News of justice under the supervision of

 In China, how to both maintain the course of justice, and ensure the normal news media and public opinion supervision is already a platitude, but also a long plagued the judiciary and the media big problem.
Past two years, many cases News media reports in the next, and aroused widespread concern, the Secretary of the judiciary law judge imposed
tremendous pressure of public opinion. can be said that from the time of the Liu Yong case, the high this year, Yingying the case, judicial activities in the news caught again and again under the supervision of a passive, or even been said Liu Yong case, then the judge is the real news media to incite public opinion. Admittedly, some news reports irresponsible and groundless accusations, distort facts, inciting public opinion, seriously interferes with the normal judicial activities. However, as there can not be miscarriages of justice because the court denied all of the judges on the same results, we can not because some of the news reports are not real will be supervision of exclusion. adhere to the independent status of an impartial referee by afford to scrutiny and should not be afraid to news reports and criticism. current practice, will probably make news slavishly followed the court's baton turn, lost the objectivity and their own judgments, loss of critical oversight role and the principle of This is equivalent to monitoring the press declared is not perfect, the judiciary's professional standards and ethics have not yet reached a very high level, can not ensure that its judicial activities fully within the law and conscience. and to judicial activities in which the external environment, a variety of interventions are still widespread, it is difficult to truly maintain independence. Therefore, the judicial activities of the now inseparable from the press supervision.
, a car of the two. , the judiciary and the media are full of belief in the rule of law, social justice are holding this ultimate goal. The difference is, the judiciary is more faithful to the law, the media is more faithful to the facts. It is this function differences, it makes the game between the two maintained a balance. It is in this balance, the judicial process was more transparent, rigorous, independent and impartial will be protected to ensure that the judicial activities have been along the track the progress of justice. break the balance of justice, there is the danger of subversion. left the press scrutiny of justice, can not be truly independent and impartial, and can not get the respect and trust of society, the legal authority can not really set up for.
Therefore, we should do is continue to protect rather than trying to break this balance.