Media activism

Media activism​ is a broad category of ​activism​ that utilizes ​media​ and communication
technologies for ​social​ and ​political movements​. Methods of media activism include publishing
news on websites, creating video and audio investigations, spreading information about
protests, and organizing campaigns relating to media and communications policies.
Journalism depends on the people’s perspective of news and news values. It is said that news is
a mere construction of an event or a happening or person. News selects, processes, produces
and shapes an event or happening. But it totally depends on us, readers, to make our own
sense of the news. However, over the years, media has also assumed the role of an opinion
maker and creator of public opinion.
Case Study 1- “Miscarriage Of Justice” in the Jessica Lal Murder Case
Case Study 2- Priyadarshini Mattoo Case: Justice Delayed Not Denied
Refer this link to read case study -
http://www.caluniv.ac.in/global-mdia-journal/student_research/SR%206%20KATHAKALI%20
NANDI.pdf
The power of press can also be understood in the basis of how the people respond and react to
the news. As, media has been quite powerful in forming public opinion. There was widespread
outrage and protests after both the murder cases were reported. People had realized that
justice had been denied and it was necessary to protest and speak aloud. Both the cases (
Jessica lal and priyadarshani mattoo ) involved high-profile people and this fact made the
people all the more interested and aware of the proceedings of the cases. As is seen in the two
case studies, we see that media interference helped in the rightful and proper closure of the
case.
The two murder cases are classic examples of reactive and responsible journalism which
helped citizens get their rights. One of the primary functions of the media in a democracy is to
act as the opposition of the government and also stay neutral in the process. This role of the
media is highlighted in both the cases. None of the cases would have got so much of
importance in the judiciary had the media not intervened.
Therefore, media interference helped the hidden facts to be unearthed thereby allowing the
judiciary to take notice of the loopholes and extensive malpractices of the administrative
system in India.
There is a basic distinction between media activism and trial by media. If a prosecution gets
blogged down for an inordinately long period, the media is certainly entitled, nay obliged to,
probe and expose the causes for the delay. For example, the deliberate lethargic pace of the
prosecution, frequent adjournments occasioned by absence of the public prosecutors or
delaying tactics resorted to by the accused or frequent transfer of the presiding judicial officer
in the midst of the trial and so on. The media, by publicising these facts, acts as a catalyst which
is conducive to the speedy progress of the trial. Media activism of this nature is commendable.

However, once the trial has commenced, the media has no right to pronounce upon the
innocence or guilt of the persons involved according to its perception and knowledge of the law
and criminal procedure. Determination of the guilt or innocence of a person under our
constitutional scheme is the function of the courts, which should not be usurped by the media.
Besides, incalculable harm can be done to a person's reputation by prematurely judging him or
her guilty.

Conclusion
It is very important to have a responsive and responsible media in order to have a healthy
democracy. Indian media is witness to various incidents ever since its inception. Media activism
thereby allows the development of a strong democracy, thereby allowing for healthy social
development in the country.