Does this sound distantly familiar? One has only to go back a few weeks to the aftermath of the alleged shooting by Paras Shah at a Chitwan lodge and the resulting media coverage and outcomes to understand what a trial by media can also mean. The media had pronounced Shah guilty the day it reported the alleged shooting. (The reports and successive demands by political parties for action in the media thereafter then caused the government to orchestrate an arrest.) Some of the first media verdicts against Shah came with the following headlines: Tipsy Paras gets trigger happy at Tiger Tops; Paras fires with illegal pistol; Parasle goli chalaye” (Paras shoots); Paras fires at Sujata’s daughter; The former royal drew a bead on me, says Rubel.
These early reports were based on accounts of the victim Rubel Chaudhary (son-in-law of the foreign minister) and also had a statement by Shah saying he had been “insulted,” and "I fired a shot in the air from my pistol…” Thereafter the media jostled each other to get the latest – “breaking news” – on the events that followed, reporting anything anyone in authority or close to the alleged assailant and victim had to say on the incident until Shah was arrested, questioned, and eventually released on bail.
After the first reports were out it was the turn of the political parties and government to have their say. Some of the resulting headlines read: Paraslai Karbahai Gar: Dalharu (Take action against Paras: Parties); Paraslai Karbahai Huncha: Sarkar (Action will be taken against Paras: Government; Panel to probe Paras outburst; Paras may not be let off the hook.
And, even before the government probe had begun its work came the ‘arrest’ (Shah later told media that he had been requested by the government to appear in Chitwan). More newspaper headlines: Former Crown Prince arrested for murder bid; NA (Nepal Army) men under scanner; NA withdraws security.
With the media now turning into public opinion courtroom of sorts, in almost every crime the suspects are being forced to prove their innocence even before their guilt has been established in a court of law.
Finally, as the issue climaxed, some seemingly carefully planted leaks – obviously from unnamed sources – found space in the media, following which the intensity of both the accusations and the directions the fingers were pointing changed: Rubelpani bivadhspadh kriyakriyalapma (Rubel also – involved – in controversial activities; Paras denies shooting; Paras released on bail.
Thereafter, the media chose to leave the incident and move on even though there still were quite a few unanswered questions. For example, what did the probe find out (if it actually began an investigation)? What could have happened to the weapon in question? If there were gunshots, where did the weapon vanish? What about the “security lapse” the papers had reported and the withdrawal of security provided by the state to Shah? The rush to charge Shah under the Public Offense Act and not the illegal possession of a firearm – as speculated in the media – is another question that remains unanswered. Since the media seems to have lost interest on finding out what really happened in Chitwan, these questions are not likely to be answered while their ‘verdict’ stays.
The last time the media reported on the incident was that a case had been filed against the government on Dec 23 asking it why it had not taken actions against Chaudhary (for accusations that had first appeared in the media leaks). Scrutiny of Shah by media has seemingly been put away until March 3, 2011 (or perhaps they are waiting for the press conference Shah had promised upon return to Kathmandu), when he is expected to appear at the District Administration Office in Chitwan.
In effect, the entire episode has been one where the intense, knee-jerk media coverage has eclipsed the real story and it seems to have worked to the benefit of Shah despite his legacy of unexplained instances of rash behavior, including an accusation of murder. Initially the media psychology was ‘here’s-the-bad-guy-at-it-again’ and the hapless victim was Chaudhary. However, the tables turned within days and it has since been Chaudhary, who, if media reports are to be believed, also does not have an enviable past after he arrived in Nepal, and now seems headed to the dock. The alleged possession of an illegal weapon and attempted assault do not seem to matter anymore.
It may take some time before the final verdict on the Shah fiasco may be known. Shah did not have a history of good conduct – and given the reception he received from his supporters after bail – it is unlikely that his image would be affected more than what it already is. Instead, the bytes-and-leaks driven “media scrutiny” into the alleged shooting, and the muddling of information, may have won him more sympathizers.
Modern day news has changed how crime and justice are reported and the outcome has not always been fair to the parties involved. According to Professor Chirs Greer (2007), City University, London, engaging with the media has also become a requirement at every stage – “from information gathering, through police investigation, to ongoing media campaigns to keep certain victims in the public eye and, ultimately, the arrest, prosecution and sentencing of an offender.” He adds, “No matter how media-savvy those in the spotlight may appear, there is no way of controlling the twists and turns of an investigation, and no way determining how the media will choose to report crime cases.”
All legal systems have something called the due process, a mechanism to ensure that justice is done in a manner that befits a civilized society. That can become problematic when 24/7 media – and newspapers that are no longer the patient and investigative type but impulse driven – step in to take the trial in fast-forward, often declaring who’s guilty and who’s not. The thin line between where the media stops and the courts step has not only compromised the rights of the accused to a fair trial but also the right of the public to get factual information to base their own conclusions.
But this is not something unique to Nepal. In 2006, India’s Law Commission published a report on the “Trial by Media: Free Speech and Fair Trail Under Criminal Procedure Code 1973, that said, “There is today a feeling that in view of the extensive use of the television and cable services, the whole pattern of publication of news has changed and several such publications are likely to have prejudicial impact on the suspects, accused, witnesses and even Judges and in general, on the administration of justice.” The rest of the report analyses the constitutional provisions for a free press and where and how the media’s acts could infringe into the ideals of a fair trial, often inviting preemptive moves to stop publication and even contempt of court.
Within weeks, the Shah incident has vanished from both the television screens and the newspapers, and a ‘new villain’ has been established in the public perception. In Nepal, there is one law that I know of which places the burden of proof on the defendants, the anticorruption law that gives the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority its teeth. But with the media now turning into public opinion courtroom of sorts, in almost every crime the suspects are being forced to prove their innocence even before their guilt has been established in a court of law.
Interestingly, this phenomenon has not even spared the media, if some of the recent cases of sexual harassment are to be taken as example. Whatever the final verdict on the case of Kantipur journalist Bikas Thapa may be, media coverage of the incident and the campaigns by women activists has already sealed his image in the court of public opinion. In sharp contrast, there still are some pending cases of not just attempted murder, but even murder which the media has largely chosen to ignore or report on it only when it has suited their convenience, while the suspects still roam around freely.
Related story
When will the closed trial centers reopen?
