Are all televised trials ‘created equal?’

The arguments this week leave me with a central question that I have not yet answered: are all televised trials created equal in content and form? My preliminary answer is 'no'—the type of broadcasting, subject, etc, all make a huge difference.

Arguments for televised trials juxtapose its supposed advantages—namely public education about the judicial process, restoration of public confidence in the courts, and crime deterrence—against its potential disadvantages—namely public embarrassment of defendants and prejudice stirred by publicity.

There is merit to both sides of the argument.

In some sense, televising all trials is not a risk since ubiquitous information raises the costs of locating useful information and decreases the value of information. Take Google, for example: even though all of us might be “Googled” in order to find more about our backgrounds, the sheer scale of information means that most of it is not looked at. And so, cases and defendants who are televised may be forgotten quickly.

On the other hand, however, recall of information may reinforce negative public attitudes toward televised trials. Some evidence suggests that such coverage may stimulate retributive attitudes concerning punishment, which would undermine the notion of true “justice.” And so, televising trials may increase the potential public harm.

While both of these sides present interesting general arguments, my central qualm is that I think the impact of television differs greatly between cases. Does televising the trial of O.J. Simpson have an equal and/or similar impact as televising the trial of Eric Heimark? Probably not. Does televising a trial in full vs. only televising excerpts create a unique impact? Of course. Imagine, for instance, that, when televising, CNN only ever showed the verdict but never the actual trial or only ever showed the prosecutor’s arguments but never the defendant’s arguments. That societal value/impact is very different than showing gavel-to-gavel the entire trial. Nevertheless, very few research studies or surveys of the issue seem to scientifically evaluate these questions.

I therefore hope that before we evaluate which side of the argument has upper hand we see dedicated research studies that seek to determine the social impact of different types of broadcasts and framing the subject of the broadcast. Such studies might help us make a better informed decision about which arguments are more compelling.