The Supreme Court has taken the notion of media trial seriously. In its recent remarks the apex court urged the Union Government to prepare guidelines on police briefing to media as well as how media represents the briefing in an unbiased way. The court also advocated on the adoption of effective self regulatory mechanism for the news channels. Citing the media trial of Sushant Singh Rajput's death case by a few news channels, the court has labeled news coverage as contemptuous.
Media trial has emerged as a trend. The media acts as jury, prosecutor, judge and executioner and the TV studio in the trial becomes a court room.
The mass media and its impact on society is always an area of interest for sociological studies. Erudite sociologist like C Wright Mills, who pioneered the concept of Power Elites, has clearly admitted the influencing nature of media in two ways such as major power shifts and construction of social opinions. Mills defined mass media in two different aspects. Firstly, mass media is a platform where a very few people can communicate to large numbers and second, the audience has no effective way to answering back or questioning the veracity of information shared by a few people. Media trial is also a part of the media activism.
Media trial is a newly introduced term. It has been used to rationalise a criminal justice procedure with high drama, fake news and entertainment by news agencies. More so, it is an attempt made by media of labelling the accused guilty even prior to his court room trial or prior to any legalised verdict in a court of law. But as per some court of laws, media trial is a vague and misnomer procedure. For example, in State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jaunmal Gandhi, the SC said that “a trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is very anti-thesis of rule of law. It can very well lead to miscarriage of justice.”
We understand the role of media as one of the pillars of democracy. Free expression of media implies a healthy democratic atmosphere. But it does not mean that freedom of Press should interfere in the individual fundamental rights.
Recently, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra, said, “It should be ensured that the disclosure of information doesn’t result in a media trial so as to allow pre-determination of the guilt of the accused."
The effect of media in modern society is intense, powerful and direct. This effect creates a hypodermic model of influence. The relationship between audience and media is so connected that it compels the viewers to accept as well as to react the message or information shared by media.
The hypodermic influence is derived from an old Hypodermic Needle Theory. This theory believes the audience as a passive entity and media as an active and stimulating agent. However, this theory has lost its credibility as per many media experts due to availability of many alternative sources of seeking the correct information. But every now and again, this theory surfaces in modern society.
We do have numerous examples where we have reacted to the unnecessary messages shared by media.
In every case of media trial, it does not necessarily mean that media creates biased propaganda. Cases like Priyadarshini Mattoo case, Jessica Lal case, Nitish Katara murder case and Bijal Joshi rape case would have gone unnoticed but for media. However, in some other cases such as Aarushi or Sushant Singh Rajput , it was media to be blamed for biased information.
Sociologists advocate for a hidden situation, called as “Orwellion Situation”, in which media controls the mental life of people. The concept of Orwellion Situtaion is derived from a novel written by Geroge Orwell named as Nineteen Eighty-Four: A Novel. This novel is a dystopian social science fiction by Geroge Orwell. It depicts the future world. The novel spins around an imagined future where most parts of world are in trap of war, denialism and Government surveillance. Ingsoc, the ruling party, controls a dystopian country named Oceania by constantly watching every individual through a series of telescreens. Every movement of citizens is monitored. Ruling party claims that this surveillance is necessary for the greater good of people and world. Big Brother, the leader of the ruling party, never comes directly in the script but his face’s poster with tag line “Big Brother is watching You “is plastered in tele-screens and in displays all-around the city. This is to remind the people of Oceania that they are being watched everywhere and every time. The major takeaway of the novel is the controlling power of media in a society.
In the process of media trial, media wants to control the public perception and public opinion and the media itself conducts a separate investigation, builds a public opinion against the accused even before the court takes cognizance of the case. Determination of the guilt or innocence of a person under our constitutional scheme is the responsibility of the courts, and not the media.
Media defends the media trial by connoting a term named 'Investigative journalism' which appears to be a very loose phrase. The introduction of the phrase is to give protection of right to expression and freedom of Press. A drastic increase in the number of newspapers and visual media houses has led to a competition for TRPs. Along with competitions and TRPs, a responsible media is expected to address a sensible reporting and to build confidence among the masses.
As far as criminal cases are concerned, veracity and accuracy of case should be reported. Media should refrain from defaming and intruding the privacy of individual. Furthermore, personal opinion or media judgement should not be published on mere suspicion. There should be a curb on the dangerous trend of media trial
(Dr Parida is a Professor in sociology and a columnist; email: abash.parida@gmail.com; Ph- 8456879522)
