Skip to main content skip navigation
  • Account
    • Login
    • Manage
  • Subscribe
    • JUSTINFO
    • Register
  • Shopping Cart
  • Contact Us
    • Email
    • Feedback
    • Chat
    • Phone or Mail
  • Site Help
National Criminal Justice Reference Service
Office of Justice Programs header with links to bureaus/offices: BJA, BJS, NIJ, OJJDP, OVC, SMART Office of Justice Programs BJA BJS NIJ OJJDP OVC SMART Office of Justice Programs
Advanced Search  Search Help
    Browse By Topics  down arrow
  • A–Z Topics
  • Corrections
  • Courts
  • Crime
  • Crime Prevention
  • Drugs
  • Justice System
  • Juvenile Justice
  • Law Enforcement
  • Victims
CrimeSolutions
Add your conference to our Justice Events calendar
  • ABOUT NCJRS
  • OJP PUBLICATIONS
  • LIBRARY
  • SEARCH Q & A
  • GRANTS & FUNDING
  • JUSTICE EVENTS
Home / Publications / NCJRS Abstract

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

1 record(s) found

 

NCJ Number: 93495 Find in a Library
Title: Media Technology, Fair Trial, and the Citizen's Right to Know
Journal: New York State Bar Journal  Volume:54  Issue:6  Dated:(October 1982)  Pages:364-376
Author(s): P Douglass
Date Published: 1982
Annotation: Despite the general acceptance of cameras as aids in communications, adjudicators have continued to bar them from the courtroom. The legal issue stands on three legs: the 1st amendment (freedom of speech), the 6th amendment (speedy and impartial trial), and the 14th amendment (equal protection under law).
Abstract: In the early part of this century, William Hearst argued that it was the right of the publisher, not the judges, to determine what was to be published. As he spoke, judges in another part of the country tossed his photographers out of their courtrooms and arrested his editors for contempt of court. The circus atmosphere of the 1934 Lindbergh baby trial compelled the American Bar Association to adopt guidelines banning cameras in the courtroom. This was 10 years before the arrival of television as a viable medium. In 1979, the New York State Court of Appeals invited television and press photographers into its sanctum for the first time. The television crews set up their equipment in such a way as not to diminsh or alter the appearance and formality of the courtroom. There was general satisfaction with this experiment. The general assessment was that this was a positive and useful step which should (1) serve the objective of informing the public meaningfully of what transpires in the highest court of the State, (2) create a unique educational tool for those concerned with the law, and (3) demonstrate how cameras might successfully work within the courtroom. While the leading opponent of cameras in the courtroom recommends an immediate moratorium on televised trials to provide time for further study, Florida mediacasters televise proceedings almost daily. A third of the States have already permanently authorized such coverage. Perhaps the strongest argument in favor of televised trials is the fact that television is the principal source of news for more than two-thirds of the American public. The article lists 20 arguments against mediacasting, based primarily on concerns of the effect cameras would have on the trials, the deception and mythology inherent in television, and court precedents. Eleven notes accompany the text.
Index Term(s): Courtroom decorum; Courtroom proceedings broadcasting; Media coverage
Page Count: 6
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=93495

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.




Find in a Library

You have clicked Find in a Library. A title search of WorldCat, the world's largest library network, will start when you click "Continue." Here you will be able to learn if libraries in your community have the document you need. The results will open in a new browser and your NCJRS session will remain active for 30 minutes. Learn More.

You have selected:

This article appears in

In WorldCat, verify that the library you select has the specific journal volume and issue in which the article appears. Learn How.

Continue to WorldCat

You are about to access WorldCat, NCJRS takes no responsibility for and exercises no control over the WorldCat site.

 
Office of Justice Programs Facebook Page  Twitter Page
  • Bureau of Justice Assistance Facebook Page Twitter Page
  • Bureau of Justice Statistics Twitter Page
  • National Institute of Justice Facebook Page Twitter Page
  • Office for Victims of Crime Facebook Page Twitter Page
  • Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Facebook Page Twitter Page
  • Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking Facebook Page Twitter Page
Contact Us | Feedback | Site Map
Freedom of Information Act | Privacy Statement | Legal Policies and Disclaimers
USA.gov | CrimeSolutions
Department of Justice | Office of Justice Programs