What about cameras in the courtroom?
the true crime that's worth your time
“The broadcast of the OJ Simpson murder trial was a formative moment for me,” I heard myself say the other day. Setting aside what a choad I sound like when I say stuff like that, it’s also kind of not true. As a person with a day job in a Midwestern time zone in 1994, it’s not like I sat glued to the TV watching the proceedings all day, every day. But I did guzzle down all the cable news on our workplace TV during the lunch hour, and in the evenings after I came home from work. Ah, 1994, when only Zack Morris had a cell phone and the only computer with online access in my vicinity was the one my roommate used to find hookups via AOL.
It goes without saying that it’s way easier to watch moment-by-moment coverage of a trial now, assuming the judge (and a local municipality) allows it. We certainly saw that last summer, when the libel trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard was on everyone’s screens. (There’s a Channel 4 docuseries called Depp v. Heard that arrives in the U.S. via Netflix on August 16; I’m writing about it under embargo so will only say that it covers that case’s TV/online ubiquity in a way that prompted this thread.)
With that case, the coverage wrap-ups and commentary were far wider-ranging than what we saw with OJ, as TikTok and YouTube have (to put it kindly) democratized punditry. The number of people who seemed to have time to watch and comment, live, during the days-long court proceedings made me wonder if anyone has a job anymore or what. And that was just a libel case between two actors.
Former president Donald Trump’s lawyer said yesterday that he hoped that his client’s trial for allegedly plotting to overturn the 2020 election would be televised. House Democrats want another trial Trump will face, this time regarding allegations over classified documents, to be televised, too. News orgs are pushing for the right to broadcast when he appears in federal court, as well (there’s a blanket law that currently prohibits cameras in federal courtrooms), citing the trial’s importance to our democracy.
The argument there is that people should be able to see what’s happening as it happens, not consume the news filtered by news outlets. But after witnessing, last year, how online commentators with vast followings and reaaaaal crazy axes to grind seemed to take over the narrative of the Depp/Heard day to day, I am starting to wonder if this “people will do their own research” belief gives the American public too much credit.
Given the rampant and unchecked spread of misinformation via social media, does televising a loaded trial cause more problems than it solves? Or is it an important — and still valuable — to allow people to see our justice system in action? Finally, are there recent trials you wish had been televised, either to scratch your own true crime itch or for the greater good? As I struggle through my Depp v. Heard piece, I’d love to hear your thoughts. — EB