Every country’s government, at one point or another, goes head to head with the press, either in their country our outside. This is because while the public has the right to a transparent government – and having a transparent government translates to having a government open to the prying eyes of the media – the members of the media tend to expose too much information all at once, even when utmost secrecy is required of them in order to be able to make an operation successful. For example, it is common knowledge that the media tends to reveal information about military operations that make the targets think one step ahead because they already know what the military is about to do. It’s either this, or the media tends to overstep their supposed neutral territory and pass on judgments on certain sensitive issues in the country.
When is it safe to say that their mingling with the concerns of the country is enough?
The justice system recognizes this problem and, in order to avoid prejudices and sensationalism from affecting their judgment on certain cases, they – and their jury, if a case requires a jury – refrain from accessing any media with the news on: newspapers, television sets, radios, internet – name it, they stay away from it. Also, some processes are being closed to the eyes of the media but are being kept open to a limited number of people so that they maintain the needed privacy and isolation without violating the people’s right to know the processes going on that may affect their future significantly. But I believe part of the control should come from the governments as well – sometimes they do not consider how essential and sensitive the information it is they are giving until it has had its backlashes. In order to determine when enough is enough, the government has to take control of both sides and things can be moderated well.