The media plays an important part in reporting crime. Sometimes, however, coverage threatens the integrity of the justice system through trial by media. Below we explore the concept, look at examples of trial by media, examine what makes a story newsworthy and discuss the consequences of irresponsible journalism.
Written by Grant Longstaff. Published 26 September 2025.
The definition of trial by media
The media plays an important role in our society. We consume information through the internet, TV, social media and newspapers every day, and it can shape how we see the world around us.
The term “trial by media” refers to scenarios in which extensive media coverage of an individual can influence and manipulate public perception of a criminal case before, or after, a verdict has been reached in court. It’s particularly prevalent in high profile cases, or cases involving high profile figures.
As a result, trial by media raises questions and concerns about jury impartiality, an individual’s right to a fair trial and the impact of the media on criminal proceedings.
Examples of trial by media
There are many examples of how the media has shaped public perception of an individual. Some of the most recognised examples of trial by media in recent years include Amanda Knox, Caroline Flack, Lucy Letby and Chris Jefferies.
In 2007 Amanda Knox, an American student studying in Italy, was falsely accused of the murder of Meredith Kercher. Before the trial the Italian press, and subsequently the international media, repeatedly published negative stories about her personal life and behaviour, going so far as to label her “Foxy Knoxy”. Her reputation was already severely damaged before the trial even took place. She was convicted and served almost four years before finally being acquitted and released in 2015.
As a television presenter Caroline Flack was subjected to media scrutiny throughout her career. This became even more intense when Flack was charged with assaulting her boyfriend in December 2019. The media was persistent in its coverage, using sensation and speculation rather than evidence. An analysis by The Guardian found “Flack was under enormous media scrutiny and negative coverage notably increased after the alleged assault… [receiving] twice as many negative headlines as positive.” The following February Flack died by suicide and it’s widely believed the relentless press attention was a contributing factor to her death.
Contributing factors to trial by media
News values
News values set out how journalists and reporters decide what is “newsworthy” and shape how a story is presented. There are numerous factors at play when it comes to determining a newsworthy story, but some of the most prevalent when looking at examples of trial by media include presenting crime as drama, personalisation and negativity.
News stories with a clear narrative can be dramatically told and will become more engaging to an audience. Personalisation focuses on the individuals involved and can help elicit a stronger emotional response to a piece. Finally, negative news stories are again more likely to capture our attention than positive stories.
Consider this in the context of Amanda Knox. We have our “villain” (Knox), personalised through countless stories of her relationships and behaviour (even given a nickname) at the centre of a murder trial. It becomes clear to see how the media can influence public opinion.
Moral panic
Another contributing factor to trial by media is the idea of moral panic and how this can be influenced by the way in which news is reported. Stanley Cohen, a criminologist and sociologist, stated moral panics occur when “a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests.” This perceived threat is exaggerated by the media which in turn causes social anxiety and fuels moral panic. A modern example occurred in the early 2000s with “hoodies” and the negative behaviour of young people.
Prejudicial media and the consequences
There are real consequences to how journalists present news stories, particularly when reporting on crime and criminal activity. If the media is biased, exaggerates details or resorts to speculation it can damage legal proceedings before they begin and raises many questions. Is there a real presumption of innocence in such cases, or are they undermined through reporting strategies driven by sensationalism and serving an audience? There are times when media narratives dominate legal outcomes. Is this an erosion of legitimacy?
Free press vs fair trial
Freedom of the press is a fundamental right in a democratic society and can help maintain transparency in the justice system. However, the right to a fair trial is also protected by law. This can ultimately cause tension between the free press and the courts. Whilst the press has a right to report on stories of public interest, excessive and irresponsible coverage risks undermining the justice system and can influence court proceedings.
Ethical reporting is a necessity if a trial by media is to be avoided. Journalists and the press should remain objective, focusing on facts and evidence over speculation. However, we live in a world of 24 hour news cycles, clickbait headlines and social media algorithms. Media outlets need to stay relevant and constantly drive engagement, which can leave room for conjecture and bias (whether conscious or unconscious) to fill the void. All of which begs the question, can reporting ever be neutral?
Consequences of trial by media
There are a number of consequences of trial by media. To begin, jurors may enter a courtroom with pre-existing biases based on the reporting they’ve been exposed to ahead of the trial. This could result in a miscarriage of justice. Trial by media can also impact public trust in the justice system. The media could be seen as more influential than the courts, which erodes public faith in the legal process.
There can also be harm caused to the accused. The stigma from the media can linger, even in cases where the defendant is acquitted, which subsequently damages reputations, impacts personal lives and causes irreparable harm. There are even examples where the press has vilified innocent people.
Chris Jefferies, questioned by police as a suspect in the murder of Joanna Yeates, was vilified by the tabloid press. Vincent Tabak was later convicted for the murder, but the relentless press coverage meant the damage to Jefferies was already done. He sued eight newspapers and all paid damages. The Sun and The Daily Mirror were even prosecuted for breaching the Contempt of Court Act.
Finally, there’s also a real risk victims and their families become lost in the media narrative. Sensationalism can retraumatise survivors and families and they’re subjected to further emotional distress as a result.
If you’re interested in learning more about how crime is represented in the media our range of undergraduate and postgraduate criminology courses are a great place to start.
