In the last week the world has exploded as a result of the news of Oscar Pistorious being accused of the pre-meditated murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. Pistorious rose to fame last July when he broke history by becoming the first double amputee to run the 400m in the 2012 Olympic Games. However, his fame took a downward turn when the press broke the story about the murder allegations he is currently facing. Since the story broke, the media has recorded every last moment of the bail trial allowing the world to tune in on the most recent events in the same way they would an episode of C.S.I. Wherever you go, people are having a go at playing detective, and whilst none of us will ever know what really happened on that fateful night, the media are certainly ensuring that we do not miss any minute of the events following it.
[pagebreak]
Whilst the nature of the case is clearly very interesting, in that it involves a public figure being accused of premeditated murder, the media seems to have taken a particular interest in reporting the case, covering the trial from start to finish. The public have access to every angle and development of the case as a result of the press’s admission to the bail trial. There are many reasons as to why the media have been granted such significant access to the trial. Whilst in the U.K, court trials are private events which only contain: those involved in the case, the jury and the judge- in South Africa there are different laws surrounding court procedure. In South Africa, court hearings are public affairs. These laws have had a great impact on the ways in which the story surrounding the bail trial has been reported. Reporters from the leading newspapers in the country have press passes to the trial, each recording the latest events so as to not miss out on any of the action. Whilst in the U.K, reporters only find out about the proceedings of a trial from outside the court room, the access the press have to the Pistorious trial enables a live coverage of it from inside the court room. Websites such as: The BBC, The Guardian, The Independent and The Telegraph, each feature a minute-by-minute live coverage of the trial allowing the public in a sense to take on the role as the jury of the trial, enabling them to have a special insight into the trial and hence a more informed opinion on it.
The fact that the world in effect takes on the role of jury is particularly elusive in that in South African courts, there is no jury. In South Africa, the judge has chief responsibility on the decisions that are made as a result of the evidence put forward in a trial. Therefore, whilst trials in South Africa are in one way an insular affair, with the judge being the only one responsible for the outcome, it is stimulating that the media broadcast surrounding it is such a public one.
[pagebreak]
It is interesting to see how technology has also had a huge effect on the ways in which the public receives news of the trial. Even ten years ago, the media attention surrounding the Pistorious trial would not have been half as prolific. Social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook have further enabled the trial to be at the forefront of public opinion. Whilst live coverage of the trial can be found on the websites of major newspapers, further updates are batted around on Twitter with everyone seeming to comment on it in some way. The trial has become a social phenomenon, revealing how different laws surrounding court proceedings has enabled the press and social media to have a huge influence in a trial that they have virtually little control over. Websites such as Twitter have enabled people to take on the role of journalists, recording their opinions and engaging in debate.
However, whilst the media attention surrounding the Pistorious case is clearly fascinating to the public, one has to question whether such prolific documentation of the events is appropriate. At the end of the day, this is a murder case. Yes, those that are involved are public figures, but is it right that the public, who are not involved in the case in any way should be so gripped to the events surrounding it? Pre-meditated or not, should we be allowed to watch a man who just over 6 months ago was at his prime, fall to pieces as a result of shooting his girlfriend to death? Should we be documenting every day of the mourning process of Reeva Steerkamp’s friends and family? Pre-meditated or not, a murder took place, and this is something people seem to be forgetting as a result of the excessive documentation of the bail trial. In attempting to capture every moments of the event, the case becomes more of a T.V drama than a serious trial, undermining the tragic events that occurred and leading us to question whether it is really our place to watch the events that occur as a result of the shooting unfold?
Sources: The BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Independent.
Photo Credits: www.guardian.co.uk, www.people.com, www.independent.co.uk