The Guardian is promoting its "open journalism" campaign with a clever new ad. But what are the costs of encouraging the public to judge a case before the legal system can grant due process?
Like many other journalists on this side of the Atlantic, I am impressed both with the energy and the creativity of The Guardian's new "open journalism" campaign, which launched earlier this week to rave international reviews. The online video produced by the venerable British news organization is striking. Two minutes long, brilliantly produced, it uses the classic tale of the "Three Little Pigs" to illustrate why good journalism matters on both a micro and a macro level. Take the time to watch it.
Now, you could watch that video 10 times (I stopped at six) and come away with 10 different perceptions. It's a story about the power of social media. It's a story about the marketplace of ideas. It's a story of power. It's a story of economics. It's a story about property rights. It's a story about how things are never quite what they initially seem to be. As a legal analyst, I chose to see the story first as the classic constitutional battle between free press rights under the 1st Amendment and fair trial rights under the 6th Amendment.
Did the Three Little Pigs ever get a fair trial? The video never answers that question. But it's a legitimate topic -- after all, at 1:33 of the 2:01 video, we see pretrial publicity for the pigs, who are apprehended for crimes against the Big Bad Wolf. For 93 seconds, three quarters of the spot, the viewers being informed about "open journalism" see many of the ugly elements familiar to anyone who has ever followed a high-profile case here in America. The shrieking headlines. The rampant speculation. The arrest. The spin. Even the perp walk.
Maybe The Guardian doesn't answer the obvious question because the answer is one of those inconvenient truths that arise for journalists whenever their rights rub up against the rights of the accused to a trial free from prejudicial pretrial publicity. "Open" journalism may be great. Broad 1st Amendment rights are essential. But it comes at a cost in criminal cases -- costs to the defendant, to the justice system, and to the essence of justice itself. As a society we've come to accept these costs. But that doesn't mean we should ignore them.
To me, "open journalism" in the context of the American legal system is both a sword and a shield. Initially, it is a sword for the police and prosecutors, who hold huge legal and practical advantages over criminal suspects. Officials use their access to the media -- the other side of the "open" door, you could say -- to leak incriminating information about those suspects. The leak is designed to create the very thing the Constitution is supposed to protect against: prejudicial pretrial publicity that undermines a criminal defendant's right to a fair trial.
The media, which benefit from such leaks, naturally do little to expose how or why they occur and what damage they often do to a criminal defendant's presumption of innocence. I've long called this relationship a "conspiracy" and think it would be great if some public-interest media group out there (hey, ProPublica or Neiman, I'm looking at you) did some "open journalism" work on how the 6th Amendment rights of criminal defendants have fared in the age of social media and instant global communication via handheld device.