Up until recently, the name Ahmad Najib Aris was only familiar to his family, colleagues and friends. Outside of this circle, nobody knew this 27-year-old aircraft cabin cleaner.

But for almost two weeks prior to July 3, his photograph was plastered in the front-pages of all the newspapers in the country for he was the prime suspect in the rape and murder of IT analyst Canny Ong (left).

Ahmad was officially charged with committing the crimes and he has claimed trial.

However, by then, the media, quoting various named and unnamed police sources, published stories of his alleged confession and how he committed the crimes. The media also revealed that he was being investigated for at least three other sex offences.

In all these reports, his photograph and every other personal detail was divulged, minus his name.

The relentless media coverage did not falter even after Ahmad's wife lodged a police report claiming harassment by hungry reporters seeking more information.

Sensationalism

This is just another case of trial by media where the newspapers have usurped the role of the courts and decided on the guilt of the alleged perpetrator.

The damage done to Ahmad's reputation is so severe that the public will never accept any verdict but one of guilt from the courts. This will also no doubt exert immense pressure on the courts now in determining the outcome of the case.

And more importantly, the media has also discarded the long held 'innocent until proven guilty' maxim by its coverage.

The behaviour of the local media is similar to that practiced by certain segments of newspapers and supermarket tabloids in the West which thrive on sensationalism.

In recent times, the local media has been more lackadaisical in the way they report stories with criminal elements.

Identities of remand suspects are no longer protected, child and female victims of sexual cases are named and details that would become evidence in a possible criminal trials revealed.

The reason for this could very well be to sell more copies. Of course, media owners will say it is to quench the thirst of the ever parched public. In the words of these media barons, the public has a right to know these details.

Is that really the case? Does public interest override individual privacy?

Self-made rules

This argument will only hold water if the media has not been playing double standards in revealing details in all of its reports.

It is true that the local media has been selective in naming these alleged perpetrators. One would only have to go back as far as May to see the double standards.

Then a police report was lodged by a TV host against Sulaiman Abdul Rahman Taib, son of Sarawak Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud, for alleged assault. However, the media failed to reveal his identity although they gave away bits and pieces of information relating to him.

They claimed that they could not confirm his name, but were aware of his standing as the son of a chief minister.

Therein perhaps lies the answer for the discrepancies in this self-made media rule.

In one hand, no matter how much is revealed about Ahmad, he is in no position to retaliate. However big names, such as Sulaiman, not only have the political clout but may also initiate legal proceedings for defamation.

The Sulaiman case is just one of many that the media has decided has no interest to the public.

There are many other occasions when the media had named and shamed alleged offenders without political clout although they may be innocent at the end of the day.

Similarly, victims of sex crimes and domestic violence and under-aged victims, have not been spared of these treatment - all in the name of dishing out more information for the public.

Far more serious ethical breaches have been committed by the media in this context but so far nobody has taken them to task over these.

Force a change

Maybe the civil society must also share the blame for this sorry situation for they seem to be only keen in censuring the media over its political double standards.

It is high time that the paying public determine the ethical standards that should be upheld by the local media.

Talks of an ombudsman or even a media council to solve these problems has got a long way to go before its materialises.

One way to solve this malady is by the public highlighting their concern in writing to the newspapers and forcing the media owners/editors to change or clear their stand.

Alternatively, these ethical issues can be raised by the judiciary when the particular cases are at the hearing stages.

The judiciary can reprimand the media - usually the slap on the wrist will be directed towards the editors - on situations where the media had gone overboard in infringing privacy, even if that person is a criminal suspect.

And in cases where identity of victims are revealed or where a suspect's identity in not protected, perhaps the Attorney-General's chambers can start initiating actions under prevailing laws.

In a country that has no privacy laws, it is incumbent upon the public to ensure that one's privacy is adequately protected, without fear or favour.