I think people are much more likely to access a video than they are an audio.
I guess I look at it from the point of view of the citizen-- we should have the right to see the way our government works and be able to take advantage of the technology that makes it accessible to more people. We already get artist drawings and sound bite coverage as things are, so I’m not sure how having an actual video with the sound bite would be any different, other than getting more people interested in watching it. And that is a good thing, even if it doesn’t work out the way you or I may like it to. That’s the risk of democracy.
And what principle does that serve? The information is out there, it’s just without pictures. What is the relevance of moving pictures to the foundations of our democracy?
Again, the information is free and accessible, it just isn’t in video format. And just because much government information is available – getting documents through the Government Printing Office or FOIA – doesn’t mean that there’s an obligation for the government to make video available. “Oh, these big long budget documents are so boring to read – why can’t the Office of Management and Budget webcast all its meetings to decide what programs are going to get funded?”
Again, I’m just not quite understanding why video is important, other than it appeals to short attention spans.
The Supreme Court of Canada has televised its proceedings for at least 14 years. The first time it did so was in 1981, 30 years ago, for the decision in the Patriation Reference, one of the most important court cases in Canada’s history. The video plays, uncut and without commentary, on CPAC (our version of C-SPAN, I think), usually at ungodly hours of the late evening or early morning. The video is available to the media.
The Court has now moved past delayed lapse television and has a live streaming media feed. Anyone who’s interested and has a computer can watch the SCC hearings live. Once the hearing is over, the webcast is archived and is available a few days later: Supreme Court of Canada - Webcasts.
Lawyers who have appeared in the Court simply ignore the cameras - they’re focussed on persuading the judges and responding to their questions, not on mugging for the camera. The main concern appears to be that if you’re in the row directly behind the podium, you might be on camera even if you’re not speaking, so you have to assume you’re being broadcast at any time.
So far, Confederation has not fallen apart, nor are cats and dogs mating unnaturally. I’m not convinced by the cries of terror from the judges of the SCOTUS.
(Bolding mine). That is scandalous. What has the world come to if a young lawyer cannot sleep through arguments of Senile errr Senior Counsel.
How was it received in Canada by the Bench and Bar if I may ask? Speaking for myself, I just find myself reflexively against the idea, even though I agree that after the novelty has worn off, its going to elicit very little interest. Whenever I hear about TV cameras in other Jurisdictions, everyone point to the OJ Trial and that is the argument ender.
You could say the same thing about audio. Who needs to hear it – we have transcripts!
Who needs transcripts? We have the decision and the written opinions!
Here’s why. Video adds more information. It represents, better than audio or transcripts alone, the procedures used to make the law in this land. It reproduces the experience of an observer the best we can. Maybe even better, since cameras can use closeups not available to a naked-eye observer.
If the visual aspect is not important to an observer, why doesn’t the court put a curtain between the action and the spectators?
The people do not need to prove themselves worthy of seeing “moving pictures” of our government. The default situation should be openness unless there is a compelling reason (like national security) for it to be otherwise.
Is it fallacious reasoning day at the Straight Dope? Or is it one of those sales, “Buy any two slippery slope arguments, get a begging the question at absolutely no cost!”
Like I said before, I have trouble putting my finger on why televised coverage would be a good thing. Even though Musicat’s point about TV providing good closeups makes me laugh – I mean really, what the hell does that have to do with anything substantive – there is a decent point buried in there about filming being a useful historical documentation of important events.
However, let’s look at Congress. Both houses have been televised since the mid-1980s, and it’s hard to imagine why Congress should not be televised. The representatives are directly elected by the people, should be accountable to the people, and the public has a compelling interest in seeing the debates in order to apply pressure to their elected representatives.
However, I think many people would also recognize that the quality of the work done by Congress has declined. The floors of each house are virtually empty all the time. There is no debate, there’s only manufactured speeches that are too often meant to feed the red meat to the frenzied media news cycle. I think that’s contributed in some measure to Congress, and the country, becoming more divided. Perhaps that’s a reasonable trade-off for the public knowing more about how Congress works, but it isn’t exactly a desirable situation.
I think it’s reasonable to pause and reflect whether the same thing may happen to the Supreme Court. If televised coverage of the court may push it toward becoming more political and less deliberative, then that’s something I’d be worried about.
I think it’s pure speculation as to how cameras might affect the court’s activities. It might make them better, worse, or stay the same. You could make an argument either way.
When our local County Board started appearing on TV, some people said the supervisors started dressing better. Mostly, I think it has had very little effect. But if someone claims, “I didn’t say that,” there is now a reliable source to check, more reliable than a reporter’s notes or even a transcript. And a video image coupled with audio serves as confirmation of who said it without relying upon someone else’s voice recognition ability.
With the Supremes wearing robes, I doubt if cameras will make them dress better. But maybe they will consider a costume change to something more colorful, like a polka-dots, plaid or paisley?
It also looks like it’s post hoc ergo propter hoc day.
I don’t even know how to measure “quality” of work done by Congress (some of us think the less they do the better), but if we assume we can, then lets see some evidence that cameras in Congress is a significant cause of this alleged drop in quality before we assume it to be true.
Until then, I stand by me earlier statement, which you so graciously edited out of my post: The default position should be transparency and the technology for that transparency in this age is video. If there is a compelling interest to exclude video, then I’m all ears. I don’t consider the conjecture that SCOTUS justices are unable to behave themselves in front of cameras to be either credible or compelling.
Here is a respected journalist who says that cameras are a contributing factor to partisanship and showboating. Here is a former congressional staffer who objects to the idea of defaulting to televising everything, and notes that televised coverage means that members of Congress have to hammer out deals twice: once behind closed doors, once before the cameras. However, please actually listen to what I’m saying: not that putting TV cameras in Congress was a mistake, but that it had consequences that we should consider before insisting the Supreme Court do the same.
That’s interesting conjecture. It’s not mine. Where did you get that idea?
I don’t believe that the default position for every decision-making process in government ought to be to videotape it and broadcast it. It’s a government, not a reality TV show. Every decision on whether to have a decision-making process made public or held behind closed doors should be considered on the merits, not on a default to one approach or the other.
The court has the final say on whether or not then law is constitutional and I think the separation of powers prevents congress from imposing anything on the court. They can only refuse to fund them until they relent to cameras in the court.
How about in conjunction with the audio or the opinion?
Not really. There is very limited seating and for cases like the health care reform bill almost all of those seats will be occupied by members of the bar and the press. the general public can walk through the back row of the court spending a grand total of maybe 5 minutes in court and even then only a few hundred people can do that.
I don’t think anyone is talking about televising the deliberations and mroe thanh they would want to publish the working drafts (or competing drafts) of the ultimate opinion.
I’m not worried about the justices, I’m worried about the lawyers.
