The piece explores the concept of journalistic responsibility in relation to judicial transparency in Norway, focusing on the Baneheia case, which is cited as a significant failure of the media to scrutinize the legal proceedings adequately. The author recalls their own experience of writing about this case and notes a lack of interest among journalists to investigate potential miscarriages of justice. Furthermore, the ongoing trial of Marius Borg Høiby has prompted calls for greater press transparency; however, the article suggests this reflects a deeper inconsistency in how the media operates as a watchdog for the judicial system.

The discussion points to a broader issue regarding the credibility of the press as a protector of legal rights, questioning its historical performance in significant criminal cases. The author argues that the so-called safety valve function of the press has often been ineffective, leaving many critical details unexamined, which could prevent miscarriages of justice. Although the Norwegian Press Association demands transparency in sensitive matters, the article underscores the duality of their role and how historical contexts have shaped current expectations.

Ultimately, the article calls for a reassessment of the media's responsibilities and effectiveness in holding the judicial system accountable. It challenges the notion that the media has continuously acted in the public's interest concerning legal issues, highlighting the necessity for a robust and critical approach to journalism that truly serves as the foundation for a healthy democracy.