Article from The Guardian on the Media's coverage of the Joanna Yeates murder investigation.Joanna Yeates murder case puts media coverage in the spotlight
David and Theresa Yeates lay flowers at the spot close to Bristol and Clifton Golf Club where the body of their daughter Joanna Yeates was found. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PAMeet “Professor Strange”, aka “The Strange Mr Jefferies”, landlord of the murdered Joanna Yeates and a “suspect peeping Tom” – at least, and in order of quotation, according to the Sun, Daily Mail andDaily Mirror. See pictures of “the blue-rinse bachelor” and read (or watch or listen, because TV and radio are deep into this game, too) what any available neighbours will say about him. Then, make up your own mind…No: don’t! Indeed, wipe your mind blank and hurry on by, becauseDominic Grieve, the attorney general, grows visibly alarmed. “We need to avoid a situation where trials cannot take place or are prejudiced as a result of irrelevant or improper material being published, whether in print form or on the internet, in such a way that a trial becomes impossible,” he warns. In short, the Contempt of Court Act is circling over the media, waiting to smite those who go too far.
But what is “too far”? In much of the world, not least the US, coverage of the Yeates case would seem tame stuff. The US sifts juries for bias then trusts them – and editors know where they stand. But, in England at least, nobody is quite sure any longer. Once upon a time, the moment anyone was charged with an offence, a blanket of enforced silence descended. But too many decades of hunting terrorists and serial killers – and asking the public for help in tracking them down – has widened involvement and pushed back the boundaries of what can be said.
Now any high-profile case can set reporters crawling all over acrime scene and media lawyers fretting at the office. If this or that detail is publicised, will it render a “fair” trial impossible?
It is becoming an impossible line to draw. You may not like “the strange Mr Jefferies” and similar lurid, semi-sourced stuff. You certainly won’t like the thought of trial by newspapers or TV. But how can the net – in a WikiLeaked world – report things that newspapers can’t say? Our own version of contempt is falling into contempt itself. It’s time to begin trusting the good sense of juries more – and begin marching the American way.
