I spend most of my time in Germany; hence my unfamiliarity with this idea. > ensuring jurors are free of bias or prejudice This looks like a futile undertakin

I spend most of my time in Germany; hence my unfamiliarity with this idea. > ensuring jurors are free of bias or prejudice This looks like a futile undertaking. A person using a language, behaving in the context of time and culture is breathing bias in every action they perform. But - with my very limited knowledge about jury trials - I would assume that objective judgement is precisely not the intent of using a jury. Here's what I read about it on Wikipedia: > [...] it provides a means of interjecting community norms and values into judicial proceedings [...] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#Pros_and_cons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#Pros_and_cons Apart from that, you seem to make it sound as if news coverage would have a negative impact on decision making, which I believe is pretty controversial. > everyone would be made to feel like they have to have an opinion on the topic Participation in the latest media outrage is a choice, it is not mandatory. Many people exercise the concept of picking their own interests, views and arguments just fine. I can see, however, how such mechanistic ideas about the effects of content make concepts around censorship plausible beyond what I anticipated.