Download
1 / 29
290 likes | 293 Views
This article examines the evolving role of electronic media in measuring public trust and confidence in the justice system, highlighting the importance of media in communicating and translating court proceedings to the general public. It also explores the credibility problem faced by journalists and the sensitive nature of reporting about the judiciary.
E N D
Role of Electronic Media in Measuring Public Trust and Confidence in the Justice System 19 September 2015 Kian Ganz Editor, Founder LegallyIndia.com NJA Bhopal: Session 7
Today, everything is digital • Distinction between traditional and electronic media has dissolved. • Every single print newspaper has a website.
TV channels are online • TV channels put out their videos online on their websites & YouTube.
Nearly all media & journalists tweet • … and break news, even before they publish elsewhere...
The fact is that in this digital age, anybody can be 'media'
The result: Modern media is a strange new beast • It is faster than ever… • more diverse than ever • more competitive than ever... • and also increasingly important in holding power to account and playing its part in democracy. • So, what is the modern media's relationship with the judiciary?
Society's sentiments on the judiciary • In India, the judiciary generally enjoys enormous respect from the population, despite the government's recent attempt to assault this in its campaign for the NJAC. • Empirical research by University of Indiana professor Jayant Krishnan suggests that in rural areas, those who are disenfranchised and powerless, have a lot of faith in the judicial process (even if that faith is not absolute). • But… that doesn't mean that no one ever criticises the judiciary.
Digital sentiments • People share frustrations freely, on social media, in website comments, Tweets, Facebook posts, blogs, etc. • Inevitably, there will be some litigants who blame the courts for their lack of success. Others believe in outright conspiracy by all organs of the state. • Judiciary is not unique target for social media rage. But social media is a useful place to begin measuring public perceptions, and it will only grow in significance. • Traditional or 'organised' media still often acts as a gatekeeper to such social media outbursts, filtering out (i.e. ignoring) the majority of noise. • And even social media does not exist in a vacuum – it still primarily feeds off the mainstream...
'Justice must be seen to be done'. But how? • Kenneth Dowler's article argues that media, including news media, has a major role to play in how citizens perceive the justice delivery system. • To measure public trust and confidence, first of all, the public must be aware of what's actually happening. • In theory, the law is accessible to all and hearings are public. • But the media is fundamental to keeping it that way: media communicates and translates what transpires in the courts, which are still arcane to most people. • Let's examine how the media does it...
Journalists have a credibility problem • Journalists generally score terribly in surveys of the least trusted professions, sometimes even worse than lawyers, the police and politicians. • What do you think of journalists? • The perception is that many journalists: • Sensationalise (for TRPs or sales), • Lie or are politically biased, • Are corrupt (paid news), • Are stupid.
The reality: Journalists try hard to be good • The vast majority of journalists and editors have a huge amount of respect (and fear) of the judiciary. The last thing they want to do is upset a judge. • But the reality of the editorial process is… • it's amazing that a newspaper ever even gets published at the end of the day with as few errors as there are. • Huge pressure to be • First, • Accurate, and • Interesting.
Let's talk about headlines • Inevitably, it is most often the headlines that cause offence or give the impression that the media is nothing but sensationalist. • Headlines usually are written in a hurry by a different person than the reporter. • Journalism school teaches: a good headline has to be pithy, exciting, and unusual. • That said, according to Google, 2.4 lakh headlines in India use the cliched phrase 'judge slams' something. Why? • Other terms the media loves: 'clean chit' (3.8 lakh hits).
Legal Journalism: A tale of two stories • Split between: • Court reporting: Reporting what happens in court proceedings • General legal reporting: Writing about courts, lawyers, judges and the judiciary
Court reporting: 'Judges speak only through their judgments' • What is the role of a legal journalist / court reporter? • Stenographer? • Translator? • Academic who analyses judgment? • Silent witness?
What of trial by media? • We don't have jury trial, but should media bay for the blood of an accused while sub judice? • Does media coverage of cases have any effect on judges? (see suo motu proceedings, for instance)
Reporting about judiciary • Much more sensitive but is it required? • Does transparency improve an organisation or is it dangerous? • Can the following be reported on? • Pendency of cases? • Judicial corruption? • Nepotism? • Incompetence? • Sexual harassment? • Problem: judiciary can nearly never tell its side of the story.
