TRIAL BY MEDIA
When Public Opinion Precedes Justice
Introduction
In an era of nonstop social media, public opinion often forms far more quickly than legal processes can unfold. Within hours after an allegation appears, a person's name may become a trending topic, their photographs circulate widely, and public conclusions begin to take shape, even before a court has examined the evidence or the accused has had the opportunity to defend themselves.
This phenomenon is known as trial by media—a situation in which media coverage and the dynamics of public opinion effectively “try” a person before the formal judicial process has run its course. Within the framework of a modern rule-of-law state, this phenomenon raises a fundamental question: where should the line be drawn between the public’s right to know, freedom of the press, and every individual’s right to a fair trial?
A Verdict Before the Trial
Imagine someone who has just been named a criminal suspect. Within hours, their name becomes a trending topic. Their photos circulate everywhere. Comment sections fill with condemnation. Before a single case file is opened in a courtroom, millions have already reached a conclusion: this person is guilty.
This phenomenon does not affect only politicians or public officials. In recent years, cases involving digital public figures have shown how a person’s reputation can collapse within hours after an allegation goes viral. Short video clips, screenshots of conversations, or one-sided narratives spread so quickly that public conviction forms long before facts are verified.
“Trial by media is a courtroom in the public sphere, one that operates without procedure, without the right of defense, and without standards of proof. The media becomes the judge. Public opinion becomes the jury.”
This phenomenon touches the very core of the rule of law: can judicial processes remain objective when the pressure of public opinion has already become overwhelming? Dutch media sociologist Cees Hamelink refers to this as a democratic paradox—the more open the flow of informationbecomes, the more vulnerable individuals are to mass judgments that lack procedural foundations.
A Foundation at Stake
Modern criminal law rests upon a principle that must not waver: the presumption of innocence—that every person is considered innocent until proven otherwise. Not until something goes viral. Not until it trends online. Until it is proven through a fair, open process based on lawful evidence.
Within Indonesia’s legal system, this principle is not merely a moral aspiration but a clear legal norm. The General Explanation of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) explicitly affirms the presumption of innocence as a fundamental safeguard for anyone facing criminal proceedings.
The same principle is recognized in international human rights law. Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial.
The presumption of innocence is not merely a technical legal doctrine. It is the final safeguard protecting citizens from arbitrary power, including the power of mass opinion.
Trial by media operates slowly but systematically through damaging mechanisms: headlines that imply guilt, large front-page images of suspects in detention attire, or repeated broadcasts of partial “confessions” stripped of context. Together, these elements build narratives—and once narratives become entrenched, they are extraordinarily difficult to dismantle, even by contrary legal facts.
When Judges Themselves Speak of “Trial by Press”
Indonesia recently witnessed a case that vividly illustrates this phenomenon, and what makes it remarkable is that the panel of judges explicitly referred to trial by press in their judicial reasoning.
In 2025, the Attorney General’s Office named three suspects in an alleged obstruction of justice case: Tian Bahtiar, Director of News at JakTV; Junaedi Saibih, an advocate and academic; and social media manager Adhiya Muzakkin. They were accused of conspiring to produce content and media coverage intended to damage the reputation of the Attorney General’s Office and shape negative public opinion regarding major corruption investigations, including cases involving the tin trade, sugar imports, and crude palm oil (CPO) exports.
In 2025, the Attorney General’s Office named three suspects in an alleged obstruction of justice case: Tian Bahtiar, Director of News at JakTV; Junaedi Saibih, an advocate and academic; and social media manager Adhiya Muzakkin. They were accused of conspiring to produce content and media coverage intended to damage the reputation of the Attorney General’s Office and shape negative public opinion regarding major corruption investigations, including cases involving the tin trade, sugar imports, and crude palm oil (CPO) exports.
However, on 3–4 March 2026, the Corruption Court of Central Jakarta delivered a striking decision: all three defendants were acquitted.
