Jul 202011
 

The Casey Anthony trial and the O.J. Simpson trial both proved that in America it’s easier to beat the rap in a murder trial than it is to beat a parking ticket. This may be so because at traffic court it’s just you and the judge, but in a criminal  trial it’s you, the judge, the jury and the media; this changes everything.

To begin with, there are about 5 children murdered by their parents everyday in America. Why the media picks just one case to make it the media sensation of the moment is a mystery; it must have something to do with readership or advertisers or something else just as stupid.

What happens is that the defendant is tried in criminal or civil court and then in the public media court. What happened to Casey and O.J. is that they were acquitted in a criminal courtroom, but convicted in the media court, this aggravated a lot of people, but sold a lot of newspapers.

Personally, I think that Casey Anthony is guilty because no parent would not report a missing 2 year old for thirty days while having wild parties and good times. Then there is the question of the smell of rotting flesh coming from her car and the fact that the body was found dumped in a swamp with duct tape on the victim’s mouth.  Any other parent would be heart broken in such a situation, but then again, I’m only going on what the news media chose to tell me; I did not sit on the jury to hear the whole story, this is whats wrong with a media trial.

Does the media have the right or the authority to put private citizens on public trial and expose all sorts of very personal information about them for the whole country to see for it’s entertainment value. The freedom of information laws say this is so, but if after the trial, if the defendant is proven innocent, and their private life is no longer private because of the media reporting the trial,  the result of this can be  to ruin the defendants private life,  this is clearly illegal. However if the defendant is proven guilty, then making the trial information public can be justified after the trial. But during the trial when the defendant is assumed to be innocent, making this private  information public is clearly illegal. There’s nothing to clarify this in the Constitution, but then again back in the day when the Constitution was written, there was no TV, radio, Internet or mass media, back then it was just newspapers,  posters and the Pony Express.

Just ask any lawyer and they will tell you that if newspaper reporters obtained the same information they get at a public trial by any other means, they would be arrested and charged with invasion of privacy. If a lawsuit follows this, the reporter in question would stand very little chance of avoiding a conviction. But yet, they continue to get all sorts of private information at public trials.

As far as moral authority goes, the media certainly does not have the moral authority to do this simply because of the way they conduct their business whereby sex, violence and shock value are their main way of doing business, along with a lot of deception and incomplete presentations. For example, MSNBC once had Rachel Maddow put on  a game show called “Pin the Debt on the Democrats”, where the question presented was, “Who of the last five presidents were the biggest spenders, the Democrats or the Republicans”. Then through a question and answer session, it was established that the Republicans were the biggest spenders. This whole deceptive episode can be realized when it becomes clear  that the biggest spender of all of American history, president Barack Hussein Obama, was not one of the presidents examined in this show. Clearly this was a program based on deception that gave a false conclusion.

Also, MSNBC has regular rantings about how it is the right of all Americans to have health care, a home, social security, education, a job etc. But  when you think about how these  programs are going to be paid for, then things get fuzzy. They say that the rich should pay for this, but if you take away all the money and property the richest 2% of the population has and leave them naked in the street, you will only collect about one trillion dollars, less than what is needed to pay the deficit for one year.  Clearly not a workable situation, but MSNBC does not present this issue in this entirety.

With a history like this, MSNBC certainly does not have a moral authority to go into a court room to gather “selected” bits of information to put private citizens on public trial across America. But they do this anyway.

It should be noted that there are other news organizations that present a more complete news format, but they seem to be over ridden by the louder news sources and it’s illegal to show any favoritism for any of them.

It was not too long ago that news reporters were not allowed in a court room, the reasons are obvious. But lately they are being allowed in court rooms and citizens are being robbed of their privacy.

Given this carnival atmosphere that has been created in court rooms because of the media, a real sense of danger can be realized if terrorists are put on public trial with the media present. The prosecutor may have to present some evidence from the CIA or FBI that will give free terrorists information about how the CIA and FBI operate. NO good can come from this.

I think America would be better off doing a lot of things it used to do, like keeping newspaper reporters out of court rooms. During World War II Enemy combatants were not put on trial, they were  just locked up and kept in jail until a peace treaty was signed. But these days common sense is not common anymore.

America should take another look at how America used to be, you know; when American was a great nation.

Jose A. Lugo

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.