Should we allow the News Media into court rooms? Its a simple question to ask. But answering it is definitely not an easy task. Personally I do think that they should be allowed as it promotes transparency in our justice system. However it also allows the media to spin things towards an agenda that they want especially since they know that most people won't watch the trials. Or some people will but only part of the trial.
I was initially opposed to the cameras being in the court room for the OJ trial, as the worst predictions about it came to pass, primarily the attorneys and judge playing up the media attention. But that was well over 25 years ago and I think it is silly not to have that level of transparency.
As a part of justice reform I once considered saying no to allowing the media into the courtroom. The idea behind it is much the same as the reason that kids names are not given out to the media. Privacy and so as not to ruin their lives should they be acquitted. Perhaps a compromise could be made with this? Right now the media is forbidden from recording the jury and giving out the names of jurors. Perhaps the same can be done for the Defendant. Forbid the media from giving out the name or recording the Defendant or giving out personal details. Should the Defendant be found guilty then all of that can be released. If acquitted then it would be up to the Defendant if the media is allowed to report such. Note that this could only be applied to private citizens. Note: celebrities or politicians or anyone else that has put themselves in the public eye prior to whatever incident they are involved in could be reported in full. While in the courtroom the Defendant's name would not be allowed to be used. They could only be called "Defendant". The media would also be forbidden from airing any sort of identifying features. For example if interviewing a witness names and skin color would not be allowed to be said. If a family member of the possible victim or defendant wants to be interviewed they are hidden from camera and names not allowed. I think that this would actually have an effect on the discourse that the media has and therefore the Country at large has. For example they would no longer be able to try and make a case about race because no one would know the race of the defendant. They would have to report on the actual facts. Making such cases far less political. That would, imo, create far less division. Note: all of the above would apply to the victim also.
I voted no, but I think absolute transparency is critical to public confidence in the justice system. I also think that the public has an absolute right to know how public servants discharge their duties. So, I do not think LIVE coverage by news media should be allowed. Instead, all proceedings should be recorded, and AFTER the trial has concluded, should be released as public record.
They aren't allowing the media into the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, nor will they give the media any details of said trial. I'll give you two guesses as to why, but you're only going to need one...
Whoa whoa whoa...who said anything about taping the jury? I don't know what you're doing, but I was under the impression you were talking about Federal Trials being taped/broadcast. Full stop. The rest of this sounds like your personal bias projecting.
Before the Rittenhouse trial, I was of the opinion that all court procedings should be televised to ensure transparency and accountability in the justice system. But after seeing how the lawyers attempt to use public opinion to their advatage by playing to the camera, now Im not so sure. I still think all court procedings should be video recorded and made public after a verdict and sentencing are carried out, but it should be up to the accused whether the trial is televised live or not.
Absolutely! It would go a long ways to dismantling this whole red team/blue team mentality to every godamn thing that runs by the courts.
Don't think you understood me. I said that we should apply the same reasoning to not tape juries to defendants and victims. IE: don't allow any recording of them. Try reading what I said again with this in mind.
That's already the case. You can't film them, courtroom sketch artists can't draw their faces, and their names cannot be released. No change is needed there.
She's still alive??? Guess some heavy-duty pretrial "deals" have been cut on her behalf. As to the threads premise, BIG, FAT NOOOO!!! The "media" has proven itself too politized to report on a man biting a dog, much less a high-profile trial.
And I'm operating under the belief that any criminal or civil trial is open to the public dependent only on courtroom seating capacity, hence no need to address defendants or victims any differently than they are now.
As long as they don't interrupt it, there should be no reason not to have media in the courtroom. If there is limited space, preference should be given to local news media - first those without national affiliation.
Or handle it like C-Span, with permanent camera emplacements, all networks have a common feed, and the judge has the cutoff switch and a minimum 60 second delay.