The worst fears of opponents of coverage find little support, but there are too many negatives that proponents cannot prove. Mr. Goldfarb decides that support and opposition depend on value judgments that resist scientific assessment. Having reached a Scottish verdict on alleged drawbacks and costs of television coverage, the author decides to detail some benefits from televised trials. Nevertheless, Court TV does exemplify a practically unobtrusive, reasonably objective mode of televising trials that deserves attention. Mr. Goldfarb's account of the creation and development of Court TV is fascinating.
Some early experiences are also instructive.
Having concluded that Court TV viewers need less assistance than Court TV producers had presumed, Mr. Graham let the cameras roll. However, he notes that NBC national legal correspondent and lawyer Carl Stern faults Court TV's tendencies to sensationalize prurient moments, to commodify courtrooms, and to invade participants' privacy. Viewers disposed by other media to believe myths and distortions about courts and the legal system may develop more accurate and sensible impressions by watching trials live, for example. Second, Stephen Brill's passion for getting representative adjudication before the citizenry may be yielding to market pressures as niche networks battle declining audiences by pursuing ratings. In my reading, Mr. Goldfarb advances the following premises in service of his conclusion that courts, like other entities of government, should be open to citizen-viewers.