Vernon Daley

Much has gone wrong with the media coverage of Kern Spencer's role in the so-called Cuban light bulb scandal.

Many of those commenting on the matter have no hesitation in prefacing their views with the reminder that Mr Spencer is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The trouble is that they go on to make statements which make a total mockery of that sacred constitutional provision.

It's not just the commentators who find themselves travellers down this road of sin; the news gatherers have been right there by their side.

Maybe it's the thrill of sinking their teeth into a nice, juicy story that has caused editors and their reporters and opinion-makers to take leave of good judgment. The spectacle of the Colossus tumbling down is a sight for which most media practitioners live, and we have a way of doing strange things when we behold it.

Much of what has been written and said about the matter involving the former junior minister has proceeded on the basis that he is guilty of some criminal conduct. That attitude of the media didn't start after his arrest. From the first time the matter was raised in parliament by Energy Minister Clive Mullings there has been this presumption of guilt.

Media circus

When Contractor General Greg Christie released his report, following his probe, the media circus really got going. There seemed to have been little regard for the way the discussions could have prejudiced any case Mr Spencer might have had to answer.

In fact, a few weeks ago, I was compelled to write in this column that the tone of the media coverage was giving the impression that the young politician was guilty even before a charge was laid against him. I am not suggesting that there should be no discussion on this matter. Clearly not; that would be ridiculous. It's a live issue and it raises questions about the conduct of the previous administration and the safeguards which exist to protect taxpayers.

However, those who practise in the media should appreciate that there are some standards which have to be observed in dealing with sensitive issues such as allegations of criminal conduct on the part of a person. It's one thing to presume a person's guilt when we talk on our verandahs. However, to conduct public discussions in the media on that basis is to disregard a person's constitutional right of a presumption of innocence and is an abuse of free speech.

Let's be clear. I have heard no one in the media say that Mr Spencer is guilty. What I have heard are discussions conducted in a tone and manner which give that clear impression. This, to my mind, is just as bad as actually pronouncing his guilt.

With the matter now before the court, the media have a duty to restrict what they say. It would be a sad reflection on the fraternity if a judge were forced to cite any of its members for contempt of court in relation to this matter. It would be sadder still, if the media were to play a role in compromising the case against Mr Spencer, in any way.