In its legal reasoning, the court held that the podcasts, discussions, and programs produced by Tian Bahtiar constituted journalistic work protected by law, not criminal conduct. The judges referred to Constitutional Court Decision No. 145/PUU-XXIII/2025, which affirmed that legal action against journalists performing journalistic functions must prioritize mechanisms of press protection.
Most importantly from a conceptual perspective, the judges explicitly emphasized that the practice of trial by press can be carried out by anyone, and that every suspect or defendant has the right to be free from presumptions of guilt before a final and binding judicial decision. The court also stressed that negative media coverage fundamentally reflects perceptions and viewpoints within democratic discourse, distinct from the dissemination of false information.
The court therefore ordered the full restoration of the defendants’ rights, status, dignity, and reputation.
The case reveals a sharp irony. Tian Bahtiar and Junaedi Saibih were accused of conducting trial by media against the Attorney General’s Office, yet they themselves experienced public judgment through accusatory media narratives, institutional buzzers, and waves of social media opinion long before the legal process concluded. When the court ultimately examined the facts carefully, the outcome proved dramatically different from the public verdict that had already formed.
Four Wounds Left Behind
The consequences of trial by media are not merely theoretical. They leave real scars on both the legal system and the individuals within it.
Not About Silencing the Press
It must be emphasized that addressing trial by media does not mean restricting press freedom. A free press is a cornerstone of democracy.Indonesia’s Press Law No. 40 of 1999 guarantees press freedom as a pillar of democratic life. Independent and critical media enable the public to scrutinize power and ensure that law enforcement processes remain transparent and accountable.
However, freedom is inseparable from professional responsibility. The Journalistic Code of Ethics, established by the Indonesian Press Council, explicitly requires journalists to respect the presumption of innocence when reporting criminal cases.
There is a fundamental difference between accurately reporting facts in a balanced manner and constructing narratives that imply guilt before legal proceedings are complete. The former is journalism; the latter is a shadow courtroom with no constitutional legitimacy.
Three Directions for Reform
There is no instant solution to this phenomenon. Yet at least three directions deserve consistent attention.
First: Strong Journalistic Ethics
Media institutions must uphold professional standards such as accuracy, verification, proportionality, and the clear separation between fact and opinion. In a digital ecosystem that prioritizes speed, choosing caution is the highest form of responsibility toward justice.
Second: Adaptive Regulation
Several countries have demonstrated that press freedom and protection of judicial processes can coexist. The United Kingdom has the Contempt of Court Act, which restricts publications capable of influencing ongoing trials. Germany applies the principle of Persönlichkeitsrecht, protecting individual personality rights from damaging media exposure.
Indonesia may explore similar approaches suited to its own legal context without sacrificing the press freedom built since the Reformasi era.
Third: Public Media Literacy
Ultimately, the most democratic safeguard lies in the public’s ability to critically evaluate information. Questioning sources, recognizing that “viral” does not necessarily mean “true,” and resisting premature conclusions are attitudes that protect the integrity of a society governed by law.
Conclusion
The phenomenon of trial by media reveals how fragile the balance can be between freedom of information and the protection of due process. On the one hand, society has the right to know, and the media plays an essential role in holding power accountable. On the other hand, every individual has the right to be judged fairly—not by waves of public opinion, but by courts that evaluate evidence through lawful procedures.
The case of Tian Bahtiar and Junaedi Saibih offers a reminder from within Indonesia itself: how easily narratives form, how quickly someone can be judged, and how long the road to recovery remains, even after a court declares them innocent.
An acquittal may be delivered in a single night. But a reputation destroyed by months of public opinion rarely recovers with the reading of a verdict.
What distinguishes a state governed by law from an angry crowd is not its sophistication or its power, but its patience, the patience to refrain from judgment until evidence is complete, the patience to hear both sides, and the patience to allow due process to run its course before delivering a verdict.
Public debate may unfold freely. Opinions may clash vigorously. But the determination of guilt or innocence must ultimately come from one place alone: a courtroom that examines evidence objectively, openly, and fairly.
Authored by:
Juventhy M. Siahaan, S.H., M.H.
Managing Partner, JBD Law Firm