The Noritta trial: TV stations must warn viewers

Having examined the print media's coverage of the Noritta murder trial, let us now look at how television stations have fared. As challenging as the reporting of the trial is for the print media, it must be a lot more so for TV. Unlike print media, people with a low level of literacy can still catch the news on TV. TV is also a lot more ubiquitous and easily accessible. The set is typically found in the living room of the house, so that young children can be exposed to it a lot more easily than newspapers.

How then should TV approach Noritta’s trial? Not highlighting the trial as a way to get viewers to tune in to the news helps, and TV stations, to their credit, have generally observed that.

What about the content of the trial involving what was said by lawyers and witnesses? TV reporters, having to rely on themselves to present information coming out of the trial, would need to use language given at the trial that would be inappropriate for young children.

Some may question whether it is proper to use such “inappropriate” language at all. While reporters should try to avoid the inappropriate words as much as possible, it would be hard, even misguided, to avoid them altogether. After all, they, too, need to be accurate with their coverage.

One way to deal with such a situation is to have the TV anchor person or news reader first warn parents about the language contained in the report to be presented. This is to give parents a chance to take the action they see fit to spare their young children from inappropriate language. For example, they may temporarily switch to another channel.

In addition to verbal warnings, TV stations could also provide onscreen written reminders while the report is being aired to help viewers who missed the warning given earlier.

Both the warnings and onscreen reminders should be mandatory for news bulletins broadcast early in the evening, before10 pm, when many young children could be still awake. They need not be made mandatory after 10pm although that is not to suggest the bulletins do not have to watch their language at all.

Nonetheless, there is nothing wrong with stations voluntarily offering the warnings and onscreen reminders.

Giving warnings and onscreen reminders when young children could still be awake to watch TV is the least TV stations can do. Of course, doing both does not mean TV reporters, therefore, do not have to watch what they say at all. The warnings and reminders are not a license to sensationalise.

All told, the media must be willing to observe, right from the beginning, a responsible, balanced coverage of court trials where sex plays an important element, in particular with an eye to nipping out sensationalism. While we know they need to get readers and viewers in order to stay healthy in their business, do they really need to play up the sex angle when sex already plays a major part in the trial?

This is not the first time we are getting a trial like the Noritta murder trial where sex apparently is an important element. Neither is it the first time public criticism was raised against the media’s sensationalism. The media would thus do well henceforth not to wait until public criticism against their coverage starts coming in before trying to take action to achieve more balanced, less sensationalist coverage. This is because, by then, it would be too late and it is likely that no one is going to be appeased. That could well open the door for government meddling or regulation, which cannot be good for the press and civil society.