Video Journalism and "Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia"

In Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that the right of the public and press to attend trials is guaranteed under the First and Fourth Amendments. The Court relied heavily on the importance of allowing public access to trials, and the well-established historical legacy of this value, dating back well before the United States even existed. The Court held that it was vital to keep the doors of the courtroom open, so that justice would not be “done in a corner or in a covert manner.”

However, in Westmoreland v. CBS, the 2^nd Circuit ruled that the right for the public and press to attend a trial is not the same as the right to see a trial televised. Despite the varied benefits of video coverage, which include the ability to provide a convenient and vivid representation of actual court proceedings, and a potentially drastic increased range of access to proceedings for everyday Americans, the court found that cameras need not be allowed into the courtroom.

This case, along with similar denials of camera access to courts at the state and federal level, is largely inconsistent with the Court’s ruling in Richmond. Although the medium in question has changed from pens and paper to cameras, the mission of journalists remains the same. Just as newspaper writers serve as both reporters and watchdogs, video journalists have the same potential to simultaneously disseminate information and keep a watchful eye on the justice system. Nevertheless, many courts have drawn a distinction, which seems somewhat arbitrary and artificial, between print journalism and video journalism.

Justices suggest that allowing cameras into the courtroom will give the public a skewed perception of the true manner of proceedings, as people will never watch the entire trial, but rather only highlights. But they fail to establish how video journalism differs in any meaningful way (in this respect) from print journalism. After all, the courts allow print journalists into the courtroom, even though they only highlight the most important, interesting, and relevant aspects of cases in their stories. How is selective video editing materially different from writing a story? As mentioned above, the Court ruled in Richmond that allowing the press into the courtroom is important because of the valuable and necessary service they provide to the public. Video journalists can provide the same service, simply in a different medium.

Furthermore, as long as courtroom dramas and other highly unrealistic legal shows remain on television, it seems fairly obvious that the public will not have an accurate view of court proceedings, which will only to be corrupted by misleading video footage. Rather, any actual footage from court proceedings, dry as it may be, will likely only reveal some of the realities of the justice system. If judges really feel so strongly that the public must have an accurate perception of the legal system, restricting camera access hardly seems to be the most effective means of accomplishing this goal.

In Richmond, the Court allowed full access to print journalists. It did not require them to only record verbatim the entire transcript of the trial, but rather allowed journalists to do their job and report the workings of the justice system to the American people. The greater goals of the First Amendment, as well as the justice system in general, will only be fully served when this right is properly extended to video journalists as well as print reporters in all federal and state courts.