The New York Times | Poynter
The prosecutor known for introducing the world to Monica Lewinsky through his investigation of the Whitewater land deal is speaking out about cameras in the Supreme Court. In an editorial, former independent counsel Kenneth Starr (now president of Baylor University) writes:
Cameras in the courtroom of the United States Supreme Court are long overdue. … The benefits of increased access and transparency are many. Democracy’s first principles strongly support the people’s right to know how their government works. This would seem to be underscored by this court’s stubborn insistence on freedom of communication in a democratic society. …
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s fear is that televising the oral arguments would introduce “the insidious temptation to think that one of my colleagues is trying to get a sound bite for the television.” But this fear seems groundless in light of the already available sound recordings from these sessions. Newspapers, radio and television were all once condemned for their demagogic potential, but we have long since accepted these media as vitally important pieces of our national dialogue. The idea that cameras would transform the court into “Judge Judy” is ludicrous.
Related: As Supreme Court begins its new term, who is most talkative? Who gets the most laughs during oral arguments? How to explain the justices’ silences, interruptions and ‘aggressive’ questions | Casey Anthony judge: ‘Court proceedings are no longer news but entertainment’ | Cameras in the Courts (Reynolds Courts & Media Law Journal)