By By G. Stuart Smith
Television coverage of Hurricane Katrina has been an enlightening experience for many Americans. Government bureaucrats assuring that help was on the way could not pull the wool over the public’s eyes when TV cameras showed the victims’ dire need and illustrated the delays in getting them aid. Americans became far more aware of race and class issues confronting the country, as television captured images of storm victims who were overwhelmingly African American, crowding into shelters, waving for help from rooftops and looting abandoned stores.
The lesson is that good government demands openness. Now it’s time to apply that lesson to the federal courts. Supreme Court Chief Justice nominee John Roberts may just be the one to finally let sunshine into the judicial system. Before Roberts’ confirmation hearing began, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Arlen Specter, said, “I think he may have a little different view about television. He’s a new generation.”
Federal judicial rules do not allow Americans to see or hear their federal courts in operation through the media. An electronic iron curtain is drawn over the proceedings preventing the public from getting a true picture of the judicial process.
But during his confirmation hearing, Judge Roberts hinted that he may be open to allowing cameras and microphones into the courts. Responding to a question about the media being kept from covering the recovery of bodies of Hurricane Katrina victims, Roberts responded: “If it’s a situation in which the public is being given access, you can’t discriminate against the media and say, as a general matter, that the media don’t have access, because their access rights, of course, correspond with those of the public.”
The public has become accustomed to television access to public events over the years. We watched a live TV broadcast of men walking on the moon; broadcast and cable TV carry debates in a myriad of public meetings throughout America; we have even seen live television coverage of the chief justice presiding over President Clinton’s impeachment trial. But we cannot hear and see the eloquent arguments that shape our nation before the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
The federal courts just won’t allow cameras to see and hear what is going on. The Radio Television News Directors Association reports all 50 states allow some type of access for the media’s cameras and microphones, either in the trial courts or at the appellate level. Only the District of Columbia prohibits all camera coverage of trial and appellate courts. But the federal courts still balk at what seems to reasonable people a legitimate request to permit routine coverage of federal judicial proceedings with cameras and tape recorders.
One notable exception was in 2000 when the Supreme Court decided the historic dispute over Florida’s presidential election. The court took the unprecedented step of releasing its own tape recordings of the hearing in Bush v. Gore. If the Supreme Court can tape its own proceedings, what is wrong with the media doing their own recordings-and pictures too?
That is a question I would like to see posed to every nominee to the federal bench.
There is no logical reason for federal judges to continue resisting what has become the norm in state courthouses across the land. Federal judges’ main reason for banning cameras is that they want to maintain decorum. The evidence is that cameras do not disrupt court proceedings. Remember the live broadcast of the 2000 election hearing before the Florida Supreme Court? It was the most civil of all the election debates (that we could see) – a calm, rational discussion of the issues.
Several members of Congress have introduced the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2005. It would allow both district and appellate court judges the discretion to permit the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting or televising to the public of court proceedings over which that judge presides. It would also allow witnesses before the court to request that their voice and face be disguised during their testimony.
Passing that bill would help remove the federal courts’ electronic iron curtain. Indeed, in his confirmation hearing Judge Roberts borrowed a phrase about open government from the late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. “Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” Robertssaid . All nominees coming before the Senate Judiciary Committee should be asked if they support sunshine in the courts – and the same measure of openness that shone a light on bureaucratic snafus that eventually led to a better government response for Hurricane Katrina’s victims.
We are embarking on a new era in the federal judiciary with the nation’s first 21st. Century Supreme Court nominees. The time has come to throw open the doors of our federal courthouses to electronic media coverage and throw off the courts’ 19th. Century standards for media coverage.
G. Stuart Smith is an assistant professor in the journalism, mass media, and public relations department. You may email him at [email protected]