Media sensationalism distorts public perception and influences judicial outcomes, often prioritizing ratings over truth
Media often creates narratives that overshadow evidence, as seen in the Jessica Lal case where public outrage pressured the judiciary. In the Unnao rape case, media coverage amplified public sentiment, leading to judicial interventions like transferring the case to Delhi. Sensationalist reporting can lead to 'trial by media', where suspects are judged before court proceedings. This creates pressure on judges to deliver verdicts based on public opinion rather than evidence. The Supreme Court has acknowledged media interference as a factor in biased judgments. However, responsible journalism can also drive accountability, but the trend leans toward entertainment over factual reporting. This dynamic erodes the presumption of innocence and undermines fair trials.
“इसमें मीडिया का बड़ा इंट्रूजन था तो साहब अदालत के बाहर तो जो प्रिया के फादर थे श्री सीएल मटू वह रिटायर्ड चीफ इंजीनियर थे जम्मू कश्मीर से माइग्रेट हो गए” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Media sensationalism distorts public perception and judicial outcomes, prioritizing ratings over truth. Economic incentives drive biased reporting that undermines judicial independence and fuels 'trial by media'.