Naming and Shaming: Trial by Media in Nineteenth-Century Scotland

Abstract

This article examines the relationship between shame and police court media trial reports. It explores the social and cultural mores that underpinned the construction of shaming practices in trial coverage and assesses the ways in which the media functioned as a judicial and extrajudicial shaming resource. Far from disappearing with changing sensibilities, as has been argued elsewhere, premodern religious and judicial shaming methods shifted into areas of modernity, being relayed, supported, and influenced by new forms of modern print culture. The media, this article contends, served as an extension of the disciplinary apparatus, with editors applying their own assumptions about the guilt of the accused regardless of judicial verdicts and in line with their own notion of “common-sense” lay justice. The use of shame, though, was discriminatory—mirroring, and even helping to define, middle-class notions of shameful behavior and masculine and feminine conduct—which would, crucially, expose the social and cultural confines of media censure.

Left on a Doorstep: The Role of Infant Abandonment in Preserving and Exposing Family Secrets in Australia 1834–1954

“…22 Newspaper reports magnified the public humiliation implicit in a court appearance, creating a melodramatic narrative that both reflected and, at times constructed, community norms of acceptable behaviour. 23 In the process they provided a model which others could follow and a language through which they could explain their actions.…”

Trial by media: Why victims and activists seek a parallel justice forum for war crimes

“…The media also moulds the public's opinion about the legal institutions and has a great impact on the public's faith in these institutions. (p. 117) In his historical work on 19th-century trials in Scotland, Barrie (2015) found that magistrates and the media enjoyed a mutually reinforcing relationship that spoke not just to shared values but also to each other's inherent support for what they regarded as 'commonsense' justice, which was deployed through print when 'legal justice' was perceived to have been thwarted. (pp.…”