Canada Vs USA Crime Media

From all that we have seen this year I do believe that American and Canadian coverage is somewhat similar but it is not very close. Canada tends to be more informational and explains a lot of details about the suspect before they talk about the crime itself. For example if you look at Russell Williams, you will see that it was a Canadian case and the media talked about who he was. In episodes about him the show told you all the facts about him and then what he did. This type of media lets the audience form an opinion for themselves instead of basically being told what to think. Of course there are some Canadian media coverage that doesn't follow the same trend but its mostly small companies or newspapers like the Toronto Star. When look at American crime media coverage you see a trend of the media blowing a story out of proportion. They take the person who committed the crime and they just tell everyone what they think and what the public should believe. The don't use as many facts as Canadian coverage. With the Russell Williams case they wanted to more show how much of a horrible person he was before showing all the facts. They believe it will be more entertaining. For example an episode made in Canada about Williams was called "above suspicion" while the American version was called "Name, Rank, Serial Killer".

I still do not believe cameras or media coverage should have any right to be in the court system. Mostly I think this because if the media releases coverage about it before the trial is over then it has the capability of influencing a decision made by someone like a jury member. Although the will witness it first hand sometimes media can evade the truth to make their show more interesting and if  jury member manages to be persuaded by the show then it can change the case.

I believe that crime media networks shouldn't state their opinion when reporting on a crime because of the fact that a consumer should have the 100% chance to form their own opinion on the matter. So yes, any media coverage should stay neutral if possible even though no matter what you do there will always be some bias.

Crime media networks should have a selection on what information is released about a trial. I don't think all the public has the right to know all details about any case that they wish. For example, the Casey Anthony case could've been a little different if the world didn't receive all the details right away. When the public found out about all she had apparently done they outraged. With so many people aggravated about the case it created impartial jury members which is why they had to go out of state to find jury members that would be neutral. All of this could've been avoided if they had either been cautious about what info they released or when they did it.