In a recent commentary, Eva Sannum argues in favor of judicial intervention in media reporting, particularly in the context of the ongoing case against Marius Borg Høiby. She suggests that when the press fails to self-regulate, the court should step in to determine what is appropriate to publish. This stance has sparked a debate regarding the role of the judiciary in media matters and the implications for press freedom in Norway.

Sannum's viewpoint challenges the long-standing principle of transparency in the Norwegian legal system, which is aimed at ensuring public trust in judicial outcomes. This principle, rooted in centuries of legal tradition, is critical for maintaining confidence that justice is served fairly and transparently. By advocating for judicial oversight of media reporting, Sannum risks undermining this cornerstone of democratic governance.

Moreover, the issue of media responsibility has been contentious for years, with many discussions failing to lead to actionable solutions. Sannum criticizes the lack of a superior editor within the media landscape and suggests that the judiciary's involvement could provide the needed regulatory framework. However, critics warn that this may lead to undue censorship and restrict freedom of the press, consequently impacting the public's right to information and awareness.