Trial By Media

Telly news of the moment is that surrounding the BBC2 programme "The Verdict". Its a mongrel of a programme in that it mixed real people (if you can count various celebrities at various positions on the scale of the alphabetically-prefixed celebrity list system) with actors. It was hyped and trailed and indeed trialed (though that's not a real word) before Day One was finally aired on Sunday night. The Plot: Young lady is allegedly raped by famous footballer -all played by actors. Trial. Judge, barristers and jury of 12 celebs are played by themselves.

It was discussed on Friday night by thoughtful people on Newsnight Review. Johann Hari, The Independent journalist, thought it would force a debate in the same way as Celebrity Big Brother did for the issues of racism/bullying/class. Sarah Churchwell, author and academic, thought that it trivialised rape and found problematic the fact that the young lady in question is played by an actress as it reinforces the idea that women are 'acting' in rape trials. Indeed, as Michael Portillo noticed she gave a "convincing performance" -complete with real tears. She was also disturbed as were all on the panel by the 'bizarre ignorance' about rape some jury members brought to the trial. She felt that the jury's discussion so far only served to foster the "perpetuation of rape myths with no counter-voice", for example Stan Collymore's wondering why the girls went to a guy's room if not for sex (in the circumstances of the case she went with a friend).

David Aaronovitch called it "meretricious rubbish" and questioned "are we so thick" we need this kind of format with celebrities in to have a discussion about a serious issue like rape. A similar programme 'Consent' was broadcast on Channel 4 in January using ordinary people for the jury. What that also revealed was the prejudices people bring into the jury room although it did highlight issues around the nature and moment of 'consent'. In the same way so far The Verdict for me is raising issues about what is evidence. Stan Collymore, perhaps over-empathising with a footballer, seems desperate for the accused to be exonerated and keeps reminding everyone to just look at the evidence. But in such cases, as the judge points out, by their very nature the alleged crime takes place in private with no witnesses and as Dr Jean Barker the 'expert' witness in the trial has testified rape doesn't always result in any tangible injury. There may not be any hard, scientifically provable evidence in such a case. The only thing there may be is the personal testimony of the alleged victim, which Collymore is keen to dismiss.

Rosie Boycott disliked it too and said that the celebrities would distract from the main issue.

The award for most shocking celebrity jury member thus far has to go to Patsy Palmer who admitted to writing silly poems and falling asleep during the day's proceedings. And Jeffrey Archer seems to be viewing it as a test of his own cleverness in trying to discern the truth of it, which a commenter over at the Guardian accurately described as "creepy pseudo-intelligence".

It is indeed disturbing to see both in this programme and in Consent the prejudices, simplicities and lack of analysis brought to bear in the jury's considerations. Given the random nature of a jury it is hoped that for every ignoramus/misogynist/racist there will be the counter-balance of fair and thoughtful people too. Though surely this depends on the quality of the stock in society one has to draw on. I'm not holding my breath here, as Mr Aaronovitch said, having to have this presented in this particular way 'are we that thick?'

The brains behind the programme, Stephen Lambert, defends it here. As part of this defence he says it is to show how jurors bring their prejudices to the jury room and points out "There's a major issue about rape trials - why are there so few convictions?

Johann Hari thinks there are a range of measures which can be taken to ensure a more balanced approach to rape trials like calling in a trauma expert who can explain some of the apparently odd behaviour of rape victims -such as not going to the police immediately or perhaps not fighting back more.

The critics deliberations may result in a hung jury- "reality TV with a touch of class and should be very popular" or "guilty of turning rape into entertainment"

Julie Bindel at The Guardian passes judgement: "This rubbish will not educate anyone. It will instill fear into victims and potential victims, and reassure rapists and would-be sex attackers that they are Alright Jack. The media must now take the lead in informing the public about the realities of rape, rather than using it as entertainment. What is needed is a serious discussion, not a celebrity circus."

I'm not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that this 'celebrity' format and this programme is such a good thing.

A thoughtful review...