By Scott Libin, The Poynter Institute For Media Studies
Originally printed in the St.Petersburg Times, “Cameras Watch But Don’t Judge,” October 22, 1995
A few years back, there was a basketball shoe commercial featuring acrobatics by Michael Jordan. He leaves the floor at half-court, fakes in four or five different directions and slam-dunks the ball — with a flourish. Then Spike Lee delivers the punch line: “Must be the shoes.”
That spot has been playing over and over in my mind since all the criticism of cameras in court began early in the OJ Simpson trial. Since the verdict, it seems the only thing just about everybody can agree on is that the presence of television at least aggravated and perhaps even created the fiasco the case became.
But those who criticize the effect of cameras in the courtroom are relying on the same logical fallacy that commercial used as a tool of humor: Michael wears Nikes and he’s good, so wearing Nikes must make you good. Essentially, that’s what critics of cameras in court have been saying since the opening act of the theatrics in and around Judge Lance Ito’s courtroom. Let cameras into the courtroom, and see what happens? After all, they say, just look at the Susan Smith case in South Carolina. Now, those folks know how to handle a trial: speedily, with decorum and without TV in the courtroom. Must be the cameras, right?
I happen to think Michael Jordan in almost any footwear could still outmaneuver most mortals on the court, and most of what disgusted so many people about the OJ Simpson case would have happened with or without cameras in court. In fact, it might well have been worse.
Think about it: In the absence of TV’s evil eye, would Judge Lance Ito have presided with the dignity and decisiveness of Solomon? Would Johnnie Cochran have exhibited the meek manners of Mr. Rogers? Would Mark Fuhrman have broken down on the stand and repented for his racist ways?
And, maybe most important: With no camera inside, would the lawyers have cleaned up their act outside the courtroom — where they used the media to try their cases free from the pesky and restrictive rules of evidence?
The Simpson case is hardly typical in any sense, and it doesn’t inspire a dispassionate assessment of the camera’s impact in court. But the Federal Judicial Center did offer just such an assessment early last year, before the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Its study of federal civil trials found that judges and attorneys who had experience with electronic media coverage generally felt the camera’s presence had little or no effect on participants in the proceedings, on courtroom decorum or on the administration of justice. At least 11 state studies have come up with similar findings.
I know of no widely-accepted way to measure the “fairness” of trial outcomes and the influence of cameras on them. But that may not matter. Journalists, judges, lawyers and politicians all know that sometimes what people believe is more important than what really is. And anti-media sentiment really is growing in this country, by just about all accounts. Few people will sympathize with the networks, stations and syndicated programs if their cameras end up evicted from the courtroom.
The backlash has begun. And courts have been quick to capitalize on the swing in public mood. There will be no cameras at the trials of those accused in the killings of singer Selena or little Polly Klaas. Even the second trial of the Menendez brothers (whose first was another of the dozens dubbed “trial of the century”) will be TV-free — at least inside the courtroom. The judge said he was concerned for the dignity of all parties involved.
Comedy writer Russ Myers says with so many judges pulling the plug on TV in the courtroom, he expects ABC’s new trial drama “Murder One” to end the season as a radio series.
The argument I hear most against cameras in court is that they somehow cheapen the proceedings and promote posturing by lawyers. These are very familiar claims. In the late 1970s, people who opposed cameras in Congress argued there would be lawyers in front of the lens there, too, and you couldn’t trust them not to bog down the deliberative process with their posturing. Since the birth of C-SPAN, there certainly has been some political manipulation of the cameras in the House and Senate chambers by whichever party was in charge at the time. Still, most people now seem to think gavel-to-gavel coverage of Congress at least ought to be available, even if few people watch it that way often.
And keep in mind that banning cameras from Congress or from the courts doesn’t ban coverage; it just reduces that coverage to the subjective reports of correspondents. I haven’t heard anybody argue that we should widely curtail in-person access to legislative or judicial proceedings — just that we should restrict what you can see and hear if you can’t be there yourself.
Without cameras in court, then, we would be entirely at the mercy of those organizations that could station a reporter inside each day to dispense his or her version of events afterward. You’d no longer have the option of forming your own opinion based on what you saw and heard for yourself. Well-dressed, well-coifed, usually well-meaning reporters would relieve you of that burden. And those privileged few who could see trials in person might wonder why real life still didn’t match Matlock in drama, dignity and justice for all.
By almost any measure, removing courtroom cameras would leave us less informed about our institutions of justice. Strangely, some people seem to think that would be a good thing.
In her recent column on these pages, Maggie Gallagher says cameras in court threaten not just the fairness of individual trials, but the jury system itself: “If there is one good to come out of this ordeal, it will be the end of television in the courtroom… When everyone has access to the same information, there is no reason to treat the jury’s verdict as definitive, in any but the most narrow legal sense.” True enough: An informed public is sometimes an unhappy public. It’s part of a journalist’s job to share information that is sometimes inconvenient and unsettling, but helps people reach more educated conclusions of their own.
Steven Stark, “popular culture analyst” for National Public Radio’s Weekend Edition, calls television news “a modern extension of vaudeville.” He said after the verdict, “I wouldn’t buy any futures in Court TV right now… I don’t think other judges are going to want to be second-guessed the way (Ito) is now.” Probably not. But do we really want to grant them that protection?
And if you think the camera contributed to the length of the OJ ordeal, remember two other California cases, neither of which had a camera in the courtroom: the Charles Manson murder trial, which went nine months, and the so-called “Hillside Strangler” trial which lasted almost two years.
As the Simpson trial wound down, David Letterman offered his top ten signs that some of those involved were suffering from withdrawal. One of those signs: Judge Ito’s habit of visiting 7-11 stores and threatening to disconnect the security cameras. Good line. But, of course, banishing cameras from courtrooms wouldn’t whip lawyers into line any more than unplugging convenience-store cameras would cut down on holdups.
We just wouldn’t have to watch.
