Obstruction of justice.

While I will agree that the media does have positive effects; I am beginning to wonder if the way media covers court cases may in fact be abusing first ammendment rights. The reason I bring this up is the media has access to information almost as quickly as it comes up, and it will present it immediately as soon as they can without regard to consequences. The problem is this can skew a jury especially if the information is presented without context or with "expert" hypothesi(spelling). Another thing that recently came to attention is that two different women have committed suicide in connection with the deaths of their children, after the incidents were covered by an anchor called Nancy Grace. I will include a link to an article.

I present this question for discussion: should the media have to wait until a verdict is reached to cover a case.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/11/toni-medrano-vodka-mom_n_1665792.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

Jury Sequestratioin
There is a safeguard to avoid media influence in juries, at least in the US. Most cases aren't high profile and won't be reported on in the mass media, so sequestering a jury isn't really necessary. Jurors are also advised not to look up facts pertaining to cases, if the cases span multiple days. So theoretically if a juror does their job well they won't hear a story about the case they're deciding even if the case is reported on.

As for the Nancy Grace story, basically Nancy Grace reported on a story and added in her editorial comments. She did nothing illegal. Now, morally maybe she is responsible for that mothers death, but legally she is not.

the media is ot allways alowed in the court room and i would like to point out that jurys are not allowed to read the papper and watch the news in many cases so its not going to make the jury swing one way or another

I still think its not quite right. The media coverage of the travon martin case is another case. The man was convicted in public opinion before he was even charged. Regardless of his guilt or innocence, tell me that jury won't be skewed.

Anyone who chooses to do an interview should already know by now how interviewers are. If they don't want to have to answer difficult questions and face things they don't want to face or aren't ready to, they shouldn't ever agree to an interview in the first place.
I know that may sound a bit harsh, but no one forces anyone to do an interview.

People need to be held accountable for their choices and actions instead of blaming others. Yes, words hurt sometimes, but the thoughts in our minds are what drive us to make decisions based on emotion, not other people - just us. And while I do understand that those people were probably not in the best frame of mind, they are the ones that made the decisions they made, no one else. Anger, hatred, fear, confusion.. that's what blame is.

There was another point I was going to touch on but it seems to have slipped my mind..

The media should not be allowed to report on ongoing police investigations or court cases. Jury or no jury. And had I been the Italian government, I would have used my secret service to deal with the Knox family's usage of PR firms, who made the whole thing highly political.

Do they report on cases to give a case national exposure? We rarely see court cases that aren't "high profile" then we get seriOus media exposure. Personally I avoid watching court cases it does little good to broadcast them. They don't deter crime in any way. It feels to an extent like watching executions. Humans for some reason love to see this one of thing. We consider the real life trials of criminals even petty crimes as entertainment. That is probably the biggest reason they televise as much as possible instead of just giving us the basics after the trial. Like so much else it's just our way of prying into someone else's business, by callng it "entertainment" or "truly compelling television". But I think it does more harm than good by continioisly throwing things in the families face on a nightly basis

Unfortunate that everyone likes to see a "car accident" which fuels the medias engines. If we all don't tune in, then the scrutiny just might go away....

It is unfortunate that the media, at least as far as I see it, interferes. Yet before it gets too negative in here, I think it is good when the media uncovers and reports corruption within the legal system and government. I don't mean as in cases of adultry or nonviolent domestic disputes, but cases of embezzlementand bribery. What happened to Robin Hood style journalism?