In 2015, a pharmaceutical executive named Martin Shkreli hiked AIDS drug prices by 5,000 percent. Of course the media had a field day — here was an un-ambiguously unlikeable guy being an un-ambiguous douche to AIDS patients. There was hardly a need to influence public opinion here.
The hitch? Due to all the negative exposure he received, Shkreli faced extreme difficulty finding an impartial jury this year, for unrelated charges of fraud.
From a Harper’s transcript of jury selection:
The court: “The purpose of jury selection is to ensure fairness and impartiality in this case. If you think that you could not be fair and impartial, it is your duty to tell me. All right. Juror No. 1.”
Juror No. 1: “I’m aware of the defendant and I hate him.”
Benjamin Brafman, Shkreli’s lawyer: “I’m sorry.”
Juror No. 1: “I think he’s a greedy little man.”
The court: “Jurors are obligated to decide the case based only on the evidence. Do you agree?”
Juror No. 1: “I don’t know if I could. I wouldn’t want me on this jury.”
The court: “Juror No. 1 is excused.”
“Innocent until proven guilty” is, technically, our standard.
Traditionally, a judge decides what evidence to allow and a jury of peers decide upon a verdict. Personal feelings, outside knowledge, and pressures from friends and family expressly should not factor into this verdict. Legal cases are not meant to be argued outside of the courtroom, or decided on gut and bias.
The informal court of public opinion has operated alongside our legal system for decades. The term is used to describe advocates on both sides of an issue using media to influence public opinion, and in turn, the jurors and verdict. The courts are well aware of this issue: Juries are selected carefully and sometimes cloistered during trials to try to avoid the influence of public opinion.
In 2017, we reached a vital landmark with Shkreli’s difficulty finding a jury of unbiased peers. With the rise of social media platforms and the 24-hour news cycle, we’re able to saturate public opinion.
Media storms surrounding trials are not unusual. Consider the coverage surrounding the Rodney King beating, the O.J. Simpson trial, and Trayvon Martin’s shooting. In each scenario, the media curated evidence and expert opinions, encouraging people outside of the courtroom to become a shadow jury. They elevated the importance of viewers’ individual opinions on the accused’s guilt or innocence.
Disbelief in the evidence, the judgment, or sometimes the court itself became the story.
Traditionally, trust in the courts has been strong enough for citizens to accept official judgments, even if they disagree. But over the last decade, backlash after judgments that the informed public see as “incorrect” has been increasing.
Remember the shock that followed the Zimmerman acquittal, or when the death of Casey Anthony’s adorable daughter was not avenged? The media, in both cases, extensively covered dissenting opinions from the public.
A jury is asked to hand down a verdict on very specifically worded charges, only referring to evidence that has specifically allowed. Convinced of our own opinions, it is easy forget that the jury is not being asked simply “guilty or not guilty.”
This isn’t inherently a problem. But each decision that the public is groomed to reject can fuel the decline of faith in justice through the courts.
In 2017, the court of public opinion became a diaspora, and personal opinion officially supplanted data and evidence. We’ve left the model of the traditional court, with a commonly accepted set of evidence, behind.
The new court of public opinion is a basketball court. Everyone gets their own ball (opinion). Everyone plays by the rules they consider fair.
It’s fucking madness.
In 2017, a new journalistic standard has been set. The court of public opinion may be invoked to build support for issues that cannot be decided in a court of law. Winning the war for public opinion is tantamount.
Vice, Vox, CNN and a host of other media organizations flooded the state of Alabama with reporters ahead of December’s Senate election. The overwhelming question? “Is Roy Moore a man of god or a child molester?”
I am sitting in a cafe in Los Angeles right now, listening to a group of women explain how they know certain men who have been accused of sexual harassment are guilty, and how they know other’s aren’t.
“He’s a personality. They’re always going to look for oppo research.”
“Now they’re digging into everybody. Looking for everything.”
The problem here is not that these women have formed opinions. The problem is that, increasingly, media organizations are serving as the judge, deciding which evidence to uphold or dismiss.
Worse, they’ve recruited us all as players in their jury. Suddenly, having a defensible opinion is the point. Not truth, or justice.
This is an unhealthy and unsustainable trend.
The court of public opinion is not inherently evil, and there are scenarios that should be argued in the public rather than cloistered in private arbitration. Elements of the #metoo discussion highlight the value of public deliberation. Since redress mechanisms across industries proved unable to justly resolve complaints of sexual harassment and sexual assault — the media was right to step in.
