“To make entertainment out of real people’s legal troubles is quite sick,” Scalia said. “...I don’t think it is right to make enjoyment out of litigation, civil or criminal.” This is certainly true, but this same argument would apply against print journalism in the courtroom, which sells newspapers based on ‘real people’s legal troubles,’ but which, under, Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, the court acknowledges as absolutely necessary in maintaining a fair and accountable courtroom. Newspapers function, as Richmond acknowledges, work as an effective means through which one can, shortly after, learn of the days events and reporting. Moreover, physical public access to courts is absolutely necessary, the courts deem. In 1984, the justices decided, however, that the gap between print journalism and physical presence and video was such a ‘leap.’

In 2010, from a multimedia perspective, the line between print journalism and video is dramatically blurred. Sites like HuffPo, the New York Times, and The New Yorker, major presences in the online news realm, heavily depend on video for their reporting. People teleconference for their work, substituting the need for physical presence. Whereas in 1984 video was much more difficult, quality video posting is now, rather simple. The distinction between video and journalism, which Scalia makes, is now largely a meaningless one.

Moreover, Scalia’s point that video journalism would only offer highlights is more an argument against journalism as an institution than video - as Richmond recognizes, journalists filter out bits of information to produce a story - which Scalia protests.

From a Bill of Rights standpoint which demands a public’s ability to access court proceedings, I think that video presence is a logical extension in the 21st century. Claims that video would hurt people’s cases and would have negative sideeffects (excluding special circumstances like witness protection) are questionable - people on the stand swear an oath and realize the magnitude of their statements.

Question: What are some modern distinctions between video journalism and print journalism which may alter the role of the two?