Cameras will present us with a better view

The following editorial appeared in The Pantagraph (Bloomington) on Jan. 31:

———

(MCT) — The Illinois Supreme Court’s decision to allow cameras and recorders in state trial-level courts is an overdue change that will provide better public access to and understanding of the judicial system.

It’s not as if this is a new or novel process. Thirty-six other states allow cameras and recorders at trials, and Illinois can look to their experiences in determining what rules should be in place to protect the rights of all involved and keep the devices from being intrusive.

Arguments that such coverage will only result in selective sound bites don’t carry much weight. Current court coverage also involves reporters summarizing the proceedings and using only a few quotations.

Judges should be responsible for ensuring lawyers don’t try to play to the cameras — and they should police themselves against doing the same.

This expanded coverage might even trigger better behavior if attorneys and judges realize their words and actions are being recorded.

The news media also need to act responsibly in using these reporting tools.

As a practical matter, few trials will receive extensive coverage of this type. Only those in which there is significant public interest are likely to attract cameras and recorders, and those would be covered anyway.

What the cameras and recorders will do is provide the public with a more complete look at proceedings which they are entitled to attend. But few people’s schedules allow them to attend trials unless they are directly involved in some way.

Most people’s impressions of what goes on in courtrooms are based on television dramas that have little resemblance to reality. Having cameras will help demystify the legal process, as Jane Foster, McLean County first assistant state’s attorney, and others have said.

For now, this is an experimental project — referred to as “extended media coverage” and the chief judge in each of the state’s 23 circuits will decide whether to participate. Even after a circuit decides to allow such coverage, trial judges will have discretion in determining whether such coverage will be allowed.

The Supreme Court order includes eight pages of extensive rules that, among other things, provide for exclusion of  such coverage during jury selection, evidence suppression hearings and in juvenile, divorce, adoption and child custody cases.