|
|
|
"Trial By Media" By Laura Alber 05/10/02 - Entertainment
Zone One would think after the ridiculous media frenzy with O.J. Simpson's trial, that the media
is the LAST place to promote personal opinions, message boards, and biased editorials. "If" O.J. was guilty, the media was
responsible for his acquittal. Reporters know that the trial juries cannot be expected to hear 'nothing' during these high profile trials,
sequestered or not. Defense attorneys know this, and they use it to their advantage. The Entertainment Zone has aspired to publish only the public facts in the latest high
profile case, with Robert Blake. We give no opinions or bias, only the facts. It is not up to anyone but 12 chosen people to decide the fate
of Mr. Blake. In this day and age, one basic rule is often forgotten in these types of trials. "Innocent until proven guilty".
Though the evidence and facts we may see may seem incriminating, they are far from the whole story, and one should keep an open mind about
just that. With the Simpson trial, his children went through hell with the publicity and the
controversies. And, now with Robert Blake, there is a 2-year-old child to think of. What will she have to deal with when she's old enough to
understand what's going on? EZ in no way shape or form has an opinion regarding what happened to Bonnie Bakley, and if we
did, we would not jeopardize the case in any way by printing our "opinions" that could possibly sway any member of the selected
jury. Journalists should know better. But, they all seem to be more concerned about ratings, bonuses and promotions for
"exclusives" with their so-called "Breaking News Coverage". Why not publish ONLY what is acceptable and will not harm
the case either way? EZ's answer...Greed. Well, we will not fall in that category of sensationalizing the case or publishing personal
opinions or even hold "polls" on our site. This case should be tried in a courtroom, not in the media. We are all of course interested in the case, and some see it as a source of
"Entertainment", but we forget that this will determine the fate of one man's future, and his 2-year-old child's future. If he's
guilty, justice will be served and his 35 year old step-daughter can deal with the unfortunate responsibility of telling his young child
what has happened, in her own way, in her own time. If he's innocent, he should not be chastised the same way O.J. Simpson still is today.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but that doesn't mean it has to be published for the whole world to see. All it's doing is giving
the Defense Attorney grounds to dismiss the case, and the Prosecutor an easy way out by not having to show all the evidence because everyone
would already be convinced of his guilt. So either way, guilty or not, the media will ultimately determine the fate of Robert Blake. Is this
how are legal system should work? What if it was you being slandered and "polled" about your guilt or innocence? Here is an interesting piece I found that maybe journalists should take a look at, and
re-evaluate their "theories and opinions". A defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. While this
standard only restricts the courtroom participants, it is an exercise we should all attempt. |