The rules, which prohibit printing anything but basic information and which take effect as soon as a suspect is arrested in a criminal case, are intended to prevent prejudicial coverage from affecting the fairness of a trial. Media lawyers also suggest that the restrictions are in place to prevent media-fueled racism and speculation.

With the Internet boosting the rise of unfiltered information, however, news media are having a difficult time adhering to the restrictions in a uniform manner.

In the case surrounding a plot to bomb a London nightclub and the linked attack on the Glasgow airport, Scotland Yard allegedly asked that the media refrain from publishing photos or artists’ impressions of the subjects involved.  Nevertheless, tabloid papers displayed pictures of prime suspect Mohammed Asha on their front pages, The Times used a pixilated photo inside the paper, and reporters managed to identify the majority of the eight other suspects, without an official release of names.

“It is crucial that the media strive to discover the detail of any alleged plots, and do not simply adhere to bland official statements as if publishing in some kind of police state,” said Steve Dyson, editor of The Birmingham Mail.  Dyson, like many other UK editors, have begun speaking out against the restrictions.  With restricted coverage and limited information, many lawyers worry that media companies run the risk of libel suits if they print incorrect stories.

The rise of citizen journalism further complicates the matter, with witnesses distributing their distributing their photos both to the press and on the Internet. With such information already circulating online, news media are more inclined to print the photos in their publications.  The availability of Internet coverage also makes it increasingly difficult to insulate jurors and people involved in the cases.

Source: The New York Times through Journalism.org