Preliminary hearings are underway this week in the case of James Holmes, the man accused of the horrific shootings last year at an Aurora Movie Theater.
National and local media are on the scene, ably reporting on what's going on inside the courtroom. Just one problem: There are no cameras or microphones inside the courtroom. Instead we get reporters telling us about testimony instead of hearing it ourselves. Instead of seeing the testimony, we get "Courtroom Sketches" which are akin to cartoons. Courtrooms aren't artist studios.
In this digital age, it's shameful that "We the people" aren't allowed to watch the legal process. It's OUR process yet our court has decided we're not worthy of watching it. One can assume the judge thinks we're not intelligent enough to observe. It's one of the reasons we as a society know so little about what goes on in courtrooms, instead basing our perception from watching shows like "The Good Wife." (A great drama by the way, but not the real deal)
As a former Board Member of the Radio-Digital-Television News Association, I spent a lot of time fighting for electronic access to our courts, including speaking twice before the National Judicial College. It's a tough sell. To RTDNA's credit, they keeping up the fight.
Think about it. We have cameras taking our picture at stoplights, yet they're banned in far too many courtrooms.
Some say we don't need to see/hear graphic testimony or evidence. Then don't watch. Judges have told me they worry about the trial turning into a circus. For the life of me I can't see how being able to observe the process creates a circus-like atmosphere. It's the judge's job to control the courtroom. Others say having cameras in the courtroom somehow glorifies people like James Holmes. Glorifies how? Then there's the oldest and weakest of excuses, that lawyers will showboat in front of the camera. Part of a lawyer's job is to showboat. If it gets out of hand, then the judge has the power to step in.
But to essentially lock us out of what goes in in our court system? No excuse. None.
In this digital world, there is absolutely no reason video and audio, from cameras that do nothing to distract from the proceedings , could be streamed on the 'Net or on numerous digital channels available. Just one camera and mic, shared pool-style for all reporters but more importantly for us.
These types of stories are rough, I know first-hand from covering the Oklahoma City Bombing Trial. Some of the testimony was horrendous. It was a horrendous act. We're being accused as a society of being desensitized to these types of crimes. That may be, and if true, it's due in no small part to being so insulated from coverage of them.
Ultimately it's our justice system. Not allowing electronic access is in a word, shameful. I find the court out of order and in contempt of the society it supposedly serves.
Brian Olson
Owner/Consultant
Conversation Starters Public Relation
"We start the conversation about you"
National and local media are on the scene, ably reporting on what's going on inside the courtroom. Just one problem: There are no cameras or microphones inside the courtroom. Instead we get reporters telling us about testimony instead of hearing it ourselves. Instead of seeing the testimony, we get "Courtroom Sketches" which are akin to cartoons. Courtrooms aren't artist studios.
In this digital age, it's shameful that "We the people" aren't allowed to watch the legal process. It's OUR process yet our court has decided we're not worthy of watching it. One can assume the judge thinks we're not intelligent enough to observe. It's one of the reasons we as a society know so little about what goes on in courtrooms, instead basing our perception from watching shows like "The Good Wife." (A great drama by the way, but not the real deal)
As a former Board Member of the Radio-Digital-Television News Association, I spent a lot of time fighting for electronic access to our courts, including speaking twice before the National Judicial College. It's a tough sell. To RTDNA's credit, they keeping up the fight.
Think about it. We have cameras taking our picture at stoplights, yet they're banned in far too many courtrooms.
Some say we don't need to see/hear graphic testimony or evidence. Then don't watch. Judges have told me they worry about the trial turning into a circus. For the life of me I can't see how being able to observe the process creates a circus-like atmosphere. It's the judge's job to control the courtroom. Others say having cameras in the courtroom somehow glorifies people like James Holmes. Glorifies how? Then there's the oldest and weakest of excuses, that lawyers will showboat in front of the camera. Part of a lawyer's job is to showboat. If it gets out of hand, then the judge has the power to step in.
But to essentially lock us out of what goes in in our court system? No excuse. None.
In this digital world, there is absolutely no reason video and audio, from cameras that do nothing to distract from the proceedings , could be streamed on the 'Net or on numerous digital channels available. Just one camera and mic, shared pool-style for all reporters but more importantly for us.
These types of stories are rough, I know first-hand from covering the Oklahoma City Bombing Trial. Some of the testimony was horrendous. It was a horrendous act. We're being accused as a society of being desensitized to these types of crimes. That may be, and if true, it's due in no small part to being so insulated from coverage of them.
Ultimately it's our justice system. Not allowing electronic access is in a word, shameful. I find the court out of order and in contempt of the society it supposedly serves.
Brian Olson
Owner/Consultant
Conversation Starters Public Relation
"We start the conversation about you"
No comments:
Post a Comment