Newspapers straddle an awkward position in these days of instantaneous digital press. To stay relevant, they need to update top stories relentlessly, responding to readers' thirst for new details. At the same time, newspapers need to retain the quality of information diffused. Untrue statements and details undermine their worth.

Legal investigations are a long, slow process. Testimony must be verified, prosecutors must collaborate with police, and the entire procedure must be done carefully to avoid missteps that might compromise a case. To keep up with readers' impatience, the digital press finds ways to keep an unfolding story interesting, always moving quickly to new page-view optimizing revelations.

The sensational Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) case is a perfect example of the tension between the media and the legal system. The case is currently at an unsure juncture (the victim's credibility is in question) and the media is back-pedaling to accommodate new details. Gilles Bridier of Slate.fr examines the press' treatment of the case, and draws a lesson for journalists.

Noting that the freedom of the press' right does not trump the legal system's independence, Bridier reflected on how the press seemed to flaunt DSK's presumption of innocence. According to him, commentators and journalists assumed speculation was true to justify or plump up their stories.

For example, the Daily Mail conducted an exclusive interview with the alleged victim's brother, in which he painted an angelic portrait of her character. Other news outlets picked up the story, including Business Insider and The Atlantic Wire. Then came the embarrassing details - the man was not her brother and spokesperson at all, but admitted to being her "friend".

The commentators continued before the police fact checking was completed. Then, when reports come out that alleged victim might be involved in money laundering and had previously lied on her request for asylum (claiming to have been gang raped, and later admitting it wasn't true), the media jumped on the prosecution, questioning how it handled the case. The New York Times said the district attorney "moved before he knew the accuser's background" - an accusation that could just as well be applied to the media.

Peter Ward, President of the Hotel Worker's Union defended the alleged victim against the press in a message on his website. "News reports have accused this member of lying in an immigration matter and on a housing application and her tax forms, which, if true, makes her one of probably millions of people who have done the same things," Ward said. "She reportedly told other lies, and some press outlets have said even worse things about her. That doesn't mean these things are true. She is embroiled in an international press feeding frenzy, in which the truth may sometimes take a backseat to the desire to sell newspapers."

The Western press is self regulating when it comes to fact checking, but it still needs to "sell newspapers" to stay afloat. This leaves publications with an interesting choice. Should they publish any tiny lead, any shred of a story to capitalize on reader interest? Or should fact-checking be left not only to law enforcement officials, but also to investigative journalism?

In today's digital press, some newspapers stay afloat by saturating their websites with updates. This kind of journalism certainly attracts readers, but does not give journalists enough time to filter and consider news carefully. Can a more restrained journalistic model survive online, drawing readers with its quality journalism and respect for the principle "innocent until proven guilty"?

Sources: Slate.fr, TF1, The Daily Mail, The New York Times, NY Hotel Workers Union

Photo credit: Overoll