Can there be justice with media hype?

I know I am not the first person to consider this particular subject, it has been addressed, but because of so many recent cases, where the media has swooped in, many times giving either shaky preliminary information, or simply editorializing rather than actually reporting facts, It is my opinion that this issue should be readdressed.

We all want the news, we want to be able to make informed opinions regarding the facts that the new media has the responsibility to provide us; but what can we do when that responsibility is abused, and becomes, instead, hype for high ratings.

I am going to once again focus on the media attention given to the raid at the FLDS compound, simply because I believe that the media has been very irresponsible in its reporting. So irresponsible, that, in my opinion, it could actually hurt the case, and if children have been systematically abused, the actions of both the media and CPS officials could very well result in these children being put back in a possibly harmful environment.

So what exactly makes this story such a hot topic? Could it be because of the practice of polygamy? Or is it the religious aspect that makes for good 'print' that created a feeding frenzy? Could it be that with so many children taken away from families without obvious or documented abuse, that CPS leaked information, in order to turn public opinion to the 'weird religious beliefs' rather than the authority they had to make such a sweeping raid?

It does concern me that the hype started almost immediately. The media, offered snippets of their 'investigation' that when later found to be incorrect, the original reporting media glossed over the errors, or completely ignored them.

Case in point, the first reports claimed that dozens of girls as young as 13 were pregnant....that nearly 60% of young girls taken from the ranch, were forced into marriage and forced to become pregnant.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080516/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat

Now, the reports are very different, and CPS had to admit that they were simply wrong, but after what damage?

Of course the excuse is that those from the ranch would not be 'honest' but how does that justify the leaks to the media? How did these leaks benefit those in custody, or those accused? And of those accused, how would such leaks ensure a fair trial?

But what made this story so much more interesting than the other raid in Texas that has brought not even a slight interest in the main media:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/13/national/main4094446.shtml

The House of Yahweh Is said to be even a 'darker sect' than FLDS, as this group also has weapons, and is preparing for the nuclear baby that will destroy the earth, leaving only those that are believers alive, further the allegations of child abuse, child labor, polygamy, including the deaths of two sect members, one a seven year old boy, the other a pregnant woman during child birth.

So where is the media blitz on this group? Isn't the recorded deaths of two people a bit more 'proof' than the latter case?

I can't help but wonder if it is because the 'traditions' of the FDLS is more unique to what we are used to, the prairie dresses, the uniformed hairstyles, they stick out more than the House of Yahweh followers and therefore make for better fodder in the media. I have yet to see a report on Nancy Grace that does not mention their style of dress; which makes me wonder if the media is not more interested in the way the people 'look' than the possible crimes perpetrated.

Of course the house of Yahweh, denies polygamy, while the FLDS admits that they believe in the principle, because of the 'prophet' as well as the writings of the Old Testament of the Bible.

The house of Yahweh, also has an offical website:

http://www.yisraylhawkins.com/

Unlike the FLDS, the house of Yahweh is hiding in plain sight, and obviously doing a wonderful job of it.

So back once again to the FLDS, and the reasoning of CPS to leak information to the media. Was it for justice and protection of the children? Or was it for justification and protection of those that perhaps rushed to judgement, and felt that once the public saw just how 'odd' the beliefs were, they would support the action, and not question the validity of it?

If one thing history has taught us, it is easy to distrust those that are different, to set those that are out of the norm of societies culture in another catagory of due process, and that is justice lost.