media

media

Introduction

The representation of law and order in the media has long been the subject of debate. Most people have little direct contact or experience with the criminal justice system and consequently rely on media reports and representations of it to supplement their knowledge. A recent addition to this debate is television coverage of courtroom proceedings, highlighted by disputed media reporting of the OJ Simpson and Louise Woodward trials. Trials such as these have led some commentators to suggest justice has been reduced to voyeuristic entertainment.2

These arguments were revisited when the BBC unsuccessfully argued for television and Internet coverage of the Lockerbie trial.3 However, other trials of international significance have embraced audio visual technology. The international criminal tribunals concerned with the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) and atrocities in Rwanda (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda) are both televised. I recently completed a report for the ICTY on the impact of electronic broadcast coverage of its trials on court participants. I will return to this later but it is important first to briefly outline the principle contentions surrounding the use of cameras in court.4

Arguments supporting the use of cameras in court

(i)Don't shoot the messenger: television as scrutineer

Perhaps the strongest argument for cameras in court is that television opens up the court to public scrutiny. This is often expressed as a logical extension of the First Amendment right of the media and arguably may reduce the likelihood of judicial impropriety and possible injustices. This was posited by the United States Supreme Court in Press-Enterprise v Superior Court (1984):

The value of openness lies in the fact that people not actually attending trials can have confidence that standards of fairness are being observed . . . Openness thus enhances both the basic fairness...