"Trial by media!" is a frequent, self-defensive cry of those in the media spotlight, as Deputy President Jacob Zuma was this week. The cry is often a red herring, say media analysts, though there are instances where it reflects a real concern.

Wits University professor of journalism Anton Harber said "trial by media" applied in a negative way when the media assumed the guilt of an individual before that person had had his or her day in court, and covered the story as if the case had been concluded and the person convicted.

Harber said: "It is a distraction from the real problem. Zuma has been given a chance to refute allegations or produce counter-evidence. If he has not done so, that is not the media's fault."

Media Monitoring Project senior researcher Bharti Daya agreed, saying the phrase "trial by media" was often a "knee-jerk reaction". An example of bad "trial by media" was the Baby Tshepang case, she said. There, the media all but convicted the men initially accused of the child rape, but did not pay equal attention when the real rapist was caught and sentenced.

Communications expert Ramotena Mabote suggested Zuma might be the victim of "priming" or "framing" by the media. She said: "If the media do not want to think anything good about Zuma, they will not bother to say anything good.

"In priming we are conditioned that [for example] arms dealing is corrupt, so when you read about it you expect corruption. Framing is, for example, when you say [Nelson] Mandela is a saint and therefore can do no wrong. Once the media have decided on the character of a person, they will find it difficult to accept anything different.

"It is not a deliberate agenda, but once a frame is created, to get out of it is hardly ever possible," said Mabote.

With acknowledgements to Fikile-Ntsikelelo Moya and the Mail and Guardian.