Justice in the Age of Media and AI: How Public Perception Shapes Legal Outcomes
- UCL Law for All Society
- 6 hours ago
- 4 min read
By Naeun Kim
Legal decisions are often imagined as the product of rules, evidence, and rational deliberation. Yet in reality, the courtroom is far from isolated when it comes to the currents of communication that surround it. From news coverage to social media debates, and now increasingly through AI-powered legal platforms, public perception actively shapes how justice is interpreted and applied. For instance, consider AI legal advice services such as Garfield.AI, which provide instant guidance on legal matters, or online discussions that frame high-profile trials. These communication flows are not neutral; they influence not only the public’s understanding of the law but also the decisions of jurors, judges, and legislators. In essence, law and communication are inseparable. Social justice is not solely dictated by statutes; it is continuously negotiated through the messages, information flows, and platforms that mediate our engagement with legal institutions.
Communication Structures as Legal Actors
Traditional media, social media, and digital platforms do more than report legal developments-they actively participate in shaping legal outcomes. According to Framing theory, the way a legal event or decision is presented can impact public perception of its significance. Similarly, agenda-setting theory demonstrates that media do not simply inform; they tell audiences what to think about, subtly steering public discourse toward certain aspects of a case.
Recent controversies exemplify the extent of this influence. For example, the BBC’s edited Panorama segment on Donald Trump’s January 6 speech sparked significant debate when critics argued that the selective editing portrayed his remarks as more inflammatory than in the original footage. Trump responded by threatening a $1 billion lawsuit, claiming that the programme distorted public perception and damaged his reputation. Although legal experts note that such a claim may have limited viability, the incident illustrates how media framing can shape public understanding and potential legal narratives even before any court process begins.
High-profile examples further emphasise this dynamic. The ongoing “trial by media” phenomenon shows how extensive news coverage and viral social media debates can shape public understanding, which indirectly impacts jurors’ attitudes, judicial decision-making, and policy reforms. For instance, in the defamation case between actors Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, social media platforms hosted widespread campaigns both supporting and opposing the parties, whilst news outlets highlighted selective evidence and narratives. Online commentary, viral memes, and trending hashtags collectively framed public opinion, amplifying the stakes beyond the courtroom and demonstrating how the media acts as an informal participant.
In this sense, these communication structures undoubtedly act as informal legal actors. Jurors, judges, and lawmakers, though legally trained, are not immune to the framing and agenda-setting pressures of contemporary media. This influence underscores that law is not only applied through statutes but also interpreted socially. Justice relies not merely on procedure but on public confidence in the fairness and legitimacy of legal outcomes.
AI in Legal Practice: Risk and Responsibility
The rise of AI introduces a new layer of complexity. AI platforms, like Garfield.AI, serve as mediating agents, offering legal guidance directly to consumers. This raises fundamental questions: if an AI system issues incorrect advice, who bears responsibility—the developer, the platform, or a supervising human lawyer? The legal community has begun to grapple with these challenges. For example, UK High Court judges have warned lawyers against citing AI-generated, fabricated case law, highlighting the risk of eroding trust in the judicial system.
From a constructivist perspective, law is not fixed; its meaning emerges through social interactions, communication, and interpretation. When algorithms become actors in legal communication, the process of constructing legal meaning extends into digital space. Errors or “hallucinations” by AI systems can mislead users, producing consequences that challenge traditional notions of negligence and duty of care. Regulatory bodies, including the SRA and Legal Services Board, now require AI platforms to demonstrate transparency, accuracy, and oversight to maintain public credibility.
The implications are broad. If AI-mediated communication becomes a standard part of legal services, regulators must ensure that accountability is clearly defined. Consumers must be confident that the advice they receive is both accurate and legally sound, while law firms and AI developers must navigate the ethical and legal boundaries of automated guidance. In this evolving landscape, the discussion is no longer only about human judgement; it is about how communication technologies actively shape both public perception and judicial practice.
Conclusion: Justice in the Age of Communication
The interaction between law, AI, and media demonstrates that justice is not purely the product of statutes or courtroom deliberations. Rather, it is continuously negotiated through the flows of communication that permeate society. Media frames, social discourse, and algorithmic advice collectively shape public perception, influence legal actors, and redefine notions of fairness, responsibility, and legitimacy.
Understanding these communication dynamics is therefore increasingly essential. Lawyers must recognise how public opinion and media framing affect case strategies, client expectations, and policy debates. Regulators must safeguard transparency and accountability in AI-mediated legal services while maintaining public trust. As justice becomes embedded in the information ecosystem, the challenge is clear: law must adapt not only to technological innovation but also to the communicative contexts in which it operates.
Sources:
https://apnews.com/article/uk-courts-fake-ai-cases-46013a78d78dc869bdfd6b42579411cb
https://www.sra.org.uk/news/news/press/garfield-ai-authorised/
Entman, R.M., 1993. Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. McQuail's reader in mass communication theory.
McCombs, M.E. and Shaw, D.L., 1972. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public opinion quarterly, 36(2), pp.176-187.
Edited by Artyom Timofeev
Comments