In this week's readings, I find CNN's discussion surrounding the Westmoreland v. CBS case very interesting. Sure, the Sixth Amendment assures that individuals are given a right to a trial along with other provisions promised under the text, but do other individuals have the right to view and attend the trial, and how far does this right extend? How public are these trials allowed to be?

CNN argued that it has a right to film federal trials because a) the trials are an area of public forum and b) the public should have the ability to see and hear the trial as it is occurring. CNN further argues that these rights are secured by the First Amendment. Having read the case of Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, I wonder first of all if newspapers and television broadcasts can be considered synonymous or extensions of the other. Both record news, but television broadcasts have the ability to play things back precisely and in real time, whereas the newspaper goes through the filter of the writer. What bothers me about this decision is that there doesn't seem to be a clear enough distinction between why a newspaper reporter is okay to be allowed into a courtroom whereas a television reporter is not. Both mediums have the ability to affect the same amount of people, one through text and one through audio-visual, and I believe that both have the ability to create sensation around a particular case, which is usually an argument used by judges and defenders against filming a case. What I see to be a main difference between these two mediums is the idea of media control and memory. If a trial is being broadcast in real time, there is essentially no control of audience and citizen reaction to the trial; it happens right as the trial happens and there is no filter or guidance of opinion. The trial is depicted and remembered as it plays out, and there is no dependence on another source's opinions and perspective to guide the reactions (as would happen more easily with newspapers). The courts should decide whether these opinions of the public as generated by the broadcast of the trial will in any way greatly affect the proceedings of the case more than the opinions of the public as generated by newspapers are able. I believe that the full broadcast of trials have the ability to negatively affect the proceedings. In addition, I believe that instead of "enhancing the quality and safeguarding the integrity of the factfinding process," broadcasting has the dangerous ability to turn witness testimonies into performances and show trials (i.e. the trial of Michael Jackson). Although I initially did not agree with the decision of this case, I currently see that in spite of fact that the transition into live broadcasts of trials may be inevitable, more thinking and discussion needs to go into allowing broadcasters full reign to record trials.