Since Monday I have been closely following the trial against Anders Behring Breivik. It has simply been impossible to avoid seeing the pictures and footage of the Norwegian mass murderer smiling with satisfaction before his deeds were read out or the headlines “I would do it again”.  It has been the top story in most of the Scandinavian media outlets for the fourth day now.

This is exactly the picture Breivik hoped to achieve; otherwise he would have killed himself. In his pre-massacre manifesto Breivik described how he would use the trial against him to gain worldwide attention and promote his intense anti-Islam ideology.

To say the least, the ongoing trial has attracted broad media coverage, nationally and internationally. Some 800 accredited journalists are following the trial, with broadcasters showing big parts of it live. This has all been possible due to a longstanding and fundamental principle of open justice in the Norwegian legal system. Something that would be strictly forbidden in the UK under the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and Contempt of Court Act 1981.

While I am in favor of allowing cameras in court, I think in this specific case the extensive media coverage has provided a platform for Breivik to promote his far right views.

Although the Norwegian broadcasting company, NRK, does not have the permission to broadcast live the testimony by Brievik or by the victims and the surveillance video from the car bombing or an audio recording of a desperate SOS call from Utoya, steady transcriptions are coming from the courtroom describing his testimony.  NRK also said they will report Breivik’s testimony in print on its website.

Media outlets, especially in Norway, have faced a challenge in balancing the need for openness and impartiality with consideration for the survivors and relatives of the victims. If journalists give the testimony of the defendant too much room, we will eventually become Breivik’s unintended helpers.

The smiles, tears and fascist salute footage seen in the media show how he played up to the camera.  Rather than winning the trial, Breivik said his aim is to “generate a maximum amount of sympathizers and supporters.” This illustrates the concerns expressed over introducing cameras into British courts.

I do think it is absolutely necessary to cover this trial in details. It also has a huge public interest. Many victims and relatives hope to get the answers they need through this lengthy judicial process. By having cameras in court and report minute by minute what is happening allows greater transparency between the public and the justice system. If the trial was kept behind closed doors, it could lead to a mystification to his person through possible followers.

I do, however, think the reporting could be done through a more measured and restrain coverage. It does not mean banning the cameras in court, but to find the right balance between journalists’ duty to inform and the need to protect victims rather than overshadow the victims by giving too much space to Breivik and his thoughts.

The terror attacks have dominated, especially the Scandinavian media ever since the powerful explosion struck in the government quarter of Oslo and the shootings at a Labour Youth camp on the Island called Utoya, killing in total 77 people.  According to a poll, 68% of Norwegians are already tired of all the media coverage, but they want to know if Breivik is sane or insane as he already admitted to carrying on the attack. If the same media weight continues the following nine weeks of the trial, with journalists desperate to fill the slots, there will be unintentional negative effects.