Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, February 11, 1992 TAG: 9202110300
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B1 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
SOURCE: PAUL DELLINGER STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: EMORY LENGTH: Medium
PROF PUSHES CAMERAS IN COURTROOMS
An Emory & Henry College professor who testified to the legislature in favor of cameras in courtrooms says the lack of cameras is cheating state citizens out of thorough news coverage.Teresa Keller, chairwoman of the college's mass communications department, reached that conclusion after researching the issue for her doctoral dissertation.
She said she chose the topic because she was troubled by Virginia's conservative approach to television court coverage.
"Ironically, Virginia television stations located near the state's boundaries now cover stories in courtrooms in North Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia, yet they cannot go into courtrooms in Virginia with their cameras," she said. "From my perspective, that means Virginia's court stories are getting less than adequate coverage."
Another reason Keller chose the topic was to have data when the 1992 General Assembly convened. Sunday, the Senate Courts of Justice Committee endorsed a bill to permanently allow television and still cameras in courtrooms all over the state.
The full Senate is expected to consider the issue this week.
The courtroom experiment began in 1987 when the Virginia Association of Broadcasters and other groups persuaded the legislature to allow cameras in six, and later eight, courtrooms - including Bedford County - for a two-year trial period.
After two years, the Virginia Supreme Court issued an evaluation of the experiment and it was extended for another two years. Now, the legislature must decide whether to enact permanent legislation on cameras or to end the experiment altogether.
The Supreme Court's 1989 evaluation was essentially negative, but Keller said that is not consistent with the experiences of those actually involved in trials where TV coverage was allowed.
Witnesses and jurors in proceedings where cameras were used expressed positive feelings about them, Keller said. The main source of negative feelings were judges who did not preside in the camera courtrooms.
"After reviewing the information, I had to conclude that judges were opposed primarily out of resistance to change," she said.
"Some of them cited potential problems such as sensationalism of court proceedings or intimidation of participants, but the experience in Virginia's experimental courtrooms - and certainly the experiences in hundreds of courtrooms in other states - does not support that fear."
Keller visited 12 commercial TV stations in Virginia to review three months worth of news story logs, which provide written records of each story aired. She did not find that the use of cameras in courtrooms led to lopsided coverage, or to neglect of non-court stories.
Instead, she found that virtually all the stations were consistent in the quantity and nature of courtroom cases they chose to cover, regardless of whether a particular courtroom allowed cameras.
"Television news directors know what is and is not newsworthy, and they will continue to exercise that same judgment," she said. "The difference will be that the court cases they choose to cover - the important, newsworthy ones - will get better coverage if the stations can send a camera into the proceedings."
Keywords:
GENERAL ASSEMBLY