[quote=mdk]
Perfect example to talk about what I mean. Before the trial (before the for god's sake) we had 24/7 coverage in the media proclaiming Zimmerman's guilt. There was never any chance of a fair trial, because the sharks in the media were in full-frenzy, making bookoo dollars off the corruption of every conceivable pool of jurors. To demonstrate just how complete their deception -- have you heard of 'Stand Your Ground?' Of course you have, probably a lot -- it was invoked, at any point of the legal proceedings. I could go on a whole tangent about the trial, because I've actually spent a substantial amount of time reading the depositions, court documents, applicable laws and legal precedents. The short version is, the outcome was decided legally when the prosecutor filed for murder 2 -- but it was decided by MSNBC, CNN, CBS and company on day one of their coverage, by the NRA and the NAACP about an hour later, and the rest of the general public just moments after that. That frenzy is basically the entire reason race relations . It's literally, demonstrably, all the media's fault. Fuck them.....anyway, let's pretend for a minute that none of that happened, and the Martin case was a legitimately botched trial. It's hard to argue that the news could *ever* cover a case more extensively than they covered this. What did all that mobbish outrage accomplish? Did popular oversight impact that poor decision in a meaningful way? Did our collective outcry make them throw out the jury's decision and hang the killer? I'd argue that the Martin case aptly demonstrates just how pointless it is to involve the general public in any legal proceeding, other than the appropriate jury requirement. We say 'innocent until proven guilty,' and 'habeus corpus,' and 'confrontational clause,' and if we mean of it, we really need to put a stop to this bullshit.
[/quote]

Again, I really don't want to get bogged down in whether the Trayvon Martin case was botched, legitimate, or anything else. It was merely an example that sprang to mind, and I honestly don't know enough about it to argue the matter either way.

Whether the media dealt with it appropriately or not in this specific case is sort of irrelevant, in my mind. I'm arguing the [i]principle[/i] that we should pay some attention to what goes on in courts and the kinds of decisions being made. Now, in this case, it was perhaps handled poorly and in a very biased manner, and that's fucked up and detrimental. But the overall idea, I'm fully behind. It's important to pay attention to these things, to be aware, to pay attention, because sometimes trials are botched, and poor decisions are made, and often they highlight very important things about our society and its flaws. And there has to be an accountability for these things - judges cannot be allowed to make whatever decisions they want while the public turn a blind eye. For someone who argues for individualistic rights, you're shockingly in support of allowing judicial officials to do [i]whatever the fuck they like[/i], without media coverage and without public knowledge.

Did the public outcry overturn the decision? No, of course it didn't, that would be ridiculous. Judicial officials must be accountable, but neither should they be pressured by public opinion. What it did do, however, is draw national attention to a serious, all-pervading issue in American society, one that needs to be discussed and addressed. Let's say it was a poor decision, whether you believe that or not - the question was then asked, "how did this poor decision come about, and what does that say about us?". In your world, where nobody pays attention to such cases and the media do not cover them, that question would never have been asked, and the issue of institutionalised racism - which needs to be discussed, whether you think it exists or not - would not have been addressed or brought back into the public consciousness.