Self Analysis: Looking Back

I decided on my topic for the blog while watching Paradise Lost as I saw the appalling ways in which the families and defendants acted in front of the cameras. At that moment I realized if people distort their actions outside the courtroom then it is even more distressing how their demeanors change inside the courtroom. I initially believed the media had little or no good influence on our courts and intended to examine its impact on the judicial system as a whole. However, as I researched further, the topic began to get broader and broader with numerous arguments—influence on the jury, impact of pretrial press, effect on individual court cases (O.J. Simpson, West Memphis, Duke Lacrosse). I decided to concentrate the issue that intrigued me in the first place: cameras in the courtroom. Originally I believed the issue of the media interfering with the courts was a fairly new dilemma that emerged due to the expansion of technology. I was very surprised to learn that the media has always intervened in the justice system only now it has a new medium— camera—to do so.

I admit I began this blog with my own preliminary opinions, but since then I have become more aware of the many positives of taping court proceedings. Although my attitude on the issue has not changed, I better understand both sides of the argument. My notion of the media being completely harmful has changed; I realized the media plays a critical in the judicial system because it not only informs but entices an apathetic public to oversee and understand the courts. America has a tendency to only focus on the sensationalized and therefore misconstrues how the court system really works. Bringing cameras inside courtrooms can rid the public of its ignorance; however, when I asked myself which is more important—informing the public or allowing a fair trial—I knew my position was to oppose cameras. In my opinion, there is a very fine line between news and entertainment. There is no assurance that reporters and journalists will not distort trial tapes to promote biased entertainment histrionics. For myself, I came to the compromise: media access is critical and should be allowed, but cameras should not. Also for those who advocate using these tapings as a learning tool for prospective lawyers, I have two words: open trial. If a law student wants to learn about court proceedings then sitting in a real life court will provide a better sense of the courts than any tape. The most controversial issue I came across was the conflict between allowing the media its 1^st amendment right to freedom of the press and ensuring defendants their 6^th amendment right of a fair trial. There is no denying that cameras can influence people to act differently and in a trial where every movement or expression can alter the jury's decision, I am not willing to risk another person’s life in order to generate news. I agree that public has an inalienable right to know what goes on in a courtroom, but in my opinion, a journalist with a pen and paper has the same capacity to report as much with a camera. If the public were truly enticed by the actual proceedings and wanted a firsthand look, I would welcome them to go to the courts themselves.

In most or even all my blogs up until now I have been so focused on the tug-of-war between the media and the courts that even I forgot what the cases I mentioned were truly about. In all the cases I referenced, people were beaten, raped, killed, or all the above, but by creating spectacles out of courtrooms, the public forgets that trials are meant to attain justice for the victim not as entertainment. The media’s role as a watchdog over the justice system is an invaluable means that should never be jeopardized, but by allowing cameras in courtrooms, we concede them to be but a parody of the justice system outlined in our constitution.