Cameras belong in the courtroom

USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), July, 1996 by Steven Brill

ALL THE STUDIES of the last two decades have concluded that camera coverage of the courts provides an important view of how the legal system actually is working, fulfills the essence of journalism's mission in a democracy, and does not impede the process or negatively affect the participants. Thus, despite the controversy in the O.J. Simpson case, many countries--including Italy, Argentina, Norway, Mexico, Spain, France, Paraguay, Greece, Israel, Russia, and El Salvador, as well as the World Court at The Hague--allow camera coverage of trials. Several others--including Great Britain, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia--are conducting or considering experiments with cameras.

On the other side of the argument are old concerns, articulated anew because of the Simpson case. Among these are:

* Cameras in the courtroom create a "media circus." Sensational trials and flamboyant press coverage existed long before television cameras. In fact, the camera inside the courtroom acts as an antidote to the abuses of the "circus" by allowing viewers to make their own judgments independent of the circus elements.

* The camera's supposed effect on participants. Empirical evidence shows that, while participants may be affected by the pressure and publicity of high-profile cases, they are not affected in any special way by the presence of a silent camera in the courtroom and certainly less so than they were in the last century, when major community trials were much-heralded, well-attended spectator events and the talk of the town.

* The Simpson trial and its lengthy testimony prove that the camera prolongs trials. In fact, the evidence shows that, if anything, cameras tend to keep trials moving. In certain states, some high-profile murder cases often are long, drawn-out affairs, but this is true with or without cameras. In California, for example, the Hillside Strangler case took 23 months and the Charles Manson trial nine months; neither was televised. Similarly, if the Chicago Seven trial had been televised, the camera surely would have been blamed for the antics of the defendants and judge.

* The media only want to televise sensational cases. Court TV has televised more than 100 civil cases in areas ranging from torts, product liability, civil rights, parental custody, and copyright to sexual harassment. Meanwhile, Federal rules prohibit camera coverage of the most important civil and criminal cases. Thus, proceedings such as the Manuel Noriega drug trial, Michael Milken sentencing, Microsoft anti-trust settlement hearing, or Waco trial could not be shown, while the Menendez brothers' trial could--a situation that allowed coverage of the Simpson case, but not the World Trade Center terrorist bombing conspiracy trial that started at the same time.

* This is really entertainment, not journalism. However intriguing or even "entertaining" trials may be (and always were for spectators in old-time large-gallery courtrooms), camera coverage of the Simpson case generated the most intense debate in recent memory about the criminal justice system. It showed people the legal system and provoked them to debate it. This new debate will be distorted, though, by the exceptional nature of the Simpson case if, as a result, it becomes more difficult for cameras to cover more typical trials.

Moreover, while important trials may involve an element of entertainment, this is not a new phenomenon or one related to television. In 1965, legal studies cited by the Supreme Court noted: "In early frontier America, when no motion pictures, no television, and no radio provided entertainment, `trial day in the county was like fair day, and from near and far citizens young and old converged on the county seat. The criminal trial was the theater and spectaculum of old rural America.' "

* The media profit from coverage of these cases. All free enterprise media, print as well as broadcast, hope to profit from their coverage of news events. Nevertheless, to a degree unparalleled in other arenas of news coverage, courtroom camera coverage is being used in numerous nonprofit educational efforts from grade school to law school.

* Camera coverage fosters disrespect for the system. In fact, camera coverage has been shown to enhance respect for the system in most cases. The camera shows what happens, but does not create it. When the camera shows the system working well, it tends to boost public confidence. Conversely, the camera becomes a catalyst for change when it shows some aspect of the courts (or government, generally) that is not working well.

* Camera coverage is just plain distasteful. In-court camera coverage, by definition, is as dignified as the process and arguably more "tasteful" than out-of-court tabloid coverage or docudramas of courtroom trials. Moreover, everything in the American tradition and law suggests that such taste decisions are not the province of government rule-makers.

Since 1974, a number of states have conducted studies concerning the effects of cameras on thousands of court proceedings. These have examined the impact of audio-visual coverage on the dignity of the proceedings, administration of justice, and effect of in-court cameras on witnesses, jurors, attorneys, judges, and other interested and involved parties. The evidence gathered by the states' studies repeatedly and overwhelmingly has concluded that television coverage does not disrupt court proceedings or impair the administration of justice.