|
|
 |
|
[ The Video Agenda ]
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
Do we really need Supreme Court cameras?
|
|
by Mark J. Pescatore
|
We have a new chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. So where does he stand on cameras in the courtroom, and when can we expect C-SPAN-like coverage on a cable system near you?
The 50-year-old John G. Roberts, Jr. could potentially lead the court for decades; after all, the current court has one member who took his seat in 1975, and none of the other justices has been on the Supreme Court for less than 11 years. In October, RTNDA president Barbara Cochran wrote a letter to the new chief justice to ask for radio and television coverage of the Supreme Court's proceedings.
"Just as the public is given meaningful access to an overwhelming number of state courts through audiovisual coverage, it should be given meaningful access to the arguments made before this Court, many of which involve profound social, political and legal issues," she wrote.
The idea of cameras in the Supreme Court is not entirely without precedent. Cameras are already used in courtrooms across the country. Plus, remember the 2000 presidential election? As a native Floridian, I try not to bring up such bad memories (thankfully, I was living and voting in North Carolina at the time, so keep your hanging chad comments to yourself), but it wound up being a colossal legal mess.
Recounts eventually showed that George W. Bush won the popular vote in Florida, but at the time of the election, the Supreme Court had to step in and make a legal decision. Later, Chief Justice William Rehnquist (who died earlier this year and was replaced by Roberts) released the audio tapes of the oral arguments from Bush v. Gore. Granted, it was an audio record, not video, but it was a start.
Cochran wants sharing of audio tapes to be standard operating procedure for the Supreme Court (Roberts has already agreed to release audio records from a couple of recent cases), but added that "meaningful access necessarily means televised proceedings" to today's media-savvy public.
"While both print and electronic media fulfill that important surrogate role, only television has the ability to provide the public with a close visual and aural approximation of actually witnessing judicial proceedings without physical attendance," she argued. "When electronic coverage is banned, the public is forced to depend on secondhand accounts filtered by the perceptions of reporters, which necessarily limits their understanding of the judicial process."
Roberts responded to Cochran, noting that he would work with the RTNDA "if the Court explores the idea of opening its proceedings to electronic coverage." Cochran called the response a "positive sign." I call it a very diplomatically worded "no."
Despite the release of audio tapes, despite Roberts not completely dismissing the RTNDA, even despite support in Congress for allowing cameras in the Supreme Court -- bi-partisan support, no less -- I don't think we're going to see cameras in the Supreme Court anytime soon.
Is that such a bad thing?
I know, I know, I'm a journalist. It is my solemn duty to scream "First Amendment" at every passerby, which can get quite tiring during the holiday shopping season. But to be fair, I'm not convinced that we truly need cameras in the Supreme Court.
Is the increased media exposure really necessary? In a society so entranced by celebrity, must we throw members of the Supreme Court into the mix? Am I the only one who remembers the Dancing Itos?
Mind you, I'm reasonably sure that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg isn't going to be the center of a topless photo controversy with the paparazzi. But you never know. It's bad enough that the likenesses of our presidents appear on greeting cards and Halloween masks -- I'm not sure I'm comfortable with making these nine public figures more public.
While it is the highest court in the land, there is a certain level of anonymity that goes with the job. After all, can you name all the justices in the Supreme Court? Roberts and Ginsberg are easy, of course, but who are the other seven? Will you remember Roberts in five years? (For the record, the rest of the court includes Stephen G. Breyer, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, David Hackett Souter, John Paul Stevens, and Clarence Thomas.)
It's pretty obvious that the Supreme Court is not and has never been in a rush to kick on the fresnels and power up the cameras. Seems like these public servants are more interested in the law than the limelight. Maybe we should keep it that way.
Mark J. Pescatore is the editor. Contact him at mpescatore@cmp.com.
|
|
|
Government Video is part of the NewBay Media Community
copyright 2007© NewBay Media LLC.
810 Seventh Avenue, 27th Floor New York, NY 10019 T (212)378-0400 F (212)378-2160
|
|
|
