Dengl 48 Keep Television Out Of Courts

After decades of respite from the notion that courts should be televised, it is reported (iin March 2012) that the UK government intends now to take this step. Some of the reasons for and against such a step are similar now to what they were in the 1980s when broadcasters were trusted to spread knowledge and avoid
sensationalism. Now, increasing pressure from a wider market makes it much more difficult for broadcasters to deliver a public service; and to this difficulty, some other reasons for caution about televising courts should be added.


Bearing the tarnished colours of News International, Sky TV now proposes to take on the good work of hoping to make the public understand and appreciate better the work of the court; they propose to do this not just by reporting what has been going on in courts but by deploying cameras in courts. NI and the Government may hope that this will improve relations between them, but televising the courts is not the best way to do this, not least at a time when NI staff past or present, themselves come before the courts .


A more subtle psychological consideration is that the acts of looking and hearing (broadcasts) are likely to encourage people to think that they have truly understood what they see, and that some court proceedings represent most others. Such interpretations are less likely when one reads, in the press, of events in court, as the role of the reporter there is more evident.


When TV was brought into Parliament it was hoped that the public would know more about and better appreciate the work done for us by MPs, moreover that MPs’ behaviour would be positively influenced and that they would themselves welcome the broadcasting. Though the broadcasting authorities at the time carried out short term research to evaluate these goals, there is little sign of any long term research that reassures society that the broadcasting of Parliament has done better than the print reporting it has largely supplanted. When the Law Lords’ function was removed into a new Supreme Court, there was no plan to assess the move in order to make any improvements in provision, and there appears to be no intention to link an incursion into the criminal or civil courts with any formative research.

The reported proposals seem not to have been well conceived and should be opposed.