Reporting sensational trials: Free press,a responsible press,and cameras in the courts

It is common today to criticize the media for the way in which they report sensational trials. Lawyers often join in this criticism, claiming that the portrayals harm their public image. This article examines such complaints and demonstrates that including cameras in the courts need not lengthen a criminal trial, nor substantially affect the judicial process. Using the O.J. Simpson criminal case as a backdrop, the article shows how delays in that case were caused not by cameras, but by the judge's inconsistent rulings that signaled to the defense lawyers that they were under a different and more lenient standard than the prosecutors. Surveys of American judges show that those who have experienced cameras in their own courtroom have come to the conclusion that such media coverage does not impede justice, aids the public in understanding the judicial process and has little effect on American's perceptions of lawyers. Those judges who have the urge to play to the cameras should ban them, but if they do not, the blame lies with them and not the media, which simply report what is happening.