Media coverage and the right to a fair trial
The Eaton Centre shooting and the Luka Magnotta case have received a lot of media attention — but will this coverage have an effect on the accused’s right to a fair trial? Luka Magnotta’s case caught the media’s attention quickly when two body parts were mailed to two Canadian political parties. He is also alleged to have posted the video of the murder and acts cannibalism online. Because new events continue to unfold, the case is still prominent in the media. Some experts say it may have an effect on Magnotta’s trial because it is difficult for the public to be objective after everything it has heard. The same may be true for Christopher Husbands, who allegedly killed one man and injured several others in last weekend’s Eaton Centre shooting. The story spread quickly via social media (a professional athlete actually broke the story) and affects a large number of people and their perceived sense of safety and outlook on Toronto. After almost every major Toronto media outlet had identified the victims of the shooting, a publication ban was placed on their names. That said, these are not the first Canadian incidents where the right to a fair trial may be compromised by media coverage.
Comment Policy
J-Source invites comments on any content items or on any other topics relevant to journalism. Those posting comments are expected to adhere to standards of accuracy and fairness that would be recognized by those who practise, teach or study journalism.
- Comments are restricted to registered users. You must register with your full first and last name in order to be eligible to comment.
- Please communicate as effectively and intelligently as you would in a professional or academic forum, focusing on the issues at hand rather than the characters or characteristics of those involved.
- This forum is intended for discussion of the craft of journalism, not of the issues of the day that journalists cover; please do not post story tips or press releases.
- We moderate the forum for adherence to these standards of discourse, and reserve the right to decline any comment or restrict any user from commenting without giving reasons. Every effort is made to approve valid comments within 24 hours of submission.
 | Support J-Source | ||
 | Best online-only article or series | ||
J-Source and ProjetJ are projects of The Canadian Journalism Foundation in collaboration with leading schools and organizations Editor-in-chief, J-Source: | |||
Recent Posts
Recent comments
Attention journalists: Federal government makes data site more searchable
-
As always, the most comprehensive and up-to-date listing of Canadian open data sites can be...
Official list of Globe and Mail staff who took the buyouts
-
Why is this nice easy list of names with subheds not published as plain HTML (H2, OL, LI) with...
Do ethnocultural newspapers have a future in Canada?
-
Ethnic newspapers continue to provide a valuable role in transmitting information on Canadian...
Comments
Suppose you got shot and the media was banned from reporting it? A rule which was created for specific reasons being applied in a blanket fashion. Another reason why JPs should be lawyers not former high school principles and spouses of powerfully connected politicians.
Ironically, the 13-year-old's name would have been banned from publication if the shooter was under 18 because of a twist the law covering young offenders.
And the accused's right to a fair trial? Police kept Husband's name off the record until he was charged. How does that risk his right to a fair trial? He's on video camera and he's been identified by the surviving victim?
And Magnotta? He gave up his right to any protections when he posted himself in a video in the act.
Duh.