Belatedly: Judge Merchan dismissed Juror #2 this morning (just before the press admonishment at the top of my thread) after she said that on reflection she didn't think she could "avoid outside pressures." She said friends and colleagues had been asking her if she was a juror.
Good. You do NOT need to report the "constitution of the jury". Here is what you say. The jury is composed of x number or men, x number of women, x of one race, x of another.
Done. No other details are needed AT ALL.
I think the only thing we have a right to know about the jurors is that they are qualified to sit on the jury, as that's the only thing relevant to public interests. And their qualification is implied by their selection, so...
True, but even if you ever felt the /need/ to expound upon other aspects of the jury—whether they're blue-collar workers, professional white collar businessmen, etc.—you can do so using, well, exactly THOSE sorts of broad terms.
NO reason EVER to single out specific literal workplaces or details.
I don't understand why even these details are relevant to the public. What matters is their decision(s) - that's it. Cover the witnesses, the arguments, the rulings - that's all we "need" to be aware of
Seeing this from Europe, I was shocked to read from journalists on social media 'Juror x is a y professional from village z' .
This means the actual juror will get questions from their broad network.
Why would this matter, maybe write some more paragraphs about the facts or the laws 🙄
I've seen trials where we learned stuff like "juror 8 is a retired cop" but that was a detailed as it got. Actually naming where a juror worked and their appearance and taking pictures of them etc is insane
In the UK they'd be guilty of contempt for reporting anything at all about any jurors. But jurors here are strictly randomly selected and have an absolute right to privacy and anonymity. The idea of defence and prosecution interrogating them in open court as if they were defendants is horrifying.
I find this enraging because there's no news value in the backgrounds of the jurors. The whole jury selection process - *in theory* - is supposed to produce the least biased jury possible. What more do the reporters who keep posting these stories want?!?
There's news value because of the requirement for an "impartial jury" leading to the starting assumption that jurors are hiding biases that must be exposed through demolition of their privacy. The media has a natural incentive to want to assist in that.
I mean, there's "news value" to be had in any information you might procure or publish without any consideration for ethics or other people's safety, I'm broadly saying that the news orgs shouldn't be publishing identifying info. They can easily report on the progress of the case without this.
It has been more than 30 years since I served on the jury for a criminal trial... but I don't remember personal details of our employment being asked except for LE or adjacent professions coming up during voir dire.
For a while I think you could give these journalists the benefit of the doubt and say it was ignorance rather than malevolence.
But now I can truly say to them, with all due respect, go fuck yourselves.
"Interesting to note"
What a completely passive-aggressive way to whine about the judge's decision.
Also, she's fucking stating the obvious.
WOW TIME CANNOT GO BACKWARDS HOW INTERESTING TO NOTE
They apparently really want to see a juror get murdered.
"Juror #3 is a 5'10" man with wavy brown hair, who works at the Columbus Circle Whole Foods on Tuesdays and Thursdays at the cheese counter, and there's no security to speak of, so you could just grab any old cheese knife and have at it."
"It's interesting to note that these same protections can't be applied retroactively" thank you, Kate, for explaining WHY IT'S NECESSARY TO AGGRESSIVELY RESTRICT PUBLISHING THIS INFO IN THE FIRST PLACE
"It's hilar-... oops I mean interesting to note that you can't do a damn thing about our previous efforts to get those first jurors threatened into a not guilty verdict."
I expected more from the crowd that is (rightfully) all about not revealing sources and protecting sources at all cost. Thankfully, what LSE taught me in matters of journalism is the opposite of whatever this guy is pretending to do in the name of journalism. Shameful.
The most “serious” reporters are basically doing the Britney Spears tabloid beat from 2008, competing to see who can break gossip first, even if that means creating it.
Who is this information for? Why are they so adamant? To appease the people who want to hang the press and the respective journalists? Does the new York fucking times really not understand who is begging for this info and why?
I'm a pretty big "journalists are justified in reporting public info for the benefit of readers" guy, but I'm not sure they've really thought through why it's in the public interest to know that a juror has an Irish accent or which bookstore they work at, & how advances an understanding of the trial
Like, readers benefit from having unnecessary information excised from stories and attention focused on what's truly important. It's why editing is an important function for good journalism. I keep saying this, but did they stop teaching this stuff in journalism school sometime in the last 25 years?
The reporters don't have to say anything. Once the jury is selected they simply say "jury selection is complete and both the prosecution and the defense are satisfied all jurors can do their job effectively and without bias". The end.
Take 2: “are we ever really free if we can’t identify jurors to the defendant’s unhinged fandom, some of whom already threatened to murder his Vice President?” 🤔
This guy lives in a privileged world where anything a reporter like himself decides is in the interest of the public must be published without limitation. He, and he alone, is the arbiter what shall be said and none are to question his decision. And if that puts peoples lives at risk...oh well.
