Tuesday, October 12, 2010
What the Papers Say
One thing I've noticed, attending the court every day, is the apparent disparity between what we see and hear there and the media reports. It is not that the reporters are making things up or telling lies, just that they present a very partial and incomplete account of the proceedings.
I'm often struck, for example, by accounts of a witnesses' evidence which go into great detail about their testimony for the prosecution but then totally ignore any doubts that may have been cast upon that evidence during the defence cross examination.
I was starting to think it was just me, thankfully however Kenneth Roy in the Scottish Review has chimed in with a fascinating piece on the media accounts of the case.
His conclusion is one that I would wholeheartedly agree with.
The more I read of the Sheridan trial, the more I long for a return to the more passive court reporting of old, when readers were allowed to draw their own conclusions about the evidence. As long as the reporting of the 'trial of the decade' remains as excitable as it is at the moment, there is always a risk that two trials will be taking place in Glasgow this autumn – one arranged by the Crown Office, the other by the Greek chorus of the Scottish media.
Posted by James Doleman at 1:47 PM