Courtroom cameras pose problems
Better clear out some space on your DVR.
Starting next month, Pennsylvanians will see and hear proceedings from the state Supreme Court for the first time in history, since until now the court has never allowed oral arguments to be taped — video or audio — or even to be photographed. But starting Sept. 13, the nonprofit network PCN will have cameras recording oral arguments in the state Supreme Court’s Pittsburgh, Harrisburg and Philadelphia courtrooms.
The change only affects the Supreme Court, so don’t expect to see coverage of civil or criminal trials on WPXI or KDKA. Yet the move is notable because many see it as bringing Pennsylvania one step closer to allowing cameras in all state courtrooms. (Currently, Pennsylvania is one of only 15 states that don’t allow some form of audio or video coverage of court proceedings.) And while some may argue that such a move would be a victory for transparency, it’s truly a terrible idea.
Why? I have two words for you: Casey Anthony.
Wait, wait! Before you click away to start typing that harangue; yes, it was terrible that her daughter Caylee was killed. Yes, I understand that you know, just know, that she is guilty. Yes, she’s awful and she partied and didn’t report her daughter missing and yada yada yada.
But the vitriol the case inspired does not return Caylee to life. And worse yet, the quest for justice “for Caylee” was diverted by the presence of cameras in the courtroom — and the amount of attention they garnered. I’m not saying that Casey Anthony was found not guilty because of cameras, but I am saying that they turned the trial into a circus — a travesty of proportions not seen since OJ. The ringleader was cable news (I’m looking at you, Grace), but it wouldn’t have been possible if Florida hadn’t allowed cameras in the courtrooms. (If Florida didn’t allow cameras in the courtroom, I’d stake my retirement that you’d never have heard her name, let alone know every detail of her trial.)
Now, if you find yourself saying, “But wait, Pennsylvania isn’t like Florida because it isn’t allowing coverage of trials like Anthony’s; it’s only televising Supreme Court arguments” then you get a gold star for paying attention. The proceedings that will be televised are more the stuff of C-SPAN than of “Law & Order.” For one thing, there are no witness, evidence or jury. Instead, two attorneys make arguments to try to persuade the seven justices on abstruse points of law. The decision, meanwhile, doesn’t come until possibly months later. Esoteric arguments over minutia of law? Not exactly thrilling television.(I’m nodding off already.)
So, if discussing televising Supreme Court oral arguments alone, it’s hard to find an intrinsic negative. Other than the very real fact that no one — and I mean no one — is going to watch them. (You don’t have a lot of C-SPAN reruns burning up space on your DVR, do you?)
Rather, the real issue lies in the fact that televising the state Supreme Court increases the likelihood that down the road Pennsylvania begins to allow cameras into criminal courtrooms. This is where Casey Anthony comes in, which is fitting since the Anthony trial was a lesson in the difference between proving guilt and “feeling” it. The judicial system is designed this way for a reason, because it is more important that 10 guilty men (or women) go free than one innocent be wrongly convicted. (That is unless you’re Rick Perry. Google: the article “Trial by Fire” by David Grann.) So similarly, I would rather have all the state’s trials camera-free than risk our state hosting a perverse spectacle like the Anthony trial.
Despite what proponents of real-life Court TV might argue about educational benefits, there’s just nothing to gain from televising the judicial system. (And if you buy the education line, take a look at how the other two branches of government have devolved to fit the soundbite-driven nature and short attention span of television.)
A trial — full of nuance and details — is particularly ill-suited for the ugly glare of television cameras, which specialize in stirring emotions (see, again: Anthony, Casey) and chopping the most complex issue into talking points (see: debate, Health care, gay marriage, et al.).
What you’re left with is essentially the Anthony fallout, which pitted the reasoned and careful deliberation of the jurors against the highlights and “analysis” of Nancy Grace and her ilk. (And, obviously, the people watching Nancy Grace at home know more about the case than the jurors who sat through the whole trial.)
Of course, being against opening the court is counter to the journalism party line, which seeks openness and access whenever and wherever possible. And yes, it is true that in most cases the government better serves the public when it is accountable to that public. This is often summed up, using journalism parlance, as “sunshine is the most effective disinfectant.” (Personally, I’ve found those Clorox wipes to be the best.)
But the judicial system does not need cameras to be open. That is already accomplished by the newspapers that cover the courts better than television reporters ever could. Allowing cameras in the courtroom has proven to be a destructive force — and Pennsylvania would be wise to not welcome them beyond the highest court.
If you said “bah bum” in your head after reading the name “Law & Order,” you’re not alone. Brandon Szuminsky can be reached at bszuminsky@heraldstandard.com.