AN UNPUBLICIZED REVOLUTION HAS BEEN OCCURRING IN AMERICAN COURTROOMS IN THE PAST FEW YEARS; MANY JUDGES ARE NOW ALLOWING TELEVISION AND RADIO COVERAGE IN THEIR JURISDICTIONS. AS LATE AS THE EARLY 1960'S, ONLY COLORADO AND TEXAS HAD PERMITTED SUCH MEDIA EQUIPMENT IN COURTROOMS. CURRENTLY, 12 STATES GRANT ELECTRONIC MEDIA ACCESS TO LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. MANY JUDGES, HOWEVER, ARE OPPOSED TO THE TREND SINCE THE PRESENCE OF ELECTRONIC PARAPHERNALIA IN THE COURTROOM, INCLUDING THE POSSIBLE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS ON TRIAL PARTICIPANTS, COULD DENY THE DEFENDANT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL. THESE OBJECTIONS STEM FROM PAST PERFORMANCES BY THE MEDIA, OCCURRING AT THE TRIAL OF THE LINDBERGH KIDNAPPER IN 1935 AND DURING THE MURDER TRIAL OF DR. SAM SHEPPARD SOME YEARS LATER. HOWEVER, THE 1970'S HAVE BROUGHT AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE POSSIBLE VALUE OF THE ELECTRONIC MEDIA, ALTHOUGH COVERAGE OF ACTUAL PROCEEDINGS REMAINS STRICTLY CONTROLLED. PROPONENTS OF MEDIA COVERAGE IN THE COURTROOM POINT OUT THAT TECHNOLOGY HAS ADVANCED TO PERMIT BROADCASTS WITHOUT PHYSICAL DISRUPTIONS. IN ADDITION, THE MEDIA ITSELF HAS TAKEN STEPS TO ENSURE PROPER COURTROOM DECORUM; THE JUDGE IN THE WIDELY-PUBLICIZED ZAMORA TRIAL EXPRESSED COMPLETE SATISFACTION WITH MEDIA COVERAGE. PROPONENTS ALSO ARGUE THAT THE DIGNITY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS WILL BE ENHANCED BY PROVIDING AN ACCURATE PORTRAYAL OF THE ROLE OF LAW, LAWYERS, AND THE JUDICIARY THROUGH THE DIRECT-COVERAGE REPRESENTATION. FINALLY, THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PRESENCE OF ELECTRONIC MEDIA CREATES PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERFERENCE IS BASED LARGELY ON THEORIES AND ASSUMPTIONS RATHER THAN ON FACTS; COLORADO HAS OVER 20 YEARS OF SUCCESSFUL EXPERIENCE WITH MEDIA COVERAGE. THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL NEED NOT BE SACRIFICED BY THIS EXERCISE IN FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (LWM)