A column of a senior journalist I read this morning was objecting to the Media Trails.
I agree, there should be no mudslinging. But, if the reports are based on facts, there should be no stopping them, either.
Transparency is India's only hope against institutionalised corruption that to me seems bigger than the formal government processes.
I don't think that there is any problem in bring facts, more facts, in public domain. It puts a cap on the government's ability, and that of its agencies, to cover up.
The other objection to the media trail is that it creates a false perception in the minds of people at large. If the reports are based on facts than there is no such danger. Facts don't lie.
As far as media trails putting undue pressure on the judges, specially lower judiciary, is concerned, i think the judiciary should be matured enough not to be guided by just media reports.
This is all true if and only if, and that is a big if I acknowledge, media reports are factual. If they are factual there cannot be any divorce between so called 'media trails' and the actual trails, as they both ideally are driven by facts, and not by some misplaced emotional drive.
Judiciary is in the best position to decide a case because they are presented with the complete set of facts, with the players and participants saying what they have to under no duress.
Even though media does not have access to full facts, as judiciary, by bring out more and more facts in the public domain, it puts a cap on the ability of investigating agency to present a 'selective' factual premise to sell their, sometimes awry, conspiracy theories to judiciary.
In long term it hurts no one to be transparent but for the notable exception of those who stand to benefit wrongly from the system.