The elephant in the room: Contempt • Contempt is a very blunt instrument. • Journalists and editors are very afraid of contempt (and the law in general).
What is contempt? • Civil contempt • a person wilfully disobeys any order of a court (e.g. Sahara's Subrata Roy) • Criminal contempt • “interfering” with the administration of justice, or “scandalising” the court or “lowering its authority”. • Problem is that most journalists and editors wouldn't know what contempt is if asked.
Are the following contempt? • Saying that Marx and Engels considered the judiciary an instrument of oppression? • In 1970, then-communist Chief Minister of Kerala EMS Namboodripad was held guilty by the Supreme Court for lowering the prestige of judges and courts in the eyes of the people. He was fined Rs 50. • Saying that the there is “a disquieting inclination on the part of the [apex] court to silence criticism and muzzle dissent, to harass and intimidate those who disagree with it”, which was “doing its own reputation and credibility considerable harm”? • Arundhati Roy was 'symbolically' jailed for one day and fined Rs 2,000. • Calling a judge a 'sumbhan' (idiot / fool)? • The Supreme Court on 30 January sent MV Jayarajan, a politician from the CPI(M) to jail for four weeks for calling judges “sumbhan” during a firebrand speech criticising judicial activism in the Kerala high court. • What about criticism of a judgment, pointing out that a judge got the law wrong in a case? • The Supreme Court held in MV Jayarajan vs High Court of Kerala in January 2015:“Judges expect, nay invite, an informed and genuine discussion or criticism of judgments but to incite a relatively illiterate audience against the Judiciary, is not to be ignored.” • Rating judges on punctuality, integrity, judgment quality, depth of basic knowledge, manners and receptiveness? • Journalist Madhu Trehan was let off in 2001 by the Delhi high court with an apology (Shri Surya Prakash Khatri & Anr. vs Smt. Madhu Trehan And Others). • Pointing out that a judge often comes late to the court room? • Newspaper articles did just did, which was raised by Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi in the NJAC hearings as an example of why the collegium was a bad idea. • Judges allegedly involved in “immoral” activities while off duty at a resort? • The so-called Mysore sex scandal in 2002. • Re-reporting that a litigant calls a judge corrupt in open court? • Mumbai Mirror apologised to Bombay high court earlier this year after suo motu contempt proceedings.
Imagine a new world where… • All court reporting is always accurate. • Court reporting goes beyond just stenography, • adds analysis, • puts law and judgments into context, • and allows the common man and woman to understand how the courts and judges actually operate.
Why are we not there? • Fundamental problems are: • lack of information (courts are noisy, busy, and cases are complex), • lack of education of court reporters & editors, • lack of communication from the bench. • What happens elsewhere?
US Supreme Court tweets • Latest judgments tweeted out immediately
Official court reporters in the US • In US courts, court reporters, employed by the court, make transcripts available nearly instantly online. • Disputes in court reporting usually arises out of misquoting a judge or a lawyer, or taking judges' remarks out of context. • Solution: If everything is transcribed and documented, the court can easily prove if the media is doing a bad job (and media has rapid access to what actually happened, authoritative).
UK Supreme Court tweets... • Outreach and latest judgments
Other courts that tweet • At least 26 US courts, Nova Scotia (Canada) & more
What can we do in India? • The relationship between media and the judiciary does not have to be one of enemies. • Judiciary to become 'media' in its own right: • The Supreme & high courts to have registrars responsible for “communication”. • Publish videos and materials online explaining workings of court to aam aadmi. • Registrar (communication) to be accessible to journalists and could issue press releases about the functioning of the court, etc. • Big judgments where there is a lot of media scrutiny, could be summarised by the registrar in a press note, which contains the main headlines (and authoring judges could help with that). • If critical stories about judges or a court, journalists to contact registrar (communication) who can rebut false allegations or stories & give judges the opportunity to comment or rebut. • Education sessions for court reporters and news organisations' desk staff on judiciary, good reporting, contempt laws, etc.
