Theatrics of justice: An absurd analysis of trial by the

headlines

THEME-CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF MEDIA TRIAL

Unique Code- AW87

In contemporary democracies, there is no better example than the expression "Pull the Wool
Over Someone’s Eyes" that alludes to what seems to be fact but untrue for sake
sensationalism. This notion relates to so called ‘Kangaroo Court’ where verdicts have been
already decided against the defendant. These words link together affecting the worldviews of
various regions. Media trial that is driven by television or newspapers causes destruction of a
person's dignity and reputation, making preemptive announcement of guilt before the verdict
is heard. In the late 20th-Century with the growth of media and technology, the discussion
embraces more significance especially in a country like India where media is titled the fourth
pillar of the democracy holding a powerful weight. However, there is no explicit mention of
media in the Constitution of India but powers have been given to media by Article 19(1)(a)
which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. The shackles placed on the media by
Article 19(2) are nothing but an authoritarian attempt to muzzle the press and undermine
democracy. This so-called "well thought measure" is nothing more than a thinly veiled excuse
to silence dissent. Hiding behind lofty ideals like "right to reputation" and "contempt of
court", the powers that be aim to intimidate journalists into submission, forcing them to self-
censor for fear of retribution. But make no mistake, the media cannot be bullied into giving
up its duty to critically examine public figures and institutions. True reputations are earned,
not mandated. And the truth cares not for the self-serving dictates of the powerful. Though
they claim an unfettered media would lead to chaos, it is only by exposing corruption and
wrongdoing, without fear or favour, that we can hope to achieve a just society. These
restrictions are not meant to facilitate democracy, but to smother it.

The media’s role in the probe surely goes beyond the role of fact-reporting; the media
emerges as the irresistible factor impinging on the trial outcome and inevitably defining the
value system of a society. Tales spun by journalists saturate the tapestry that governs society
along with the aid of shaping group norms. Ultimately, the aftereffects of digitalized trial are
spread outside the courtroom and affect the social context in such a way that the media, in
turn, implement biases into public perception and perpetuate the cycle whereby the media
governments society at the most elemental level of justice. Our highly complicated society is
in this entanglement, as media sensationalism and its adverse effect on the justice system
cannot be underestimated. Therefore, the promotion of responsible reporting, and the
development of discerning public are deemed as key strategies to avert the negative impacts
of sensationalism.
Media, a shrewd carnival charlatan, stages misleading theatricals to weaken justice by the
unsolved stories. Agendas are being interpreted, whereas truth turns into a convenient
casualty as media gains from fact bending and dehumanization of accused, overturn process
of justice system. With the media playing multiple roles such as judge, prosecutor, and
executioner, the media becomes over-zealous, igniting a fixation with sensationalism,
ignoring the accused’s right to a fair trial. Such a ruthless consideration of human rights
essentially abolishes the establishment of trust in the society and makes the judiciary
powerless. The slanting news pollute the ever-flowing fountain of justice, maybe leaving the
inhabitants cynical. Impartiality, is crucial feature of a trial in a democracy; judgments
divorced from raging mob are paramount. Media representatives have to follow the given
rules and are not allowed to being a verdict by making assumptions. Press media covering
court proceedings guarantees fair decision-making. Equipping the media with the room to
manoeuvre and at the same time safeguarding the right to a fair trial is imperative for
confidence in the judiciary and the upholding of the democratic principles. The role of the
media is that of an instructor of the whole public, not that of a manipulator of people’s views
for the sake of sensationalism. The role of media is not entirely instrumental when delivering
such discussions on sexual assaults. Not only do they have the ability to reveal the truth and
let the victimized speak, but also they show people's realities. However, it’s two sides of a
coin: one side is their way which is a trigger to further traumatize and create hate. It has
become commonplace, the airing of such information - the release of the sex life of the victim
and of her private life. The reporter defends it as seeing "the whole story"; be that as it may
the results for the victim is fatal. Stigma, depression, or even suicide. Flickering of lives
being reinterpreted as brash headlines and chatter.

The courts have brought the nosy intrusion of investigative journalism and slammed it for not
only interfering in judicial submissions but also plays its part in hampering the serious
function of evidence-gathering. We indeed support their enticement to being nosy and
uncovering gossip. Yet maybe it would be better if these seasoned reporters empathize with
the idea that peeping through the courthouse window with binoculars or hiding under the
judges' desks during the trial, is simply not honourable. A cat among pigeons is exactly what
this powerful group normally does not like seeing. Let's see that these wheels go round
exactly as justice commands without the meddlers polluting the situation, if you dare, the
court has spoken.
Even though there is the media trials side negative side, the mass media have led the
community towards positive values as well. The intense observing from the media system
reveals and focuses the exposure of the system of justice and encourages the audiences to be
aggressive therefore the pressure for the authorities to deliver justice becomes better. The
intensity of the close examination is that it aid in insuring that a fair trial is conducted in the
end where arrest of a suspect is likely made. The sad story of Jessica Lal's untimely demise,
as a darkly comical representation of justice is delayed, but not denied serves as darkly
comical evidence of the deferment of justice. One day it was Lal, a beautiful former model
who was bartending, who was senselessly shot dead for refusing to serve liquor past closing
time to a group of ruthless fraternity members who felt they were entitled to whatever they
wanted. However, the real joke of the matter was about to begin. Despite the mass of proof
against the shooter, Manu Sharma, the son of a Member of Parliament, was accorded a
favorable verdict by the trial court and was set free. Media attention was another big thing
that grew, which also meant public outcry was also high. Ultimately, the authorities lost the
fight as they were forced into action by the public anger. Finally, following a prolonged
circus act, Tihar Jail threw the key away and the Delhi High Court sentenced Sharma the life
behind the bars. Although Jessica is now gone, her disproportionate representation as a satire
is a mirror that reflects the imperfections of the justice system where swift and unbiased
justice is a far cry, but in the end, one has to hope that truth will eventually win.

We all need to realize that the media trial poses a serious risk to our national security and
might completely alter how we conduct business. India's foundations are eroded by news
stations that profit from disseminating lies and incomplete truths in an effort to attract more
viewers. Additionally, when public confidence in authorities declines, sovereignty is
breached. As some communities turn against one another in their pursuit of sensationalized
television, we lose our ability to unite. Without adequate security, private data may be
thoughtlessly revealed. And we lose faith in the most basic tenet of journalism when truth
turns into an unsuspecting collaborator rather than the victim in this search. As people who
cherish and adore their country, we must hold news reporters accountable. Our democracy's
health fundamentally depends on it. India's future is in our hands. Will the public remain
composed as the continuous inquiry reveals the truth, or will they give in to the divisiveness
and confusion created by the media trials? Will we continue to drift apart or will we unite to
mend the rifts and build an India founded on the traditional ideals of integrity, morality, and
acceptance? We get to make the decision.