Much of the reporting on miscarriages of justice in the late 1980s and early 1990s in Great Britain related to the inability of the legal system to respond to or remedy miscarriages of justice identified in various investigations by the media. The cases cited in media reporting at that time had become standard points of reference in subsequent media reporting as examples of miscarriages of justice. In the period 1989-1992, the reporting on these cases and other miscarriages of justice changed from the usual media reporting on such cases. No longer were these cases reported in terms of individual tragedies, but rather in terms of a crisis of public confidence in the criminal justice system. These stories provided the catalyst of proposed reforms that would restore the public's confidence in the criminal justice system. This exerted pressure on politicians. Also, in response to media criticism of some senior judges, some insiders in the legal system attempted to educate the public about the legal system, so it would no longer be viewed by the public as simply a mechanism for determining the truth. Lord Donaldson, then a former Master of the Rolls, wrote an article in 1994 that expressed his frustration at the ignorance of journalists and the general public about the nature of trial processes. Other efforts focused on preventing mistakes in case processing that attracted media attention. The authors argue that the criteria for media reporting of miscarriages of justice differ from the legal system's definition, which will continue to fuel media criticism. 19 notes and 15 references