Case law and judicial rules being used in States like Washington, where televised trials are conditionally permissible, are inconsistent and insufficient to meet either the needs of the judicial process and its participants or the needs of the media and the public. Some courts have begun to rely on the qualitative difference test, which recognizes that the presence of cameras at a trial may alter the conduct or outcome of the trial. However, this test does not yet adequately define or provide a substantive standard courts can rely on to make consistent decisions. A well-formulated test should give judges substantive criteria for weighing media requests to televise trials and provide clear standards for deciding appeals by defendants claiming violation of due process rights because of cameras. The qualitative difference test may become a useful standard, but an interdisciplinary (law and social science) approach must establish the criteria for determining what effects are caused by cameras in the courtroom and which of those effects may cause a denial of due process. A total of 61 footnotes are given.