Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, February 12, 1992 TAG: 9202120353
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
TRIAL TRIALS
Q. HOW many Virginians does it take to replace a flashbulb?A. Five - one to actually change the bulb, four to talk about how good the old one was.
Such nostalgic devotion to the way things were seems to be the main reason for Virginia's reluctance to allow TV and still cameras on anything but an experimental basis in a handful of courtrooms.
But, on Sunday, the Senate Courts of Justice Committee broke with the past: Recognizing the success of the experiment, the committee approved a bill to allow courtroom cameras permanently in all parts of the state. The full Senate, and the House of Delegates, should follow the committee's lead.
In 1989, the state Supreme Court issued a negative report on the then-2-year-old test. But as the head of Emory & Henry College's mass-communications department testified last week, that evaluation was based largely on the opinions of judges with no experience with courtroom cameras. In the eight courtrooms (including one in Bedford County) where cameras have been allowed, said Teresa Keller, those involved - court officials, jurors, witnesses - give the idea passing grades.
Which is no surprise. Virginia's hardly a pioneer: Most states now allow courtroom cameras in one form or another. And as is often noted, things have changed since television's infancy. TV cameras are no longer a distracting novelty. In addition, technological advances have made possible the unobtrusive use of TV and still cameras in courtrooms. (No need, for example, for flashbulbs.)
Less often noted, at least with regard to the courtroom-camera issue, is another change: the decline of public confidence in governmental institutions, including the courts.
There's no single cause for that decline, but part of the reason surely is the aura of priestly mystery surrounding the judicial system. The language of the law, often incomprehensible to laymen, is bad enough. The situation is made worse when putatively public proceedings are closed to means - TV and still-photo coverage - by which Americans get much of their information about public events.
Cameras in the courtroom are good for the public; they're also good for the public's courts.
Keywords:
GENERAL ASSEMBLY