No Trial With Publicity

Televise it

Media groups and personalities have demanded that the proceedings of the Ampatuan trial be televised live. Their best argument is that it is in the interest of the public to be informed and to know the truth about the most-awaited trial in our recent history.

The end they are pursuing is noble. It is the true essence and fundamental goal of journalism. The means they are praying for, however and sadly, is not at all justified or acceptable.

We are well aware of how potent the power of the media is in influencing public opinion. Many theories support it and we have seen how it can happen, including its many repercussions. Just remember what happened in the impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada. While something good came out of it, the fact is justice did not really take its full course. The people became the ultimate judge through sheer force and havoc. The rule of law was sideswiped by the rule of the mob. The result is that we were deprived of potential landmark jurisprudence in deciding a controversy with political color.

The judicial process should be solemn and insulated from a scrutinizing public in order not to be unduly influenced. If unbridled media coverage is allowed at a trial, our tendency is to make judgments as we are fed information when it should be after we have all seen and heard everything. The bigger problem is there is imminent danger of chaos if events do not transpire according to the liking of the majority. When the boiling point is reached, it is much easier to control tens of people in a courtroom than thousands who protest in the streets as we are accustomed to doing.

Fact is media reporters are not banned from attending the trial, only their cameras. They are allowed in to serve as the eyes and the ears of the public in court, in lieu of their cameras. Rightfully so because humans make a logical impression and interpretation of facts, something which machines cannot do. What we see from the cameras does not give us the complete picture and may cloud our perception.

More so, piece-by-piece commentaries out of live reporting will only make the trial a highly-partisan and circus affair. The media thrives in sensationalism, which has high commercial value. Live television coverage will only benefit the media themselves.

Let us leave the court be in this case. Information is not curtailed when limits to media coverage are imposed during a trial. In fact, it is protected until finally the truth is ferreted out for the sake of the common and greater good. That is the ultimate work of justice.