Ever since its inception, the media has been a great tool for forging public perception as well as informing the public -- its primary duty. We have witnessed countless times how the masses can be led to believe one thing or another depending on the rhetoric of the media. For that reason, ethical principles of journalism were determined, argued and their importance made quite clear.

Even the justice system itself is not immune to the media's ability to hold a magnifying glass over things it deems important, and there are instances where media coverage has played a key role in the outcome of a trial. This week however we had the chance to witness the media playing the role of judge, jury and prosecutor. Playing it poorly I might add.

Let's summarize the events to provide context. On Aug. 17, 2015, a man was shot and killed in police lodgings located in Halkalı, a district of Istanbul. The man killed was named Ahmet Sülüşoğlu and the shooter was Celal Yılmaz, a deputy police chief. These were the only pieces of confirmable and reportable information regarding the event at the time. Yet, many media organizations decided to play detective and fill in the blanks via dubious testimony, videos without sound and creative license. With every new piece of information that surfaced, the rhetoric in news articles changed as well.

In the hours after the shooting, media organizations were overreaching and working the brutality of the police angle and the perception of the readers aligned with it, according to social media and the comment sections of news websites. Then it was reported that this was the result of a traffic argument and that Sülüşoğlu was roughed up by Yılmaz prior to the shooting. Sülüşoğlu being a motorcyclist didn't help clear the fog, and many readers started to say that the prior fight was a case of cars ignoring motorcycles and formed an entire argument around it. Things weren't looking great for the deputy chief.

Then a new video surfaced showing a man – alleged to be Sülüşoğlu – pulling a gun and another – alleged to be Yılmaz – shooting him. This time the media started throwing new theories at their readers, saying Sülüşoğlu was still angry about the fight and followed the deputy chief to his home at the police lodgings after acquiring a gun. Readers started to side with Yılmaz, saying it was self-defense. The rhetoric of recent news articles supported that belief. They started to paint Yılmaz as a hero and Sülüşoğlu as a boor that got in over his head.

It didn't end there though. This time the news agencies started to report that there was more than one bullet wound on Sülüşoğlu, while in the video we saw only one. The rhetoric started to change once more. Could it be that Yılmaz killed Sülüşoğlu in a fit of rage instead of neutralizing him. By now readers were swaying from one side to the other. Other reports said that this was not a case of road rage and that Yılmaz was simply passing, saw the gun and acted. The argument over who is "right" still goes on in social media and comment sections of news websites.

This was definitely not one of the finest moments in Turkish media history. If they actually were judge and jury in this case, as they repeatedly acted, Yılmaz would probably be in jail with a couple of medals on his chest.

Seeing how divisive and manipulative the media can be when reporting on theories that can't be confirmed and while holding its magnifying glass without regard for the damage it can cause should provide the lesson. Consider that this was a case that stirred public emotions to the verge of explosion. If that were the case, later exonerating reports won't prevent the victim from being lynched.