Death by media crucifixion

I happened to catch the Today Show yesterday morning (a rare instance nowadays), and Matt Lauer interviewed a husband who is now considered a suspect in his third wife's death and his fourth wife's disappearance. If you're not familiar with the story, read up. Watch the interview here:


Exclusive: Peterson talks to TODAY

Then today, Lauer asked two "experts" to analyze the interview, scrutinizing the accused man's body language, manner of speech, and choice of words.

As a budding journalist, I mostly paid attention to the way Lauer asked his questions and his follow up questions. I respect him so much as a journalist. But his questions seemed to be the kind that lawyers ask during a trial. What was he trying to do? Try to force a confession out of Peterson and consider the revelation a worthy addition to Lauer's "best journalistic moments" retirement video montage? I watched as the man, Drew Peterson, answered Lauer's questions with indifference and nonchalance, a reaction that seemed to have convinced the "expert" this morning that he is indeed guilty.

The bottom line is, the media seemed to have made up their mind about the case before it is even tried in a court of law.

I love the Today Show. And Matt Lauer for that matter. And journalism is my true love. But I think this is an instance where the journalism gets in the way of justice.

Whatever happened to innocent before proven guilty? The right to a fair trial, anyone?

I am in no way defending this man. He could be guilty for all I know. (Remember Scott Peterson and his pregnant wife, Lacy?) But that's just it. I don't know. And neither does anybody else, until the case is put on trial.

The media's job is to tell the story as it is. And yes, some part of the job calls for interpretation and speculation. The job calls for asking questions about the current system.

But does that mean asking questions before the current system does?

Another part of it is that if this case has to be tried with a jury, some of the potential members of that group may have seen the interview, and might have been swayed by the way Lauer packaged the story. Although the jurors are asked to check their prior assumptions at the courtroom door, and to forget everything they have known about the case thus far, Lauer's interview may just alter the case, and a fair and just trial may have just been thrown out the window.

Just a thought.