Narratives and Outcomes
For some 30 years now, when I’ve done workshops and seminars for journalists, I cautioned against covering jury trials like we cover sporting events because it gives the public an inaccurate idea about things.
In a trial, the prosecution goes first, then the defense. But often the coverage focuses heavily on the first part of a trial, and the media loses interest as things go along. All the public knows is what’s reported, so they are surprised when a defendant is found not guilty because the coverage seemed like she or he was quite guilty.
It would be like a baseball team getting all its at-bats in a row…of course, they’re going to have a huge lead before the other team even gets up to bat. But to presume that big lead is indicative of how the whole game will turn out is false. Similarly, focusing only on one half of the trial—the prosecution, before the defense even gets a chance—gives the public a false sense of how it ultimately will turn out.
I’m reminded of this due to the Rittenhouse trial in Wisconsin. Other than the jurors and perhaps a few court observers, no one heard all the actual evidence in the case, so it’s hard for anyone to knowledgably comment on whether he is guilty or not guilty of anything. But that won’t stop those with a political agenda…on both sides…from whipping up a frenzy…again, on both sides.
As I record this on Tuesday afternoon, I have no idea about the jury’s work on the case. Sadly, regardless of what they do, there’s going to be trouble based on inaccurate information and those promoting a certain narrative. And in the current political climate, cooler heads will not prevail…which threatens our entire system.
