Disturbing the peace

'Do not disturb the peace" reads a warning sign outside the courthouse in which the Michael Jackson trial is taking place. I say, "Too late."

A photo of this sign was posted on CNN.com a few weeks ago to accompany an in-depth expose about the Jackson child molestation trial, complete with a video of the proceedings, a gallery of photos, profiles of jury members, data about attorneys and a bio of Jacko (as if we wanted to know more!). The links go on.

Shortly before spring break, CNN and countless other news stations broadcast minute-by-minute coverage of another sordid tragedy: the release of Martha Stewart from jail. The world held its breath as it waited to see whether Martha would in fact complete the grueling 30-second journey from a car to a jet.

What do these events have in common besides two people trying to drastically reshape their public image (in one case literally)? They are both examples of excessive and sensationalized trial coverage.

We can't completely attribute such coverage to the fact that these two events involved celebrities. For alongside O.J. Simpson, Winona Ryder and Kobe Bryant, the news media also peddle Mary Kay Letourneau, JonBenet Ramsey, and Scott Peterson. In fact, it's become the case that trial coverage can actually turn previously unknown individuals into celebrities in their own right. One has only to turn to the 20 books, countless television appearances and Halloween masks of Monica Lewinsky to be convinced of that. So why is trial coverage sensationalized if it's not the usual celebrity gawking?

The media dramatize trials to get us to watch. There is certainly an interest in reporting trials since they're important events. Coverage theoretically can also ensure justice and inform citizens about the judicial process. But the media aren't merely reporting facts. If they were, we'd be seeing television and newspaper images of lawyers giving cross-examinations and judges banging gavels. Instead, we're bombarded with images of crying mothers, struggling suspects and the facial expressions of defendants receiving death sentences. Trial coverage isn't so much factual as it is emotional. That's probably because the media realized long ago that trials are relatively boring if they are objectively reported. So they give us entertainment instead.

In reality, we have long viewed law enforcement and justice as entertainment. From Law and Order and A Few Good Men to The People's Court and Judge Judy, we can't get enough of police and courtroom drama, fictional or otherwise. Of course, that's when trials aren't seen as completely farcical.

By now, everyone's made a John Bobbitt or Monica joke. In fact, just last week, Jay Leno was cleared by the judge in the Jackson case to crack jokes about the pop star on his Tonight Show. He was "cleared" because he's actually a witness in the trial. As to why the judge would ever allow such a thing, he said, "I'd like him to tell good jokes, rather than bad." Well, it's nice to know we can still laugh at alleged pedophilia.

The people will laugh, and perhaps that can't be stopped. But what if sensationalist and excessive reporting is what causes us to regard the judicial process in this way? For one thing, there wouldn't have been nearly as much O.J. pun fodder if we hadn't been deluged with constant coverage of Johnnie Cochran's rhyme schemes and the like. In fact, it's probable that less mockery would be made of trials and their participants altogether if the media didn't insist on such obsessive coverage.

Admittedly, extensive coverage of some trials has led to real change. Coverage of the Laci Peterson case, for instance, led to the passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. In other cases, like Nuremburg, trials are so monumental and far-reaching that the public ought to know every detail.

But generally, excessive coverage is detrimental to our view of justice. When you watch trial coverage, be aware that what you're watching is probably grossly sensationalized. As in all cases, if you're going to follow trial coverage, refer to a number of sources and try to root out the facts before passing your own judgment.

It would further behoove the American psyche and increase respect for the justice system if trial coverage were more limited. We don't need the excess of who wept when; we just need the basics about who's involved and what the verdict is.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees every American "the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury." We also -- criminals included -- have the right to a certain amount of dignity. Most trials are already perverse and depraved in content; we shouldn't make a bad situation worse with the sensationalized national broadcasting and excessive mockery of tragedy. It is only when the media sustains rather than overrules this objection that we can say "beat it" to such trial coverage.

Justin Tackett is a sophomore in the College from Pittsburgh. Word! appears on Tuesdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.