kingdom there is a heated debate between those who support a free press which is largely uncensored and those who place a higher priority on an individual's right to privacy and right to a fair trial." Geebee2 ( talk) 11:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a wiki, Chris_Hurley_(police_officer) and the text for his case in this article seems disproportionate. I suggest entries be confined to one or two short paragraphs, giving the basic facts of each case, with little detail. This allows a reasonable overview of the whole subject. Geebee2 ( talk) 09:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I propose some kind of grid to show attributes for the various cases. Columns to include, for example, date of alleged crime, location, type of crime, type of defense (e.g. self-defense), sex of defendant, wealth of defendant, fame before/after, scope of and amount of media coverage, jury sequestration, time awaiting trial, # trial days, verdict, type and length of sentence, alleged motive. Perhaps two tables, one for men, one for woman, as there appear to be clear gender differences. Geebee2 ( talk) 12:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to be bold and scrap the entire list of examples, for a couple of reasons.
In sum, this is the kind of article that can do without recent cases, for reasons mentioned above--advocacy and slanted media coverage. It leaves us open to the kind of editing whereby a couple of newspaper articles and websites can be used to turn something into a "trial by media" and thereby cast doubt on the guilt or innocence of any suspect, violating WP:NPOV. Drmies ( talk) 14:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The last paragraph (on the Indian case) uses language that is not quite neutral. While a source has been cited, I feel that this paragraph can be rephrased to be comply with NPOV. Also, the language can be edited to match that in the rest of the article. (It is quite jarring right now.) -- Aveek 18:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
the famous dreyfus-affair should be mentioned also-- Tresckow 21:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I think more recent cases like Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, and very recently the DSK and Casey Anthony cases can be added. There has certainly been a fair number of criticism leveled at the media about their coverage, for example here and here. Batjik Syutfu ( talk) 02:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, the only evidence I've found of headlines using the phrase "Casey Anthony gets away with murder" all belong to blogs and opinion pieces. Hardly reputable. It reflects poorly on the rest of the page's information, which talks about more reliable media sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteBayern ( talk • contribs) 05:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The case file of Snr Sargeant Chris Hurley also reads with some bias, ignoring much of the inquest and information given at the time. User:PeteBayern ( talk) 05:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Pete Bayern, this section of the article is biased and ignores the results of the 2010 coronial enquiry that Hurley punched Mulrunji in the face and that other police officers had shielded Hurley from blame. Is something really a trial by media if a later court finding is that they are at fault? Not a good example. The coverage surrounding Joanna Lees would be a better example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.67.204 ( talk) 14:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
There is a header for Myra Hindley and Maxine Carr, but no paragraph. This really needs to be fixed. Also, the paragraph about Clinton is far to conversational in style. Overall, after the dingo example, the list is pretty thin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.15.81 ( talk) 02:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
User:Rupertslander proposed this article for merging with Court of public opinion back in June 2011, but didn't create an area for discussion, so I'm doing so. That proposed merge seems sensible to me: 'court of public opinion' and 'trial by media' refer to slightly different aspects of essentially the same phenomenon, and they could be covered in the same article. Robofish ( talk) 16:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Since public opinion is largely influence by the media, and legal trials occur in courts, these pages refer to the same thing. I agree with the merger. TYLER ( talk) 23:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
In his later years, [Nixon] started to drink a lot, probably to try and forget the things he had to do in his early years. ... As he had been doing on and off for days, he compared Ellsberg to Alger Hiss, the State Department official imprisoned for perjury after investigations driven by a young ... Try him in the press. Try him in the press. . . . leak it out. We want to destroy him in the press. Press. Is that clear?-- Richard Nixon, on Daniel Elsberg in the Nixon tapes, Richard Reeves, President Nixon: Alone in the White House - Page 338. '
The next day Nixon told Haldeman and Erlichmann, "We won the Hiss case in the press." -- http://books.google.com/books?id=fHIGQTGemnAC&pg=PA162&dq=Nixon+Hiss+try+him+in+the+press&hl=en&sa=X&ei=621MUa_0Kazq0QG1kYGYDw&sqi=2&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Nixon%20Hiss%20try%20him%20in%20the%20press&f=false
Shouldn't these notorious statements appear somewhere in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.11.200 ( talk) 14:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I would question the unsourced statement "In the United Kingdom there is a heated debate between those who support a free press which is largely uncensored and those who place a higher priority on an individual's right to privacy and right to a fair trial.". I would say instead that in the UK there is a consensus that fair trial should have precedence, and I'm not aware of any "heated debate" on privacy either. Geebee2 ( talk) 03:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)#
I removed the following text: "In the United Kingdom there is a heated debate between those who support a free press which is largely uncensored and those who place a higher priority on an individual's right to privacy and right to a fair trial." Geebee2 ( talk) 11:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a wiki, Chris_Hurley_(police_officer) and the text for his case in this article seems disproportionate. I suggest entries be confined to one or two short paragraphs, giving the basic facts of each case, with little detail. This allows a reasonable overview of the whole subject. Geebee2 ( talk) 09:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I propose some kind of grid to show attributes for the various cases. Columns to include, for example, date of alleged crime, location, type of crime, type of defense (e.g. self-defense), sex of defendant, wealth of defendant, fame before/after, scope of and amount of media coverage, jury sequestration, time awaiting trial, # trial days, verdict, type and length of sentence, alleged motive. Perhaps two tables, one for men, one for woman, as there appear to be clear gender differences. Geebee2 ( talk) 12:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to be bold and scrap the entire list of examples, for a couple of reasons.
In sum, this is the kind of article that can do without recent cases, for reasons mentioned above--advocacy and slanted media coverage. It leaves us open to the kind of editing whereby a couple of newspaper articles and websites can be used to turn something into a "trial by media" and thereby cast doubt on the guilt or innocence of any suspect, violating WP:NPOV. Drmies ( talk) 14:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)