Aware of the power of media to shape public perception of events and individuals, ethical code of journalism uphold a principle fundamental to the justice system itself: the presumption of innocence, especially in cases that have not yet reached a final court decision. This principle requires journalists to respect the presumption of innocence of accused or suspect persons and to refrain from making judgements.
There are two essential reasons for this. First, it protects individuals from being unjustly subjected to a damaging public image before any legal verdict has been reached. Second, it helps preserve the independence of judicial proceedings by preventing courts from being influenced by intense media pressure or prevailing public opinion rather than by the impartial assessment of judges and juries.
Journalists, or judges?
An excessive and targeted media coverage can lead to a ”trial by media“ — a situation in which the media effectively pronounce a verdict of guilt before the court has reached a judicial decision. Researches in the field of media studies and law have shown that an intense pretrial publicity, whether directed against the defendant or against of the prosecution, can significantly influence jurors’ perceptions, evidence interpretation, and ultimately their decisions. Journalists thus become self-appointed judges, often without a profound knowledge of the case in question, but claiming the power of pronouncing the verdict.
At the same time, since the code of journalistic ethics do not carry the force of law, breaking it is not a crime in the legal sense of the word. Researchers have therefore observed that journalists frequently fail to uphold this essential principle when reporting on alleged crimes or ongoing legal proceedings. In pursuit of higher audience ratings and increased readership, some media outlets also resort to questionable practices that compromise the standards of ethical reporting.
There are several indicators that may help determine whether journalists are respecting the presumption of innocence:
- Stating premature judgement on defendant’s guilt, preceding a final court ruling
- Disclosing personal details that intentionally portray the accused or suspected person unfavorably
- Disclosing evidence during the pretrial stage that has been retrieved by illegal means
- Using accusatory and prejudiced language about the defendant
- Verifying the information
- Showing fairness in reporting both sides
- Adhering to the principles of journalistic objectivity
Is MISA tried by media?
The media coverage made it clearly visible that journalists do not observe the presumption of innocence when reporting on Gregorian Bivolaru and MISA. In fact, they violate the presumption of innocence to a remarkable extent. The journalists deliver their verdict of guilt both explicitly and implicitly, by verbal clues and narrative strategies. The guilt is stated both by journalists (in rather implicit way) and by the interviewees (explicitly). They disclose personal details (often in a misinterpreted or incorrect manner) that portray Gregorian Bivolaru especially, but MISA as well, as suspicious, dangerous and manipulating. They use prejudiced and accusatory language against Gregorian Bivolaru and MISA. They fail to verify information and they do not report both sides fairly.
The journalists also bypass the requirement for objectivity by choosing to bring out stories of individuals. By framing their production as a psychological or personal exploration, they avoid the requirements of objectivity and impartiality that are normally expected in hard news reporting. Instead, tappear to accept the interviewees’ accounts at face value, without verifying the veracity of their claims, particularly those concerning the alleged abuse of vulnerability.
The journalists adopt a sensational approach, sacrificing the standards of objective reporting in favor of generating emotional impact on the audience. For that purpose, they employ questionable practices, such as selective use of sources, prejudicial framing, and the construction of a stereotypical narrative centered on sex, alleged criminality, sectarianism, court trials, police raids, arrests.
As a result, the media portrayal of tantra and its practitioners is deeply stigmatizing. The discourse promoted in these media productions is anti-tantric and anti-spiritual, or better said exoteric and secular in perspective. Within this framework, tantra is equated with sex and sexual art, in the new-age style, from which one expects improved personal life and erotic fulfillment, without however bringing into the equation the spiritual dimension. The possibility of reaching the Absolute through erotic union is dismissed by journalists as a manipulative lie intended to ensnare new victims.
The journalists systematically construct the image of MISA as a cult. This portrayal persists despite the fact that, in 2005, Karl-Erik Nylund concluded after a personal investigation that MISA could not be classified as a cult. Nevertheless, media reports continue almost unanimously to describe MISA as a “sect” or “sex cult,” either disregarding Nylund’s assessment or remaining unaware of it. In reinforcing this narrative, journalists also frequently refer to Gregorian Bivolaru as a “guru,” despite the fact that he does not publicly identify himself by such a title.
Furthermore, active MISA students are often portrayed as indoctrianted and potentially dangerous, which undermines or entirely invalidates the credibility of their perspectives in the eyes of the audience. In this way, such media contents contribute to their stigmatization and, potentially, to public discrimination against them. Consequently, these journalistic practices raise concerns not only regarding respect for the presumption of innocence, but also regarding the protection of religious freedom and freedom of belief.
Accidental, or intentional?
The question that naturally arises is: “Are these repeated violations of presumption of innocence accidental, or intentional?” To some extent, such breaches of journalistic ethics may stem from sensationalism, a limited understanding of tantra and spiritual practices, or the commercial strategies of media companies seeking to maximize audience engagement at almost any cost. Nevertheless, certain violations are so blatant and systematic that they appear difficult to explain merely as negligence, suggesting instead a conscious willingness to inflict reputational harm.
Commenting on the long-standing anti-MISA media campaign in Romania, Gabriel Andreescu observed:
What has allowed the phenomenon of private and insitutional harrasment of the MISA adepts for 20 years is the chaotic dance of the corrupt accomplicities between various politicians, main decisive persons from administration, prosecutors and judges.
With regard to Western European media coverage, definitive conclusions may be difficult to draw. What is evident, however, is that these narratives consistently reinforce the official accusations of abuse of vulnerability currently brought against Gregorian Bivolaru in France. Such intense pretrial publicity, overwhelmingly supportive of the complainants’ perspective, carries the potential to influence public opinion and, indirectly, the atmosphere surrounding judicial proceedings.
By embracing sensationalist and prejudicial narratives, journalists risk participating in what is commonly described as a “trial by media,” causing significant harm not only to Gregorian Bivolaru personally, but also to the tens of thousands of practitioners associated with MISA and affiliated yoga schools. Through the repeated stigmatization of MISA students, such reporting contributes to the creation, persistence, and amplification of social prejudice and discrimination directed against them.