The judicial system strives to provide fair and impartial trials, relying on jurors to evaluate evidence and make informed decisions. However, in an era dominated by the media, the impact of extensive coverage on public opinion cannot be ignored. The growth of the internet has made access to information more accessible than ever, and the explosion of social media has made exposure to unedited and starkly biased opinions of people involved in high-profile cases nearly unavoidable.  This blog post delves into the influence of media coverage on jurors’ perceptions of evidence and defendants, drawing upon the rich body of research in social psychology. Moreover, it explores the significance of scientific jury analysis in helping lawyers and litigators navigate the potential biases stemming from media exposure, empowering them to devise effective strategies.

The Impact of Media Coverage:

Media coverage plays a crucial role in shaping public perceptions of high-profile trials. From television broadcasts to newspaper articles and social media platforms, the media presents a narrative that can significantly impact the opinions held by potential jurors. Pretrial publicity can have a prejudicial impact on juror decision-making in both criminal and civil trials [1, 2]. Social psychology research has shed light on several key phenomena that arise from media influence:

·  Priming Effects: Priming refers to the associative network that exists in our memory. When one node is activated (like “lawyer”) conceptually related nodes (like “trial” or “judge” are active or “primed”. Media coverage primes jurors’ minds, influencing the way they interpret evidence and form judgments. Specifically, how information is covered in the media can impact what information is weighted the most heavily during decision-making. While priming effects are often quite short-lived (last only seconds or minutes [3]), if primed content alters how information is stored in memory, the effects can be relatively long-term [4].  For instance, if media coverage frequently emphasizes how a telemarketing fraud negatively impacted vulnerable populations, that aspect of the case will be “primed” in the minds of the public. As a result, that aspect of the case will be more accessible when asked to make decisions about the defendant’s liability. In the context of jury-decision making, special consideration should be given to cases in which potential jurors have been exposed to frequent biased or sensationalized coverage. Jurors may unconsciously rely on these preconceived notions, leading to distorted interpretations of evidence.

·  Confirmation Bias: Humans have a natural tendency to seek information that confirms their existing beliefs. Media coverage that aligns with jurors’ preconceptions can strengthen their biases, hindering their ability to evaluate evidence objectively. This issue is more important to consider than ever, as the seemingly endless amount of online information allows for the selective consumption of biased information [5]. Essentially, even if the dominant narrative in media coverage of a case doesn’t align with a juror’s beliefs, it is easy for that juror to seek out and consume only attitude-consistent information. It is likely that if a potential juror has been exposed to any media coverage surrounding a case, it is coverage that confirms and strengthens their pre-existing views.

·  Stereotype Activation: Media portrayal of defendants can perpetuate stereotypes based on race, gender, or socioeconomic status. For instance, news coverage overrepresents Black criminals in their coverage, while also overrepresenting White victims and heroes [6]. Repeated exposure to stereotypical news coverage strengthens the cognitive representation of that stereotype, making it more likely that that stereotyped will be activated and applied during decision-making. Such portrayals can activate implicit biases within jurors, affecting their perceptions of defendants and their propensity to attribute guilt. Given how rampant biased media coverage is, it is important to consider not only where a potential juror obtains their news, but how often they consume news media. Research indicates that heavy news viewers are more likely to have their thinking impacted by biased coverage [6].

·  Emotional Manipulation: Media coverage often employs emotional storytelling techniques to captivate audiences. Emotionally charged messaging is even more salient on social media, where the goal is to express your opinion without any pretense of unbiased coverage. Emotional appeals can elicit strong emotional responses in jurors, potentially clouding their judgment and impairing their ability to critically evaluate the evidence.

Scientific Jury Analysis:

Given the potential for media coverage to influence juror perceptions, it is crucial for lawyers and litigators to employ strategies that mitigate these biases. Scientific jury analysis offers valuable insights and tools to navigate the impact of media coverage effectively. Here are some ways in which it can assist legal professionals:

·  Pre-Trial Data Analysis: Scientific jury analysis involves studying the demographics, attitudes, and beliefs of potential jurors in the context of media exposure. By understanding the jurors’ backgrounds and potential biases, lawyers can develop informed strategies for jury selection.

