Comments on: Making Distinctions: Murdoch, WikiLeaks, and DSK http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2011/07/making-distinctions-murdoch-wikileaks-and-dsk/ Informed reflection on the events of the day Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:00:00 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.4.23 By: Scott http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2011/07/making-distinctions-murdoch-wikileaks-and-dsk/comment-page-1/#comment-15047 Wed, 27 Jul 2011 20:39:00 +0000 http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/?p=6640#comment-15047 The fact that “News of the World” became a victim of its own game is poetic justice. The scandal also reveals the extent to which those with public power can use it to inoculate themselves against abuse of power, even via bribing the police. (Even though this was the case in the UK, is there any reason to believe this could not also be the case in the US?) Furthermore, when such abuse of power is exposed, I have much difficulty sympathizing with the accused. Yes, they are still innocent until proven guilty, but the public should still have a right to know the extent of the danger posed to the public interest. Media is the primarily tool for enabling this; if in fact the media is not always trustworthy, we should consider that there is still, after all, a multiplicity of voices to consider. I believe this ensures that the pros of the media game ultimately outweigh its cons.

Also, the threat of scandal, and its amplification via the media, should act as a strong deterrent for public figures against unethical practices. Why they still take the risks given the potential enormity of the costs can be the subject of another post; however, if “trial by media” is seen as part of the punishment, then it is simply part of the process. If an impartial jury can still be found, then this is less problematic than it would seem. A larger problem, as I see it, is the practice of trial lawyers leaking evidence to the media. This would certainly undermine the process of justice.

]]>