Media in the Courtroom
COM 150
February 27, 2011

Media in the Courtroom
In this day and age the public looks for information though the media to inform them on what is happening in the world today, but with all the different ways that we have to receive information via the newspaper, or TV news, should we also allow cameras onto our courtrooms? There have been several debates on whether or not cameras should be permitted in the courtroom during court proceedings even though the media feels that they have the right to inform the public about how the justice system works, while some feels that it is more for entertainment, and others feel that it is just an invasion of privacy on the part of the victim and the witnesses. In my paper I will examine both sides of the argument and leave it up to you to make your own decision on whether or not cameras should be allowed into the courtroom.
The media has been reporting trials for decades by the use of newspapers and or radio. But in 1935 television broadcasted one of the first trials which they called “The Trial of the Century”. The trial that I am speaking about is the Lindbergh baby trial, it was a highly publicized trial that may have started the debated on whether or not cameras should be allowed into the courtrooms. From the day the trial started hundreds of reporters would flack to the court house in the town of Flemington, New Jersey. The media had gotten so out of control that judge Trenchard had to ban the use of all typewriters within the courthouse which eventually led to “one of the consequences of the 1935 Lindbergh baby kidnapping trial was that the cameras were banned in all federal and most state courts” (Constitutional Rights Foundation, 2011). But in the 1970s, media coverage began in state courts only; they were only allowed to have access to civil and criminal cases under special conditions that was implemented by the judge. “The judge in his or her discretion may permit, refuse, limit, or terminate media coverage. This rule does not otherwise limit or restrict the right of the media to cover and report court proceeding” (2011 California Rules of Court, 2006).
With the media having the right to have access in informing the public through cameras about court proceedings, it gives the public a chance to attend a trial without having to physically be there. Allowing cameras into the courtrooms will also give access, as well as educate the public how court is conducted. What the cameras will do for the public also is show them first hand without any distortion, influence, or bias if there is any unfairness or injustice on the part of the due process of each case, but not only that it lets the public come to their own conclusion on whether or not to rely on the information that is being presented to them. But there is a down side to that because what the media tends to do is pick out what they think may or may not be television worthy and that is what the public gets to see. But what the media do not understand is that the smallest detail in the trial that they decide not to broadcast maybe the most important piece of information related to the trial. So if it is for the public, all that is captured by the camera should be kept intact for the public to see in order for them to fully understand just how the law really works Now since the cameras are being allowed in the courtrooms due to the First Amendment which gives everyone the right to free speech, there are many people that believe that it is more for entertainment and ratings and less for awareness of how the court proceedings are conducted. With all the court TV shows that are now appearing on television, one may think that the court participants would likely be more to showboat, grandstand, and even resort to role-playing for the cameras, which would result in losing focus on the trial. Take the O.J. Simpson trial, from the beginning to the end of the trial it seem that everyone had a part to play for the cameras, from Johnnie Cochran with the saying “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” to Marcia Clark’s change of appearance. Everyone that was watching that trial began to see the change in her “Home viewers perceive the impact as they monitor Marcia Clark's Di-like makeover, with hair that's gone from shaggy mane to Madison Avenue sleek and a once frumpy wardrobe that now rivals Grace Van Owen's on L.A. Law” (Mason, Feb.2011) .
As the cameras are being allowed more and more access into the courtrooms, it is now becoming an issue of whether they are invading the privacy of the victims and witnesses, and the defendant’s right to a fair trial. With this in mind the victims feels as if they are the ones that are being tried and not protected by the justice system. They see their past leading up to the trial being played out in the media for everyone to see and hear, and once the trial have started, they feel like they are the ones being persecuted for the crime in question, which brings me to the witnesses who are more apt to not appear to testify out of fear due to the cameras in the courtroom. They feel that by being there they are putting their families in jeopardy. As far as the defendants, they believe that their Sixth Amendment rights are being compromised which leads to them not getting a fair trial. But evidence has been shown that cameras in the court during their trial did not violate their Sixth Amendment rights to a fair and speedy trial.
In closing there are many reason why we should or should not have cameras in our courtrooms, although the media feels that they have the right to inform the public about how the justice system works, while there are some that believe that it is just a source of entertainment for the networks, but most importantly there are people that think that it is an invasion of privacy on the victim part. I would say that cameras in the courtroom is definitely an invasion of privacy of the victims and witnesses, and it should not be televised for entertainment or glorifying someone else misfortune, but for protecting the rights of the victims and the defendants.

References
2011 California Rules of Court. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/index.cfm?title=one&linkid=rule1_150
Constitutional Rights Foundation. (2011). The Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping Case. Retrieved from http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-10-1-a.html
Mason, P. (Feb. 27, 2011). Court on Camera: Electronic Broadcast Coverage of the Legal Proceedings. Retrieved from http://usf.sufca.edu/pj/camera-mason.htn