Free Press & Fair Trial

Should stringent restrictions be placed on newspaper coverage of court trials? Many a lawyer thinks so and strict codes for covering trials have even been proposed (TIME, July 12). But last week in Washington, before the Federal Bar Association, Attorney General Herbert Brownell Jr. vigorously denied that newspapers should be hamstrung in their trial coverage. Said Brownell: "Our free press brings to light corruption, injustice, dishonesty, wrongs of every kind . . . The free press may also be helpful to an accused in dispelling false, distorted or wild charges that would otherwise provoke hasty and irresponsible vigilante action." Brownell pointed out that the press has been guilty at times of standing in the way of justice by subverting "the process of impartial and orderly decision" or by influencing a judge or jury "before they have reached their own independent judgment." As a result, he approves of voluntary agreements between lawyers, court officials and newspapers that would help raise the level of court reporting by the press "without infringing on its freedom. However," concluded Brownell, "the chief responsibility for securing fair and impartial trials cannot be shifted to the press. It must of necessity rest upon the members of the bar and other officers of the court. More than 20 years ago a writer on the subject said: 'Except for the slush and gush of the sob artists, there is very little offense chargeable against the press in which it is not led or abetted by lawyers, judges and other public officers.' "

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.