As disturbing as the alleged details of Jerry Sandusky’s crimes have been, the overkill media coverage of the case is equally troubling.
In 1966, the United States Supreme Court, in Sheppard v. Maxwell (384 U.S. 333 (1966), decided that Sheppard, charged and convicted of murdering his wife in 1954, was not given a fair trial as was his right under the 6th Amendment of the Constitution.
The reason Sheppard won his case, according to the high Court, was that the extensive pre-trial publicity and massive press coverage of the case, and the daily presence of a huge media gathering at the trial, compromised Sheppard’s fair trial right.
There are differences in the Sandusky case, of course. The press is not physically getting in the way of the trial proceeding inside the courtroom. Sheppard’s case involved murder; Sandusky, alleged child molestation. But there are striking similarities; namely, the massive notoriety of the case and the endless, anti-Sandusky “reports” published daily in the weeks and months prior to jury selection and the trial.
And compared to 1954, the number of media covering the Sandusky is probably larger by a factor of hundreds. How could this coverage not inform the minds of the public that would be judging Sandusky?
The American appetite for prurience is insatiable and well-established. We love the sick details. But that should not should not dictate what the press covers, especially when it deals with the administration of justice. It is difficult to argue that Jerry Sandusky had the presumption of innocence, given the massive, pre-trial, highly prejudicial media coverage that attended his case.
Finally, the coverage of the Sandusky case is not commensurate with its societal or journalistic importance. Does the public really need to have a day-by-day, round-by-round, five-minute recap on the local news of salacious testimony? What is the public value in covering a child molestation case to this extent?
The story has very little journalistic value. It certainly does not merit the saturation coverage it is receiving. Think of the resources that are devoted to covering the Sandusky case. These are resources that can’t be used to cover more important stories because they’re tied up with Sandusky.
I have read exactly one Sandusky-related article that was worth the time it took to read. The article was written by LeVar Arrington, a former Penn State and NFL star linebacker. Arrington wrote that he remembered one of Sandusky’s victims as “being angry all the time.”
Arrington reflected that he sensed something was wrong but didn’t say anything, assuming that because the kid had been involved with Sandusky’s Second Mile organization, he was probably from a troubled home.. The testimony in the Sandusky case, he writes touchingly, taught Arrington that “I will never just assume ever again. I will always ask, and let them know that it’s O.K. to tell the truth about why they are upset.”
That is a very nice sentiment. It is a sentiment, however, that could’ve have waited until after the trial, when the jury heard all the testimony and judged on the evidence whether or not Sandusky should go to jail for the rest of his life. Given the stakes, that doesn’t seem to be too much to ask of a responsible press.
