Page 116 - Courting the Media Contemporary Perspectives on Media and Law

―Your Words Against Mine‖: States of Exception… 107

radio as well as blogs and news reports on the web. This lies outside of this
particular analysis as does the comparison with detailed accounts of the court
proceedings.

FIRST CONTEXT OF USE:
“YOUR WORDS AGAINST MINE”
AS A STANCE OF JOURNALISTIC NEUTRALITY

The examples given above illustrate two different contexts for using the
expression ―your words against mine‖. The first context is when the
expression is used by the media in Excerpts 1-4. The second context is when
the expression is used in Excerpt 5 by one of the contested parties. In the
following analysis we are interested in understanding the different conditions
for using the expression and the meanings attached to these expressions.
The expression ―your words against mine‖ was first used (Excerpts 1 and
2) by the media in the proximity of the event in question. Clearly the media, as
indicated above, could not at this stage (nor later) discern the most truthful
story of the accounts given, but could just accept that various competing
versions of the event circulated. The versions of the event differed between the
two main parties and their attorneys. At this stage the task of the media was to
report to the public that a fight involving two parties had taken place. If it
would not been the case that one of these parties was a high profile public
person, the event would barely have been noticed. The media did report on the
event and did so with some detail, expediency and thoroughness given the
public identity of one of the parties. It was too early to declare who was right
and who was wrong, neither was this the duty of the media. An indeterminate
situation where the truth of the events could not be corroborated is emphasized
by the fact that one of the parties is a public person. This leads to special
measures of precaution from the point of view of the media, in order for them
to proceed in a safe way that explicitly avoids intervention in a legal matter.
The principle of non-intervention by media in legal matters is general but is
perhaps more urgently called for when the case involves a public figure, such
as the Chairman of SSU. It is not only out of a possible fear that a wrongful
conduct would lead the public person taking action against the newspaper in
case their initial account was wrong; it is also a matter of establishing and
maintaining the newspaper‘s principle of neutrality in relation to the law,