The publics right to know.

Publics right to know

(CNN) -- Jeffrey Toobin, a former federal prosecutor, recalls the heady days of covering the O.J. Simpson murder trial and sees both important parallels and differences in the coverage of high-profile legal cases today.
The media convergence in Los Angeles in the mid-1990s was intense for the Simpson trial. But the coverage during the initial stages of the Simpson case pales in comparison to the early, pre-trial proceedings in the sexual assault case against Los Angeles Lakers superstar Kobe Bryant and other high-profile legal cases.
"The experience of O.J. convinced (news) management that there is tremendous interest in high-profile legal cases," says Toobin, who today is a legal analyst for CNN and a writer for The New Yorker magazine. "So everyone is immediately geared up to cover the big cases, with all our resources.
"Now, it's just a matter of turning on the machine, rather than inventing the machine," he says.
The proliferation of mainstream, non-traditional and tabloid media in recent years today has placed a number of high-profile court cases in the spotlight. Today's coverage, analysts agree, renews debate about the balancing act between preserving fair trial privacy rights for accuser and accused against the public's right to know.

Why does the public have a right to know? Does the public truly want to know or is it the news media because it sells. Why should all the details be made public before the trial allowing for the individual be tried in the press?
It is for the jury to determine guilt or innocent not the general public or the press.
Which do yo believe should take precedence the right of privacy or the public's right to know?


Publics right to know