O.J. Simpson Trial Ruling to Let TV Cameras in Court Created 20-Year Mess

Cameras in the Court Room OJ
Chuck Keer

With a mug like this, “Good Morning America” doesn’t come knocking every day. But they did 20 years ago, seeking an interview to indignantly take issue with a column I wrote arguing that the O.J. Simpson murder trial shouldn’t allow cameras in the courtroom, before Judge Lance Ito ruled the other way.

It’s always nice to feel vindicated in hindsight. But what neither I nor anybody else could have foreseen was how much worse matters would become in charting TV’s corrosive influence on the legal system, politics and other institutions during the intervening decades.

The argument for televising the trial was a familiar one: The public has a right to see for themselves. “It provides a more accurate version of court proceedings than a third-person account can ever hope to do,” professor Jane Kirtley wrote back in 1995.

The counterpoint was — and is — that the camera is not an impartial bystander, but plays a potentially insidious role in shaping events inside and outside the courtroom, thus endangering the pursuit of justice.

The public elements of the Simpson trial began in earnest on June 17, 1994, with the spectacle of the former football star’s white Bronco slowly cruising down the freeway (even if opening arguments didn’t come until more than seven months later). Yet if those proceedings represent an outlier, remembering the frenzy that surrounded them doesn’t fully convey how dramatically the world has changed subsequently.

In cable circles, CNN, HLN and Court TV pretty much dominated the Simpson coverage, with the case having preceded the 1996 birth of Fox News Channel and MSNBC. Even those networks, however, have ceded immediacy to a Web culture that frequently reports first, and sorts out details later.

As is noted in National Geographic Channel’s upcoming documentary “The ’90s: The Last Great Decade?,” those years hastened the breakdown of barriers between news/reality and entertainment. “By the end of the 1990s, there’s no distinction between … tabloid culture and news,” notes writer David Sirota.

Flip to HLN during any high-profile trial, and witness the comical sight of multiple lawyers shouting at each other — their heads crammed into little side-by-side squares — to see how far the crime-equals-showbiz nexus has descended down this particular rabbit hole.

It’s certainly legitimate to argue that the public’s right to know and the press’s First Amendment rights represent an acceptable trade-off to the damage done to the trial process by television cameras. But there’s considerable naivete — and in some instances a self-serving dishonesty — in contending that such exposure simply holds events before the gaze of a mirror, as opposed to a distorting prism.

In a recent Huffington Post piece, author Don McNay called Ito’s decision “one of the worst moves in American judicial history,” likening its impact on trials to the way politics has been reduced to a never-ending election cycle. In the Simpson case’s wake, several jurists also concluded that the harm outweighed the benefits, certainly in setting a precedent for salacious, media-saturated trials.

“It is time for the judiciary to declare that we are not part of the entertainment industry,” Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mary Ann Murphy, speaking for a committee of judges charged with examining the issue, told a state task force after the Simpson verdict.

It’s obviously too late to push the genie back in the bottle, and even daring to lament the current state of affairs risks sounding like an old man yelling, “Get off my lawn!” But now that the media circus never leaves town and the courtroom has become another form of inexpensive unscripted drama, it’s worth recalling the road that brought us here — and how O.J., and those who benefited from the chase and all that followed, wound up leading the charge.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 3

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Robert Michaelson says:

    To me the issue is not the cameras. but rather those ridiculous “know it all commentators who give meaningless opinions after every break in the proceedings. I would love to have a public television channel ( without commercial interruption every 7 minutes) and without any input from anyone outside the court room. Let the system play to the public as though we were seated in the court room with the other observers. In simple terms, taker Hollywood out of the justice system

  2. Corriea says:

    6/18/14 11:46p Variety Brian Lowry The Court of Public Opinion: No TV Cameras
    The Cameras add Nothing to the Public’s need for information about a Court Case and Public Opinion should not be a Factor, whatsoever. The TV Talking Heads and so called Legal Minds should be Quiet, they are not in the Courtroom or are they a part of the Legal proceedings. So Shut Up!

  3. Julian says:

    Cameras in the court should never be banned outright. Trials are public — Public record. Public interest, and open to public comment. Period. The question is: will the camera’s allow the defendant to get a fair trial? And: Does the public’s right to know and see the proceeding, the (potential) public good outweigh any potential unfairness? What constitutes justice… that is the question. I think you need a very compelling reason to NOT allow cameras. The camera is the record, and as said, the mirror. People/society doesn’t always like what it sees in the mirror, but hiding the mirror is not a solution. With cameras in the courtroom, like in the OJ trial, you find that the case is tried in the court of public opinion as well as in the court of law. It has aways been this way, it’s just easier with technology. In the long run, I think the benefit, the interest in the law and the legal system that created for people by watching televised trials, serves the greater good. The legal system must be transparent and when they try and hide from the public, they should have a very compelling reason to do so…

More TV News from Variety