The Press Is Depressing, And Opressing, Not Impressing

I've been looking at the problems with the recent Ferguson shooting. I realize the biggest problems by far have been around with every high-profile case, but it's time to talk about them again and develop a belated solution that could be put in use next time.
Now I wasn't there and don't like hype, so let's just pretend for a moment that none of us know what happened. Anybody heard of a truth table? This is sort of like that.

Making this graphically?

No. I've got something picked out.
Case A: Something we don't know should exonerate the policeman. I don't care how unlikely this sounds to anyone; I'm saying it first because there are SUPPOSED to be more honest police than wronged bad guys. That IS what we all want, so we should ALWAYS talk about that possibility first.

In Case A, cop goes to court, has counseling, gets his livelihood interfered with, never makes it as far in his career as he could have. Maybe is the victim of hate crimes later. In this case, it's very likely that the criminal 'wins' posthumously by life ruination even if that particular truth comes out and justice is done. The story is just too widespread.

Case B: Something we don't know about the police officer means that maybe he shouldn't be one. I don't care how this possibility sounds to anyone, because no sane person should believe that authority doesn't corrupt.

In Case B, cop gets suspended or maybe fired. It's very possible that all this publicity causes a mistrial or a hung jury, and the bad cop never has justice done because too many people think they know the story, think they know what happened, and won't sit still for a fair trial / suspension / whatever. The bad guy has a minor victory because the story is just too widespread.

In Cases A & B, calling G the number of good cops that were GOING to exist, an uncertain number N decide not to become cops at all because of the footage and controversy.

* G-N < G

Therefore, we ALL are worse off because the story is just too widespread!

Research request complete.

Thank you, Shelob! What does it say about not letting the press have a story.

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . freedom of the press--

That would be Amendment #1 from your Constitution. There's got to be an exception, though, right? Clearly the media blitz is not helping this situation.

No exception explicitly listed.

Herr D, heromachine.com.

Wow. So, let situations like this continue horribly or risk ruining something that helps keep America great? Now THAT'S a problem. @#$%^&!! Shelob, zap all those amendments through my neuralink.

One millisecond to upload.
[twitch]
Your memory capacity is declining. You read Constitution before deciding where to settle.
[twitch] Uh? Yeah. [thirty-six seconds pass] HEY! Problem solved. It says Congress can't pass a law, right? Well, there are two whole other branches of this government! The Executive and Judicial! They can argue over which one should do it, but a temporary gag order or writ or whatever-they-need could be put on inflammatory stories with a required notification of release after a jury and a backup are sequestered. It says right there in the sixth amendment that a fair trial is the right of the defendant.

Majority rule suggests the individual defendant(s) are less important than the body of the press.

So we need a group of people bigger than the press?

To clarify the need.

Under number nine, rights not explicitly included here? The right of any individual not to be swayed from being a good citizen, and, therefore, a good juror includes the right not to have spoilers. There are more potential jurors in the United States than press. Technically there might be more defendants than members of the press corps, anyway. That's enough, right?

Uncertain. Include law on 'incitement to riot,' 'reckless endangerment?'

Oh--hhh, NOOOO. [all five eyes roll, full eleven-tentacle shrug] Let's not be THAT obvious, we're talking government. [gurgling laughter]
I'm gonna quote Bacon Shakespeare here: "Speak not on what you know not of."
The fact is, it's RUDE, it's MEAN, and it's AT LEAST MODERATELY DISHONEST to talk about things like you know what's going on when you don't. Objectivity vs. being informed is a balance that is difficult for anyone. I miss details from time to time--

Noted.

--and I blurt out right here sometimes that I don't understand something. On top of that, commenters COULD tell me I'm wrong if they wanted to. How about that, huh? Isn't there a right not to hear about stories of questionable journalistic integrity?

Not explicitly. Examine libel?

No, I think the news media should just learn when they're infringing on our eighth amendment rights.

No cruel or unusual punishment?

That's the one. PEACE! [disconnect]