Covering the Courts

May 23, 2003

Yesterday I went to a seminar at the Museum of Television and Radio entitled, "Covering the Courts," which focused on the media's coverage of the judicial system. The talk focused mostly on the presence of cameras in the courtroom, and it was basically five against one, with the one person looking to rid the courts of cameras (the panelists are listed here, but the link will die soon).

The main argument against cameras in the courtroom is that it causes people to act differently or to refuse to appear in court, which is an obvious problem. The one, not Neo, told a story of a judge who once held a man on a $1 million bail for a felony misdemeanor in order to make a point on the environment since he knew the cameras would be there. He also mentioned people who refused to testify because they knew a camera would be present.

The rest of the panel was able to win me over, despite my hesitance. I thought that if there was any chance the judicial process could be marred by the cameras then they shouldn't be allowed, but a couple specific points changed my mind. Most importantly, when people are under close scrutiny they tend to perform at a higher level. We had most panelist and a number of audience members testifying to support this argument. Also, one of the panelists, the CEO of Court TV, explained that none of the cases they have documented (over 900) have ever gone to appeal as a result of the cameras. In other words, cameras have never been a huge problem. So, it seems that cameras do more good than harm.

The area that they didn't cover much, and that was mostly do to the makeup of the panel, was how the portrayal of courts effect the television audience. For instance, what does Judge Judy or the People's Court do to the average person's understanding of law? Since most people get their news through local tv news and thus via soundbytes, how can we accurately portray the workings of the court? These are obviously tougher questions and the seminar was only an hour and and a half long. Still, these seem to be more important questions.

How can we provide an accurate portrayal of the court system to the lower class without infusing it with emotion and entertainment? Hopefully you can tell me.

Advertisement