·  Message & Facts Sequencing Testing: Scientific jury analysis enables lawyers to test the effectiveness of various case narratives and arguments on mock juries. By evaluating the impact of media frames and messages, attorneys can craft persuasive strategies that counteract biased media coverage.

·  Supplemental Juror Questionnaires (SJQs): Scientific jury analysis can inform the development of tailored questionnaires to identify potential biases related to media exposure during jury selection. These questionnaires enable lawyers to assess jurors’ susceptibility to media influence and make informed decisions during the selection process.

Addressing Media Bias: Strategies for Lawyers and Litigators:

·  Education and Awareness: Lawyers should educate jurors about the potential biases that can arise from media exposure. By raising awareness, jurors may become more mindful of their own biases and take proactive steps to evaluate evidence objectively.

·  Voir Dire Challenges: During jury selection, lawyers can challenge potential jurors who display strong biases resulting from media coverage. By carefully questioning and evaluating jurors, attorneys can identify individuals who may be unable to remain impartial.

·  Expert Testimony: Lawyers can call upon expert witnesses to explain the impact of media on perceptions and provide alternative interpretations of evidence. Expert testimony can provide jurors with a balanced perspective, helping them navigate through the biases created by media coverage.

·  Controlling Media Exposure: Lawyers can request measures to limit or regulate media coverage during the trial. This can include sequestering jurors to minimize their exposure to external influences that could potentially bias their perceptions.

·  Framing the Case: Lawyers should proactively frame the narrative of the case to counteract biased media coverage. By presenting a compelling and coherent story that aligns with the evidence, attorneys can provide jurors with an alternative perspective that challenges media-driven biases.

·  Emotional Appeals: Recognizing the power of emotional manipulation in media coverage, lawyers can strategically use emotional appeals within the courtroom. By presenting evidence that elicits empathy and humanizes the people involved in the case, attorneys can counteract negative portrayals perpetuated by the media.

·  Jury Instructions: Clear and concise jury instructions regarding the importance of evaluating evidence impartially and avoiding the influence of media bias should be provided by judges. Reinforcing the need for objectivity throughout the trial can help jurors remain focused on the facts.


Media coverage of trials has a significant impact on jurors’ perceptions of evidence and defendants. The field of social psychology has demonstrated the various ways in which media exposure can shape biases and hinder jurors’ ability to make objective decisions. However, by employing scientific jury analysis, lawyers and litigators can anticipate the potential effects of media coverage and develop strategies to address these biases.

Through pre-trial analysis, message testing, expert witness testimony, and tailored jury selection processes, scientific jury analysis provides valuable insights into jurors’ demographics, attitudes, and beliefs. This knowledge empowers legal professionals to counteract media biases effectively and present a fair and balanced case.

Moreover, lawyers can employ strategies such as educating jurors, challenging biased individuals during jury selection, controlling media exposure, framing the case, using emotional appeals strategically, and providing clear jury instructions. These strategies collectively work to minimize the impact of media bias and foster a more impartial evaluation of evidence.

In an era where media coverage is ubiquitous and influential, it is crucial to recognize and address its potential effects on the fairness of trials. By combining the knowledge derived from social psychology research and the tools offered by scientific jury analysis, lawyers and litigators can navigate the complexities of media influence, ensuring that justice is served based on the merits of the case rather than biased perceptions fueled by media coverage.


1. Steblay, N. M., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S. M., & Jimenez-Lorente, B. (1999). The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: A meta-analytic review. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 219-235.

2. Bornstein, B. H., Whisenhunt, B. L., Nemeth, R. J., & Dunaway, D. L. (2002). Pretrial publicity and civil cases: A two-way street? Law and Human Behavior, 26(1), 3-17.

3. Wentura, D., & Rothermund, K. (2014). Priming is not priming is not priming. Social Cognition, 32, 47-47.

4. Molden, D. C. (2014). Understanding priming effects in social psychology: What is “social priming” and how does it occur? Social Cognition, 32, 1-11.

5. Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707-731.6. Dixon, T. L. (2016). Understanding how the internet and social media accelerate racial stereotyping and social division: The socially mediated stereotyping model. In Race and Gender in Electronic Media. Taylor & Francis.