4 ms·

I'm uncomfortable with trial by media instead of trial by court room. If they did something illegal get a prosecutor to sue them, we shouldn't be quick to bring

I'm uncomfortable with trial by media instead of trial by court room. If they did something illegal get a prosecutor to sue them, we shouldn't be quick to bring out the pitch forks because of an accusation of wrongdoing.

snassar 11y ago
I am going to assume your comment is a serious one. This case isn't a "trial by media". What is happening is that several investigative journalism groups are getting together to examine data acquired through a leak. The examination may lead to lawsuits, criminal investigations, and legislative action, but is by no definition a trial. The questions asked as a result of the examination of the leaked information may lead to uncomfortable questions in private and in public. At this point, who is being accused of wrong-doing?
- wastedhours 11y ago
  The "trial by media" point is a fairly common one, insofar as media can influence the public's perception of any activities before any legal wrongdoing is established. I.e. in the UK, Cameron is on the front pages for his father's activities, regardless of whether he had any part/they're genuine/benefited etc... "Trial by media" is less a witch hunt, and more influencing the zeitgeist.
  - snassar 11y ago
    I am not sure what you mean by "trial by media" being a common point. Common where and used by whom? I am also not sure what you mean. Are you taking the view that "influencing the zeitgeist" should only happen in the court system?
    - wastedhours 11y ago
      "Trial by media is a phrase popular in the late 20th century and early 21st century to describe the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a verdict in a court of law." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_media Not saying that it should only happen in the court system, just saying that since the media has the widespread ability to do so, they need to hold themselves to a certain account and be satisfied that their definition of "in the public interest" is worthy enough.
leroy_masochist 11y ago
I think that argument holds up a lot better in countries that have (relatively) impartial and transparent rule of law than in countries that don't. In other words, it looks like this is having real and immediate consequences in Iceland, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Vladimir Vladimirovich or any of his cronies to be indicted.
Broken_Hippo 11y ago
What do you think the likelyhood of an actual trial would be without public outcry about the situation? Don't get me wrong, in general I would agree with you. It is completely unfair for folks in the US (Think casey antony) to be forced into protective custody after being found non-guilty because of the media coverage of her court case, and even as a teenager I found the whole thing surrounding OJ as ridiculous. But in extreme cases, this is often felt as the only recourse, especially to those in power whom may have some influence over whether or not they will ever be sued or arrested.
jandrese 11y ago
The options seem to be "trial by media" or "gets away scot free" in this case. Politicians weren't prosecuting this, in some cases they were a party to it! Also, the whole point of these companies is to hide from the government, so if it were easy for the government to prosecute they wouldn't be used. Leaks like this are about the only way it was realistically going to come to light.
bdhe 11y ago
And in a million years, don't mistake legal for ethical. Even more so when the people writing the rules for what's legal (the politicians) are the very ones playing this game.

snassar 11y ago

I am going to assume your comment is a serious one. This case isn't a "trial by media". What is happening is that several investigative journalism groups are getting together to examine data acquired through a leak. The examination may lead to lawsuits, criminal investigations, and legislative action, but is by no definition a trial. The questions asked as a result of the examination of the leaked information may lead to uncomfortable questions in private and in public. At this point, who is being accused of wrong-doing?

wastedhours 11y ago
The "trial by media" point is a fairly common one, insofar as media can influence the public's perception of any activities before any legal wrongdoing is established. I.e. in the UK, Cameron is on the front pages for his father's activities, regardless of whether he had any part/they're genuine/benefited etc... "Trial by media" is less a witch hunt, and more influencing the zeitgeist.
- snassar 11y ago
  I am not sure what you mean by "trial by media" being a common point. Common where and used by whom? I am also not sure what you mean. Are you taking the view that "influencing the zeitgeist" should only happen in the court system?
  - wastedhours 11y ago
    "Trial by media is a phrase popular in the late 20th century and early 21st century to describe the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a verdict in a court of law." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_media Not saying that it should only happen in the court system, just saying that since the media has the widespread ability to do so, they need to hold themselves to a certain account and be satisfied that their definition of "in the public interest" is worthy enough.

leroy_masochist 11y ago

I think that argument holds up a lot better in countries that have (relatively) impartial and transparent rule of law than in countries that don't. In other words, it looks like this is having real and immediate consequences in Iceland, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Vladimir Vladimirovich or any of his cronies to be indicted.

Broken_Hippo 11y ago

What do you think the likelyhood of an actual trial would be without public outcry about the situation? Don't get me wrong, in general I would agree with you. It is completely unfair for folks in the US (Think casey antony) to be forced into protective custody after being found non-guilty because of the media coverage of her court case, and even as a teenager I found the whole thing surrounding OJ as ridiculous. But in extreme cases, this is often felt as the only recourse, especially to those in power whom may have some influence over whether or not they will ever be sued or arrested.

jandrese 11y ago

The options seem to be "trial by media" or "gets away scot free" in this case. Politicians weren't prosecuting this, in some cases they were a party to it! Also, the whole point of these companies is to hide from the government, so if it were easy for the government to prosecute they wouldn't be used. Leaks like this are about the only way it was realistically going to come to light.

bdhe 11y ago

And in a million years, don't mistake legal for ethical. Even more so when the people writing the rules for what's legal (the politicians) are the very ones playing this game.