Elements to understand the relationship judges – journalists

Abstract

The relationship between judges and journalists is usually marked by the need to reconcile the due process that must be preserved in an oral and public trial and the right to information that journalism demands to carry out its work, within the framework of press freedom.

In this way, the judge wants to achieve the best guarantee of the rights contemplated in due process, while the journalist, as a legitimate holder of the right to information, wants to inform his audience or readers sooner and better.

However, there may be no conflict between judges and journalists, but at the cost of an imbalance in favor of one of the two rights – those contemplated in due process and that of reporting – over the other.

Oral trials may vary between the alternatives mentioned: conflict or cooperation between judges and journalists, with a balance or imbalance between due process rights and the right to report.

A typical situation arises when there is a conflicting relationship between judges and journalists and, at the same time, there is a lack of balance between rights and guarantees that must be observed in a trial and the right to report, for or to the detriment of the latter.

Another variant is that of the trial in which there is a relationship of cooperation or consensus and a balance between the two rights. On the other hand, it is possible that this consensus between judges and journalists will be reached after an initial conflict.