Panelists debate cameras in courts

That was one of the topics as lawyers, judges and journalists gathered to discuss media law issues.

By GRAHAM BRINK, Times Staff Writer
© St. Petersburg Times
published June 1, 2002

TAMPA -- Should news cameras be allowed into federal courts? Did the events of Sept. 11 have any impact on the day-to-day proceedings of the system? Should the media have more or less access to information about federal investigations?

Those were some of the questions bantered about Friday by 16 lawyers, judges and journalists from the Middle District of Florida during a panel discussion hosted by Greta Van Susteren of the Fox News Channel. The two-hour discussion of media law issues was part of a larger law conference in Tampa.

The goal was to foster a greater understanding of the roles the media, the judiciary and lawyers play in the system and perhaps find ways to improve their interaction.

Much of the discussion centered on cameras in the courtroom. In many cases in state court, both television and newspaper cameras are allowed to record the proceedings. The same is not true for federal courts, where cameras are essentially verboten.

In a break from those rules, local television news crews were allowed to tape the panel discussion, which was held at the federal courthouse in Tampa. Panelists from Jacksonville, Orlando and Fort Myers tied in via video links.

For the most part, the panelists were in favor of allowing cameras into courtrooms, at least in a limited capacity or under the discretion of the judge presiding over the case. Most agreed that federal cases would receive much more coverage if cameras were allowed.

Under current conditions, local television reporters cover only the most high-profile federal cases, often using video of the main players as they walk into and out of the courthouse. The day-to-day coverage falls to newspapers.

Panelist Chris O'Connell of Bay News 9 equated banning cameras to forcing a newspaper reporter to cover a trial without a pen.

Some of the panelists thought that allowing the use of cameras would help educate viewers about court procedures and lift the cloak of secrecy that is often perceived to hang over federal court.

Federal Judge Susan Bucklew said that during her earlier tenure as a state judge, she didn't think cameras adversely affected the process. She said there are ways to accommodate apprehensive witnesses or jurors.

Van Susteren moved the conversation through several topics, at times battling technical difficulties with the audio and video feeds. The discourse was conversational, with only a few tough exchanges.

Defense attorney George Tragos, a former federal prosecutor, challenged some of the journalists who suggested that the sparse information doled out during high-profile investigations -- terrorism-related investigations, in particular -- often leads to errant speculation. The release of more information, the journalists said, would lead to more accurate reporting.

Tragos said it was wrong to blame prosecutors, who can't be expected to jeopardize investigations simply to keep the media from speculating on what they are doing.

The media "are the ones who ran out and did those stories," Tragos said. "Whose fault is that?"

-- Graham Brink can be reached at 226-3365 or brink@sptimes.com.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright