Background and Objective: Mass media, as the primary custodians of public information and awareness, are obligated to fulfill their mission without interfering with criminal justice processes while adhering to regulations governing their scope of authority and limitations. However, it is occasionally observed that media outlets, by violating regulations and exceeding the boundaries of their duties, create conditions that disrupt criminal proceedings. This article aims to comprehensively examine the effects of media coverage on criminal cases and analyze the resulting legal conflicts, particularly within the context of informal digital media platforms.
Method: This research employs a descriptive-analytical approach utilizing library-based methodology to examine legal documents, statutory provisions, judicial decisions, and scholarly articles related to criminal law and media. Data analysis was conducted by comparing existing regulations with contemporary media realities, particularly social networks and digital platforms.
Findings: The results indicate that mass media function as a double-edged sword, exhibiting both positive and negative effects. Among the positive aspects are public proceedings in media, prevention of procedural delays, and reduction of external influences on judicial processes. Conversely, disclosure of suspects' identities, erosion of defendants' rights and the presumption of innocence, undermining of fair trial principles, diminution of judicial discretion, and rushed proceedings were identified as negative consequences of media coverage of criminal cases. A significant finding reveals that the primary challenge facing courts today stems not from official media outlets but rather from social networks and informal digital media platforms that circumvent the legal restrictions stipulated in existing legislation. These platforms, characterized by their decentralized nature, rapid dissemination capacity, and resistance to effective control, have generated new instances of privacy violations and unauthorized disclosure of confidential case information, thereby challenging the rule of law through the creation of parallel media trials.
Conclusion: The mediatization of criminal cases represents a dual phenomenon that can function both to enhance judicial transparency and to undermine fundamental defendants' rights. Given the exponential expansion of digital media and the inadequacy of existing regulations in controlling their content, there is an urgent need to revise criminal justice policies and develop specific regulations for managing information disclosure in the digital sphere. Future studies could undertake comparative analyses of successful legal systems and propose indigenous models for controlling digital content related to criminal cases within the Iranian legal framework.