Summary
Studies of the past twenty years show that news cameras in courtrooms allow the public to view how the legal system operates. Cameras also carry out the democratic goal of journalism and do not interfere with the legal process. Arguments against cameras in courtrooms are inaccurate.
See the full content of this document
Extract
Cameras belong in the courtroom.
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 ant...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
