Missing piece of Trump case coverage: The jurors

No one has published any interviews so far with members of the Manhattan jury that found Donald Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying records last week, but I’m certain multiple media outlets are trying.

Juror names and addresses were shielded from the media and the public but I think it’s inevitable that enterprising reporters will eventually find a juror or two who is willing to talk. That’s usually what has happened with high-profile court cases in the past.

A juror might be willing to allow publication of their name, but it should be a slam-dunk decision by any media organization to allow anonymity if that’s a condition of getting the interview. That’s because – sadly but unsurprisingly – some people outraged by the verdict have posted threats of harm against the jury on fringe social media sites. Example: “We need to identify each juror. Then make them miserable. Maybe even suicidal.” Posts have also included names and personal information of individuals believed by posters to have served on the jury.

It's reasonable to think the media horde should just back off of the 12 individuals who had their lives disrupted by this civic obligation and who showed impressive courage to render this verdict in such a high-profile and divisive case. But the news value justifies the reportorial effort. And candidly, if Trump had been found not guilty of everything, then I’d really want to know why, so I can’t very well argue to leave the jury alone in the present circumstance.

Keep in mind that “reportorial effort” doesn’t mean harassment and browbeating of jurors, though they might consider it that. It simply means making contact to see if and when they want to talk, and respecting whatever that decision is.

Surely, no ethical media organization would reveal a juror’s identity against their will, even if it unfortunately happens on social media. I don’t think even Fox News would do that.