Journalists and media organizations should carefully police their interventions in public opinion for the following negative effects.
Convening the court of public opinion is both an important public service and a dangerous trend in discourse.
In the court of public opinion, media organizations play the stewards of evidence, the prosecution and the defense. As we enter 2018, it is important for these actors to understand the impact of this role upon both individual opinions, collective understanding, and resulting policy.
Caitria O’Neill is a UX designer and researcher, formerly at Facebook.
Eric Nuzum Beyond the narrative arc
Renée Kaplan The year of quiet adjustments (shhh)
AX Mina Memes and visuals come to the fore
Nicholas Diakopoulos Fortifying social media from automated inauthenticity
Richard Tofel The platforms’ power demands more reporters’ attention
David Skok Finding an information-life balance
Trushar Barot The Jio-fication of India
Aron Pilhofer We can’t leave the business to the business side any more
Rodney Gibbs Tech workers turn to journalism
Cindy Royal Your journalism curriculum is obsolete
Taylor Lorenz Social and media will split
C.W. Anderson The social media apocalypse
Charo Henríquez Training is an investment, not an expense
Brian Lam Sketchy ethics around product reviews
Sarah Marshall Loyalty as the key performance indicator
Jarrod Dicker Honesty in advertising
Debra Adams Simmons And a woman shall lead them
Mike Caulfield Refactoring media literacy for the networked age
Sydette Harry Listen to your corner and watch for the hook
Caitria O'Neill The new court of public opinion
Jennifer Choi Standing up for us and for each other
Michelle Ferrier The year of the great reckoning
Michael Kuntz The only pivot that might work
Millie Tran and Stine Bauer Dahlberg (Hint: It’s about your brand)
Mariana Moura Santos Think local, act global
Andrew Losowsky The year of resilience
Borja Echevarría TV goes digital, digital goes TV
Frédéric Filloux External forces
Tracie Powell The muting of underserved voices
Gordon Crovitz Serving readers over advertisers
Nushin Rashidian Publishers seek ad dollar alternatives
Kinsey Wilson Facebook and Google: Help out or pay up
Amy Webb Listen to weak signals
Carlos Martínez de la Serna The new journalism commons
Rubina Madan Fillion Unlocking the potential of AI
Alexios Mantzarlis Moving fake news research out of the lab
Imaeyen Ibanga Longform video leads the way
Jim Moroney Newspapers have to be good enough for readers to pay for
Lam Thuy Vo Breaking free from the tyranny of the loudest
Mi-Ai Parrish Blockchain and trust
Susie Banikarim R.I.P. Pivot to Video (2017–2017)
Mary Meehan Real lives are at stake in rural areas
Cristina Wilson The year of the Instagram Story
Caitlin Thompson Podcasting models mature and diversify
Emily Goligoski Looking beyond news for inspiration
Felix Salmon Covering bitcoin while owning bitcoin
Adam Thomas Sharing is caring: The year of the mentor
Laura E. Davis Writing answers before you know the question
Betsy O'Donovan and Melody Kramer Skepticism and narcissism
Luke O'Neil The end is already here
Hannah Cassius The year of the echo-chamber escapists
Pablo Boczkowski The rise of skeptical reading
Andrew Ramsammy The year ownership mattered
Tanzina Vega It’s time for media companies to #PassTheMic
Christopher Meighan Passive partnership is in the rearview
Lanre Akinola Making noise is not a strategy
Vanessa K. DeLuca Women’s voices take center stage
Tim Carmody Watch out for Spotify
Damon Krukowski Reviving the alt-weekly soul
Bill Keller A growing turn to philanthropy
Kyle Ellis Let’s build our way out of this
Nik Usher The year of The Washington Post
Cory Haik Suffering from realness, pivoting to impact
Francesco Marconi The year of machine-to-machine journalism
Craig Newmark Working together toward sustainable solutions
Monika Bauerlein The firehose of falsehood
Jacqui Cheng Retailers move into content
Kathleen McElroy Building a news video experience native to mobile
Nicholas Quah Stop talking trash about young people
Claire Wardle Disinformation gets worse
José Zamora Revenue-first journalism
Doris Truong Computer vision vs. the Internet vigilantes
Mandy Velez texting is lit rn, fam
