Balancing the oxygen of publicity with the free air of democracy

While secret, closed door trials are going too far (even if not on principled grounds then on pragmatic ones like pre-empting conspiracy theories of cover ups etc.) , it is disgusting how the trial of the guy responsible for the Norwegian massacre (who doesn't even merit naming) gets such detailed media coverage. It's not simply that equality under the law entitles him to a platform, it's how we as a society react. If principles demand he be allowed speak then so be it, but we do not need to listen,  and the news organizations should responsibly limit their coverage to the bare facts. Not of course through censoring, but through sensitivity to what we want to hear,  which is then our responsibility to shape.
Anders Breivik is a terrorist, so we should treat him like one | Jonathan Freedland | Comment is free | The Guardian
As Freedland says:
"What, then, is the right way to bring such people to justice, whether Breivik or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? The cost of the Norwegian approach is that, by treating Breivik like any other defendant, the courts have given him that global megaphone. That represents a perverse reward for his actions: he would never have got such a hearing had he confined himself to ranting on a blog. More alarmingly, the Oslo trial has surely supplied an incentive to any would-be Breiviks: kill as he killed and you too will get the attention of the world.
And yet, by trying Mohammed behind closed doors, the US too has handed the forces of terror a kind of victory. They have declared there are limits to the open society, that the rule of law is not strong enough to cope with every eventuality. In a small way, they have conceded ground to the terrorists' view of the world. How much more appealing is the message of the Norwegian PM last summer, who declared his country would respond to Breivik with "more democracy, more openness and greater political participation".

Whichever approach we take to such crimes, Oslo's or Washington's, one duty is surely clear: we have to be consistent. We cannot apply different standards to terrorists depending on whether they are fanatics of the white supremacist or jihadist variety.

And yet we do just that. Scott Atran, an eminent anthropologist who has briefed American officials on the nature of terrorism, explains that we adopt radically different approaches depending on whether we believe the threat is from within or without.

Outside attackers, like the 9/11 hijackers, are treated only in terms of the impact and consequences of their actions; those who come from "our side", as the Norwegians see Breivik, are examined for their intentions, what made them act the way they did"