Essay 2.3(No to Court TV)

Since I was a little girl in kindergarten, quoting the Pledge of Allegiance has been a daily routine. The last few words of the Pledge of Allegiance, “and justice for all”, portrays a huge goal in the American culture. While we strive to continue to display this goal, we have a current issue of if broadcasting cases in the courtroom on TV is interfering with the justice that our citizens are eligible for. I myself want everyone to get the justice that they deserve. I have always felt that anything that is portrayed to be real life or actuality on TV is very unreal. A court case would be more justified in just the privacy of the courtroom; those that are involved in the trial are the ones that need to understand the information that is being presented in the court. There are a variety of good reasons that support the statement, court cases should not be televised for the public to view.

Whenever someone sits in front of a television; man, woman, boy, girl, the young, and the old they are viewing the broadcast mainly for entertainment. It is possible that the entertainment can be interpreted differently, depending on the knowledge of that person. With that thought, I can understand that cameras in the courtrooms can have a positive effect on Americans, but I simply do not agree. An editorial in the March 13, 2010 edition of the New York Times titled “Your Reality TV” states, “Cameras in the court would allow Americans to see for themselves how an extremely powerful part of their government works” (“Your Reality TV” par 3). It’s possible that knowledge can be gained from viewing court cases on TV, but I kind of see it differently.

The publicity placed on a court case seems more like fake politics to me, I would just take it in as pure entertainment. The court case would lack the sense of fairness. Douglas Lee wrote an article that talks about Oklahoma laws and says, “Television coverage, the court said, threatens ‘the atmosphere essential to the preservation of a fair 'public' trial – the most fundamental of all freedoms" (Lee par 2). We are all humans, and when we are put on the spotlight or are in front of a camera we have a tendency to pretend and be deceiving. We automatically set a fake atmosphere because we feel that our image is very important, and we can’t mess it up in front of an audience of people, it’s just our nature. So, I feel that it is not a good idea to televise these cases because I can predict society uproars and chaos due to them.

What will the citizens of other countries think of Americans? Do we have to televise everything? In 1965 the case Estes v. Texas stated that media is allowed in the court room; but items like typewriters, presses, or other tools of transmitting the story are not allowed to be brought in by reporters (“First Amendment Research Information” par 4). I feel that it should be the opposite thing, the media shouldn’t be allowed in the court room. Now that we know what is and isn’t allowed in the court room, I feel that we should know why the media is actually allowed in the court room, and the purpose it serves. I rather get justice in the courts; we don’t need the entertainment factor in this situation. An article in the New York Times states that, “One of the main arguments against cameras in the courtroom is that they would sensationalize trials” (“Cameras in the Courts” par 4) Do we feel it will be necessary to televise court cases so we can keep an eye on our government system?

Shows like Judge Judy, People’s Court and Judge Joe Brown are definite examples that court cases on TV are not taken seriously, and just used for entertainment. Are those cases real or are they staged? These cases seem like a huge ongoing advertisement of reality TV. In an article titled “Please Adjust Your Signal: How Television’s Syndicated Courtrooms Bias Our Juror Citizenry” written by Kimberlianne Podlas in the American Business Law Journal, she states that these court shows have “a negative effect, diminishing respect for the justice system and perverting understanding of the law” (Podlas par 1). If we as a society view these court cases at first, they will set the stage for how we view other, even actual court cases that are televised. Are those cases able to help Americans gain knowledge of their government? In another New York Times article, Judge Kozinski says that allowing cameras in the court rooms is “an ‘experiment’ that is designed to help us find the right balance between the public's right to access to the courts and the parties' right to a fair and dignified proceeding''( Schwartz par 2). So we see that even a judge is a little rocky on the decision of having cameras in a court room.

I’m pretty aware that cameras probably will not be completely banned from all court cases. Even for those people that believe that cameras should be allowed in the court rooms, we can all agree that a limit on the type of court cases televised should be put in place. I think that Christo Lassiter’s scholarly article, “TV or Not TV”, explains the proposed court case limitation the best. The article simply states that cases such as criminal and civil cases should not me taped to be television broadcasted (Lassiter par 5). This limitation came about because of the perhaps involvement of juvenile, disabled and the mentally challenged hearings. There also needs to be no cameras in the courtroom when there is an absence of consent by a participant at trial (Lassiter par 8). The trial would be unfair to those involved if they were not given their right to deny the use of the cameras at their own hearing. An understanding has been reached; it’s acceptable to the parties for and against the issue to put limitations on the televising of court cases.

I can see that televising court cases can be educational for youth, used as examples in history or government classes’ to be a visual aid for students. I myself am a visual learner, and many other students are as well. I find it important to use all the different skills and ways of learning in the classroom. There is a positive side to using televised court cases for educational purposes, it can help in with “providing some degree of legal literacy” (Podlas par 1). It will be okay that the reason for recording important court cases is for proper educational usage. I also feel that if government court cases are televised that the media will go hay wire and blow stories out of proportion. Things will only be based on what is seen in the court room, and not what is heard or said.

Televising these court cases is pretty understandable, but there is no necessity in the situation. I have not found a legit reason to televise any court cases. The only thing I can find is the excuse that it is part of our freedom of speech. We can watch actual reality TV to get our entertainment.

Works Citied
“ Cameras in the Courts.” New York Times. 15 May 2007. Web. 14 March 2010.

First Amendment Research Information. Illinois First Amendment Center, 2010. Web. 14 March 2010.

Lassiter, Christo. “TV or Not TV-Statutory Appendix.” Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Vol. 86 Issue 3 (1996): 1005-1013.Web

Lee, Douglas. Oklahoma Court Makes Dubious Assumptions about Cameras in Court. Freedom Forum, 29 June 2000. Web. 14 March 2010.

Podlas, Kimberlianne. “Please Adjust Your Signal: How Television’s Syndicated Courtrooms Bias Our Juror Citizenry.” American Business Law Journal. Vol. 39 (2001): 1. Web

Schwartz, John. “Ninth Circuit to Test Use of Cameras in Civil Cases.” New York Times. 19 December 2009. Web. 14 March 2010.

“Your Reality TV.” New York Times. 13 March 2010. Web. 14 March 2010.