How the Media Has Destroyed Democracy
In 2011, presumably speaking on behalf of all journalists, John Hartigan published a piece in The Australian complaining about the 'increasing willingness of judges to give an order to remove articles for fear jurors will be influenced'.
To give an example of what journalists demand, consider the following case (it can't be referenced because a take-down notice was ordered).
A young, inexperienced North QLD driver took a turn too quickly, lost control of the vehicle and crashed into other parked vehicles before coming to a stop on the fence of a Day Care Center. Before any charges were laid, the newspaper published a front-page, ad-hominem attack on the young driver describing the accident as "Hoons threatening the lives of children".
In response to the news, the police felt public backlash could be avoided if criminal charges for 'street racing and drifting' were laid. However, the driver was unable to obtain representation because every lawyer in town also read the news and none were interested in representing a 'not guilty' plea.
For nearly two years, the judge was unable to proceed with the hand-up committal since legal representation is a minimum requirement of the criminal courts. The driver was ultimately forced to make an appeal to the courts to have the case heard in a different jurisdiction where an unbias jury and fair representation could be sought.
When the case finally came to hand-up committal again, the new judge determined there was no case to answer in the criminal courts and the charges were dropped. The case was then referred back to the magistrate court, where it should have been in the first place.
In the magistrate court, the driver was happy to plead guilty to loosing control of the vehicle and was fined appropriately.
Ultimately, the irresponsible media cost QLD tax-payers a bundle by deliberately steering due process off course - and their only excuse was lobbying the local council 'for a speed zone sign' in a street that is only 200 meters long.
This is the type of unfettered power over our right to fair trial, due process and unbias juries that journalists would like to wield - all in the name of informing the public. It is their constant sub judice meddling that has caused open justice in Australia to come under fire.
It is true: The public has a right to understand -- and witness in action -- the laws that govern them and to be assured the court system is fair and just. But the public does not have the right to be the judge and jury. That's what the courts are for.
Journalists need to grow up and take their responsibilities more seriously!