Social media journalism

The ongoing courtroom drama surrounding Wikileaks founder Julian Assange set an astounding new precedent last week. For the first time in the UK, journalists were allowed to use smartphones and laptops in the courtroom.

It’s appropriate that the test case is Assange’s, a man who has become notorious for sharing too much online, as it allows truly live reporting that leaves no sordid detail of the courtroom unturned. The Guardian, one of the UK’s largest newspapers, even ran a live blog from the bail hearing with constant updates.

This is a relatively new approach to journalism, first trialled in Canada at the sexual assault and murder trial of Colonel Russell Williams, with mixed success. While many lauded the obvious transparency it bought to court proceedings, critics questioned the decision to use such a high-profile and disturbing case, especially one where the accused was guilty by his own admission and incontestable forensic evidence.

The Assange case should be a clearer trial of how journalism by Twitter can work in a legal setting. It’s a complex case with strongly political overtones and the decision to report it in this way was possibly made to prevent the ongoing accusations of political motivations perverting the UK justice system.

It’s also captured public imagination around the world, dividing opinion, and the Twitter feeds active during the bail hearing reported a huge surge in visitors.

So it looks as if social media may have found a new home, right in the heart of the British legal system. Is this a good thing, ensuring full transparency of our justice system or a step too far which compromises the idea of a fair trial and provides morbid titillation for the masses?