Freedom of the Press vs. Presumption of Innocence

A core tenet of our civil right is the “presumption of innocence”, which basically means that we are innocent of accused crimes until proven guilty in a court of law. 


Now, a common occurrence in our modern society is for the press (or media) to report on the alleged criminal acts before any allegation is proven guilty in a court of law.  Traditionally in the US culture, the press is entitled to conduct such reports via the principle of the “freedom of the press”.  So although a person may be exonerated by a court of law, the person may be convicted by the general public.


So does the Press/Media respect the ‘Presumption of Innocence’ principle?


The police, while usually a competent and reliable enforcer of the law, is capable of making mistakes.  The initial suspect for a crime doesn’t always end up being the one prosecuted for the crime.  Regardless of whether the police gave the news station the wrong picture or any other flaw, the man is now assumed to be guilty.  In the town he lives in and according to his peers, he is presumed guilty and his life is forever altered and judged based on an act he may not have even committed. 


Yet this is not a harmless mistake because the legally innocent man has been socially convicted and there is no appeal mechanism for this type of conviction.  Once a person’s reputation is tainted even by the public allegation, then that person’s life is forever stained.  The social consequences are boundless.  A person may have to leave their community entirely because they cannot go out in public without their peers judging them as if they were carrying a cloud of guilt over their head.


Let’s look at a present-day example: the allegations against Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK).  I won’t go into the details of the legal allegations because I want to focus on the role of the media.  DSK is/was a prominent public figure because he was the head of the International Monetary Fund.  DSK was living in the US for his job at the IMF but he is a French national.  As one of their political elite was in the headlights of the international media scandal, people in France paid close attention to the coverage in the US.  The US covered the story with pictures of DSK in police custody in handcuffs and surrounded by authorities.


A CNN article articulates the differences in US and French culture as the French have censorship laws which prohibit the media from prejudicing a legal case.  One French resident thought, “that for Americans it’s the normal procedure, so there’s nothing shocking about these pictures, but in France it’s true that these pictures are very shocking for us, because in France we don’t have the right to show images of a man who is charged but not yet convicted.”  The case against DSK has since been dropped.  So DSK has avoided criminal conviction, but his political career was not spared as he had been positioning himself to run for the French Presidency in the next election.  That aspiration is no longer plausible. 


So for alleged criminals like DSK, I do not believe the media appropriately respects the presumption of innocence that should be afforded to every citizen.


Censorship Harm


There is also an issue where the media assists authorities in making the public aware of a criminal so they can be caught. So a local news station may show a picture of a man who had just shot a convenient store clerk in their nightly news segment. A citizen who knows or has seen this man may might then call the police with information related to the man’s whereabouts. However, when the news station shows that man’s picture, everyone who sees it assumes that he is guilty.


Prohibiting prejudicial reports by the media may also harm the ability of the media to do investigative journalism.  We often see the media uncover corrupt and potentially criminal behavior which leads to a criminal investigation by the government.  Under new censorship, this investigative practice would undoubtedly be limited in some way because it would limit the degree to which the report can implicate a person in criminal activity.  ideally I’d like there to be a happy medium because I do fear truly investigative journalism would be jeopardized.  Appropriate and more specific limits definitely need to be debated further before any new law is formulated.


Yea it’s different, but let’s at least talk about it…


I think the freedom of the press should be limited to protect the presumption of innocence. At present in the US, there is no such presumption of innocence in the court of public opinion. When a media outlet runs a story on ‘alleged’ crimes, the audience forms a prejudice by assuming the media report to be truthful and unbiased.  It’s imperative that the media continually emphasize that the crimes are “alleged” and detail the arguments for both the prosecution and the defense.  It’s definitely time for at least a debate on the press/innocence conflict because the internet has the ability to make a mugshot a ‘kiss of death’ for a person’s social and political life.


If the person is convicted, then I think the press is entitled to report on it. But until guilt is proven in the court of law, the court of public opinion must respect every citizen’s presumption of innocence.  Granted the ‘how’ is complex the two principles can coexist.