Media's role in wrongful convictions
by Jody
On September 16, 2009, CNN posed the question to its audience, “Do you trust the news media?" Their blog has since been slammed with over 500 comments that illustrate the division in those who put their trust in what they see on television and those who are skeptical about what the media constitutes as "news." This question was prompted by a Pew Research Study which found that our trust in the news media is at a two decade low. According to this study, 26% of those questioned believe that the media is careful to avoid bias in their stories and only 18% believe that the media tells both sides of the story. (Chart retrieved from http://people-press.org/report/543/)
Despite the distrust many have regarding the accuracy of news reports, local crime reporting can undermine justice. The case of Paul Cortez comes to mind. His was a high profile case in New York City in which his girlfriend was brutally murdered. Though there was no physical evidence linking Cortez to the crime, he became the prosecution's only target.
According to Paul Cortez's Web site at http://paulcortezupdates.typepad.com/media/, "In the following days, 'anonymous police sources' admittedly leaked Paul’s personal information to the tabloid media, who in turn immediately began their attack on Paul. The New York Post, the Daily News, and other sensationalized media began to spin a very 'juicy' (i.e. profitable) tale of an obsessed ex-lover. These stories, based entirely on unproven allegations and fabrications, pervaded New York City. His photo was plastered across newspapers and news programs. Reporters stalked him. He was tried and hung for weeks before he was even arrested."
The information that was leaked to the press in Paul's case was later found to be erroneous. Still, Paul Cortez faced a media frenzy that was built-up with the alleged sole purpose to convict him before his trial. For example, America's Most Wanted, a nationally televised program on crime that I once trusted as a viable source for news joined the frenzy stating, "Authorities say the night of the murder, Cortez can be seen on surveillance tape standing outside of Catherine's apartment, where he allegedly called her seven times." According to Cortez's supporters, no such video tape was ever in existence. Media outlets have repeated reference the video as fact, but we have been unable to locate any independent confirmation that it exists.
This case is but one example of media influence. We have to question where the erroneous information originates from and why members of the media are not held accountable for reporting information that could taint a case such as this one. GI Jane's comment on CNN's poll (http://newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/16/do-you-trust-the-news-media/) particularly rings true to me. She stated, "Having worked in law enforcement / military for over 30 years, I have seen / read very inaccurate news stories, some where I have personal knowledge because I worked the case or was there. Best to gather your own facts, and come to your own conclusions about 'news stories.'"
In reforming the justice system in our country, the practices of local and national media in the reporting of any open criminal case should be addressed as well. Though many who are educated or have dealt with the media personally put little faith in what they hear, our right to a fair trial is jeopardized each time the media reports an untrue or one-sided account. Demand accountability from the media. Fairness demands it.
2 Comments:
I have been involved in trials where the media reports caused me to wonder what trial the reporters were attending. It was not the one I was in.
So true Jody. I have never found the American media to be a reliable source of information. Contrary to what people may believe, the media respond to the energy they create as story upon story is layered. In the end, it is much like the children's game, "telephone". The story is so distorted that maybe one fact remains. And people believe this garbage!
The media is used to present a one sided agenda in politics. In justice, it feels as though reporters take the "temperature" of their viewers and respond by feeding them what they want to hear. At yesterday's presentation of The Laramie Project, 10 years later, it was divulged that 20/20 went to Laramie (I believe in 2004 - years after the case was over) to do a story on the murder and decided to change the ending to the story. To portray Matthew Shepard as a druggie who just happened to be gay therefore the motive for the crime was a robbery and a drug deal gone bad - not a hate crime. They NEVER EVEN READ THE COURT TRANSCRIPTS OR MURDER"S CONFESSIONS. They presented their story the way they chose to with no regard to the facts of the case and now several people in Laramie and throughout the USA believe the motive was a robbery from a drug deal gone bad. This slanders the victim. This also takes away from the cold hard fact that it was a hate crime. That Matthew was an innocent victim and was killed in a plot hatched in a bar bathroom because he was gay. It had nothing to do with drugs or with robbery. Both of the murderers confess to this day he was killed because he was gay in interviews with the Laramie Project writers. This is 20/20 - Elizabeth Vargas - news we have been thought would be accurately portrayed! Everyone should be outraged! And 20/20 has never apologized.
So you are never protected. You may NEVER hear the truth.
Thank you, Jody for bringing this to our attention. It is time that the media was held accountable for the garbage they print. They are cowards in the truest sense.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home