Jared Newman Venture funding and digital news don’t mix
Jennifer Coogan The future is female
Mario García Storytelling finally adapts to mobile
Errin Haines At the ballot, it’s time to count black women
Ernst-Jan Pfauth Publishing less to give readers more
Andrew Haeg The year journalists become relationship builders
Alfred Hermida Going beyond mobile-first
Basile Simon We need better career paths for news nerds
Corey Johnson The pro-fact resistance
Juleyka Lantigua Women of color will reclaim and monetize our time
Valérie Bélair-Gagnon Seeking trust in fragmented spaces
Jennifer Brandel and Mónica Guzmán The editorial meeting of the future
Hossein Derakhshan Television has won
Alastair Coote The year of self-improvement
Sara M. Watson Feeds will open up to new user-determined filters
Edward Roussel Eyes, ears, and brains
Marie Gilot No assholes allowed
Sam Ford The year of investing in processes
Rachel Schallom Better design helps differentiate opinion and news
Lucas Graves From algorithms to institutions
Jamie Mottram From pageviews to t-shirts
Helen Havlak Keywords, not publishers, power the world’s biggest feeds
Matt Boggie The intellectual equivalent of the Dead Sea
Zizi Papacharissi Women come back
Jessica Parker Gilbert Design connects storytelling and strategy
Tanya Cordrey Finally, the seeds of radical reinvention
Joyce Barnathan It will be harder to bury the news
Matt Carlson Attacks on the press will get worse
Molly de Aguiar Good journalism won’t be enough
Alan Soon The rise of start of psychographic, micro-targeted media
Rick Berke Value is the watchword
Sally Lehrman Trust comes first
Miguel Castro The arrival of the impact producer
Ray Soto VR reaches the next level
Michelle Garcia Navigating journalistic transparency
Steve Grove The midterms are an opportunity
Dheerja Kaur Fun with subscription products
Jassim Ahmad Thriving on change
Heather Bryant Building the ecosystems for collaboration
Niketa Patel Live journalism comes of age
Amy King Let’s amplify visual voice
Jesse Holcomb Information disorder, coming to a congressional district near you
Monique Judge Letting black women tell their own stories
Ståle Grut Reclaiming audience interaction from social networks
Carrie Brown Transparency finally takes off
Elizabeth Jensen Show your work
Matt DeRienzo A recession, then a collapse
Marcela Donini and Thiago Herdy Collaboration is the way forward for Brazilian journalism
Rodney Benson Better, less read, and less trusted
Will Sommer The year local media gets conservative
Rasmus Kleis Nielsen The Snapchat scenario and the risk of more closed platforms
Mariano Blejman News games rule
Tamar Charney We get serious about algorithms
Raju Narisetti Mirror, mirror on the wall
Kawandeep Virdee Zines had it right all along
Dannagal G. Young Stop covering politics as a game
Evie Nagy Pivot to mobile video frustration
Ruth Palmer Risks will grow for news subjects — especially minorities
Julia B. Chan Looking for loyalty in all the right places
Feli Sánchez The year for guerrilla user research
Dan Shanoff You down with OTT? (Yeah, DTC)
Manoush Zomorodi Self-help as a publishing strategy
Yvonne Leow The rise of video messaging
Vivian Schiller Pivot to tomorrow
Eric Ulken The year local publishers get smart(er) about change
Amie Ferris-Rotman More female reporters abroad (please)
Mira Lowe The year of the local watchdog
Matt Thompson Here come the attention managers
Alice Antheaume Are you fluent in AI?
Emma Carew Grovum Newsroom culture becomes a priority
P. Kim Bui The reckoning is only beginning
Kim Fox Audience teams diversify their approach
Joanne McNeil Gatekeeping the gatekeepers
Justin Kosslyn The year journalists become digital security experts
Jim Brady With the people, not just of the people
Pia Frey Address users as individuals
Corey Ford The empire strikes back
Kristen Muller The year of the voter
Rachel Davis Mersey AI, with real smarts
Pete Brown Push alerts, personalized
Joanne Lipman Journalists inventing revenue streams
Mary Walter-Brown Show a little vulnerability
Raney Aronson-Rath Transparency is the antidote to fake news
Federica Cherubini The rise of bridge roles in news organizations
Juliette De Maeyer A responsible press criticism
Umbreen Bhatti The trust problem isn’t new