从1995年四川夹江打假案到2006年的许霆案，10多年已经过去了，虽然关于舆论监督与司法审判的关系讨论不断，但是在实践中二者的冲突现象不仅没有得到解决，反而具有蔓延的趋势，许多人将这一现象归结为是“媒体审判”，并进行反对。那么如何理解并评价这种冲突现象和“媒体审判”，并为我国有关立法与改革实践提供解决思路就成为本文写作的意图。本文以在前言中提出的有关“媒体审判”的四个问题为切入点，先从规范层面和实践层面对我国目前舆论监督与司法审判的关系的现状进行了描述和评论，以为下文的分析问题和解决问题做出了铺垫；“媒体审判”不仅仅是个理论问题，同时还是个事实问题，本文在第三章部分首先在理论层面对“媒体审判”进行了辨析，并认为“媒体审判”实际上是一种不恰当的比喻，并且提出意见认为在实践中我们应该慎提“媒体审判”，以免造成实践中的误解，并使得司法机关以“媒体审判”为借口而拒绝舆论监督；同时，本文选取了在实践中普遍被认为是“媒体审判”的案例——刘涌案进行分析，在分析最后得出结论认为，媒体舆论的倾向性报道并不必然影响法院的判决，二者并没有必然联系；在以上分析的基础上，本文对“媒体审判”背后所隐藏的问题进行了探讨，并发现“媒体审判”是舆论监督与司法审判的冲突的一种表现形式，舆论监督与司法审判的冲突在更大程度上是由于权力部门的介入引起的。分析问题是为了解决问题，在对“媒体审判”进行了否定之后，针对中国语境下我们国家在调处舆论监督与司法审判的关系上，本文提出，我们国家应该以舆论监督为主要支撑点，从公众舆论、司法制度环境和法官三个层面进行构建。

From the Anti-counterfeit case in 1995 happened in Jiajiang County, Sichuan Province to Xu Ting Case in 2006, more than ten years have passed, and the discussion about the relationships between supervision by public opinion and judicial trial has never stopped, however, in the practice, the problem about the conflict between supervision by public opinion and judicial trial hasn’t solved and it is becoming worse and worse; many people think that it is a phenomenon of “trial by media” and they have written many articles against “trial by media”. This article focuses on analysis and comment of “trial by media” phenomena, attending to provide some new suggestions for legislative theory and practice in China.This article begins with the four questions put forward in the introduction, and then introduces and comments the current situation about the relationship between supervision by public opinion and judicial trial in China from the perspectives of legislation and judicial practice, which lays a foundation for the later problem analysis and problem solving. “Trial by media” is not only a problem of theory, but also a fact issue, so this article first makes concept discrimination for “trial by media” in theory, holding that “trial by media” in fact is an improper metaphor, and we should be cautious to mention “trial by media” in case in the practice some people misunderstand it and the judicial authorities prohibit the supervision by the public, pretending “trial by media”. Meanwhile, this article takes the Liu Yong case as a sample to analyze the relationships between supervision by public opinion and judicial trial, which has been acknowledged as a typical case of “trial by media”; based on the analysis, the article holds that the tendency of the public opinion cannot affect all the results of judgments and the two don’t have the positive connection; after that, the article probes into the problems that stand behind the “trial by media”, finding that “trial by media” is just a manifestation of the conflict between supervision by public opinion and judicial trial, and in a large extent, the conflict between supervision by public opinion and judicial trial is caused by the intervention of power.After denying “trial by media”, according to the current situation in China, the article puts forward the principle and some specific measures to regulate the relationships between supervision by public opinion and judicial trial. The principle is to protect the supervision by public opinion; and the specific measures should be mainly carried out from three aspects, that is, public opinion, judicial system and the judicial environment and the judges themselves.