Politsei altkäemaksujuhtumite konstrueerimine Eesti trükimeedias 2000-2003

After having analysed the media coverage of four criminal proceedings carried out to investigate suspicion of corruption as well as the data forwarded by the investigative bodies, it may be argued that the change of legal discourse into journalistic discourse of coverage of criminal proceedings cannot only be deemed to be a deformation of legal reality on the initiative of the media. Critical discourse analysis of media texts and press releases of investigative bodies (acting as the sources of the former) made the material abuse of police and media power evident. Investigative bodies use the communication to violate the constitutional rights of persons in criminal proceedings as well as influence the public opinion and potential trial. The investigative bodies and the media incriminate the suspects via public communication with their choice of words, disproportional and unbalanced choice of information sources, discussion of information relevant to the proceedings with no criticism and also addition of negative background information. Press bureau’s of investigative bodies support the pre-trial investigation as a phase in the criminal proceedings that leads up to the summary of charges by way of their public communication. They come up with a preliminary attitude of accusing nature, which the media tends to treat with a privileged status free of criticism, mainly due to the authority held by the institution of police — this, in addition to the transfer of discursive stances, guarantees the power authorities a status of sole source of information. The attitude of media coverage is the result of the choice of players and the extent that they are cited. The media tends to give floor to an investigative body and sources that speak from a position of power and whose information supports the charges filed by the investigative authority rather than give equal representation or choose to represent the weaker party (bearing in mind that an individual is always in a weaker position in comparison to the summary of charges filed by the state). The media is willing to present news supportive to the charges even if an investigative body fails to provide new and reliable information: in this case the media seconds the charges only by repeating the supportive information already once published. The press does not analyse corruption, the possibilities of occurrence thereof, influence on the society or the reliability of the police organisation. Two thirds of the final texts of the press present the original discourse compiled by the Security Police, whereas a quarter of it actually are original texts of the Security Police. The media publicises its police sources with no criticism, without adding its own journalistic contribution to the analysis, even if the sources of information refuse to be referred to. When reflecting upon cases about police corruption in the media, only sources willing to offer information are successful. In order to avoid affecting the court, the media should not compile its publications in a way that allows them to shape the public opinion and/or the independence of the judiciary. This becomes extremely dangerous in the light of a study carried out among Estonian judges where forty per cent of the judges admitted to letting the presumable public opinion affect their judgments in certain cases (Ginter 2002). In addition to the pretrial public opinion and its effects on the judiciary, the media and the investigative bodies should make sure that their activities in presenting the materials of criminal proceedings to the public conform to the Constitution, which explicitly sets forth the presumption of innocence. The standard line of thinking of prosecuting officials, which regards the suspect as a person guilty of a crime, should change from proving the person’s guilt to investigating such guilt. In order to avoid mistakes in the publication of criminal proceedings and the subsequent violation of fundamental rights of persons, the investigative bodies and the media should move the emphasis of coverage of criminal proceedings to the trial phase where both the prosecutor and the accused can defend their rights. This would also prevent the public from paying unnecessary and negative attention to suspects, the charges against who are withdrawn due to the lack of necessary elements of a criminal offence. When analyzing the coverage of four criminal proceedings, a characteristic inside the discourse becomes evident; often the transitions within the same publication are completely unnoticeable. The news employs information from the legal discourse (source: Security Police announcements or other police source), adding statements that are beyond legal coverage and bear the characteristics of journalistic discourse. In the articles, the information regarding the case is presented in the manner of legal discourse whereas in other sections the texts have been compiled in the mode of incomplete journalistic discourse. The coverage of a story does not gain any new dimensions once it reaches the trial phase and the media neither covers the case all the way to its end nor presents an analysis of the case. What deserves particular reprobation is a coverage policy (e.g. of SL Õhtuleht) that completely ignores judgments: of all the cases analyzed, not once did the publication cover the trial phase of the cases. Such media reflection on corruption does not have the desired effect of decreasing the level of corruption in the society because the media does not regard the corruption from an investigative angle but instead makes the suspect an offender already during the preliminary investigation. The public opinion on police corruption as reflected by the media and the investigative bodies exists on the level of policemen as single individuals. The media would neither investigate police corruption in a critical manner nor ask questions about the possibility of such actions, the operation and control systems thereof. The media seems to define its task as a race with the investigative bodies or at least keeping up with them in bringing charges, investigating cases and delivering judgments. The media completely overlooks its obligation to investigate and supervise investigations, which is manifest in its failure to submit questions to the law enforcement authorities as well as in the absence of critical publications in the event of prolongation in criminal investigations and court proceedings.http://tartu.ester.ee/record=b1644397~S1*es