Television cameras in the courts

by Barbara Meagher

My experience with cameras in Rhode Island courts dates back to May 1983. It was the first week of my new reporting job at WLNE-TV, Channel 6, in Providence, Rhode Island. I remember it was a trying day.

I was assigned to cover a pre-trial hearing in an underworld murder conspiracy case and I had to get up to speed fast. I was new to the state, and no one, of course, had time to provide me with a quick history of the local mob. The prosecutor chewed me out because I didn’t already know the answer to the question I asked him.

As I look back 18 years later, I can quickly recall the day’s traumas. But what I can’t remember is any trouble getting the camera into Superior Court. It was easy. Just to be sure, I recently checked the file tape and, yes, there they are — the judge, the defendant, the lawyers. And when a television reporter has pictures to tell the story, it’s not such a bad day after all.

That’s generally been the case all these years. A television station makes a phone call, the judge grants permission, a reporter and photographer show up and set up the camera in the courtroom, somewhere out of the way. In Rhode Island, cameras have been allowed inside courtrooms since 1981. All you need is the permission of the judge hearing the case. Until recently, Rhode Island judges regularly said “yes.” The benefit to television stations is clear: When human drama plays out in court, we get to show and tell those stories to our viewers. There’s also been a payoff for the public.

In 1998 former Governor Edward DiPrete surprised everyone when he pleaded guilty to corruption charges and ended the state’s four-year case against him. That morning, it threw us into a frenzy. Once the judge gave permission, my station set up a live feed within an hour, which provided the pictures and sound to all three stations. (Court rules stipulate that only one camera goes into court at a time, so each station takes turns providing this “pool” coverage.) Because that one judge said “Yes,” citizens across Rhode Island could see — as it happened — the spectacle of DiPrete admitting his crimes for the first time.

And there were other examples. According to records kept at Superior Court, the biggest year for television coverage was 1986, when crews signed in 191 times. (The numbers do not include District Courts, which do not keep records.) Two major events piqued the public’s interest that year: the trial of Ralph Richard of Pawtucket, who was accused of murdering his infant daughter; and the many legal proceedings relating to corruption at RIHMFC, the state’s housing agency.

1993 was a big year, too. TV news crews signed into Superior Court 170 times, according to court records. Once again, compelling trials drew us. Banking crisis villain Joe Mollicone and Brendel family killer Christopher Hightower were both on trial that year. In fact, there were so many media outlets interested in the two cases, stations rented a construction trailer and parked it outside the courthouse to house equipment and people. And viewers got play-by-play coverage of each trial every day.

But since then, the numbers have declined. In 2000, television stations visited Superior Court only 63 times — a huge drop from the 191 sign-ins during the biggest year, 1986. What’s the reason for the decline? Are we less interested, are there fewer high-profile trials, or are judges turning us away more often? It seems it’s all of the above.

The truth is, television news is looking for “action.” At least that’s the phase it’s been in for the past several years. For an event to make the 6 o’clock news, it generally has to have some “entertainment” value. News executives typically deny this, because “entertainment” is supposed to be a dirty word in journalistic circles. In any case, because of competition from the entertainment programs now available on cable, news professionals want stories that are visually compelling, that “grab the viewer.” You don’t find that in just any trial. Plus, most courtrooms in Rhode Island don’t have much light, and since we can’t add professional lighting, the pictures can look dismal. That’s why television news people are more likely to show up only for the more compelling moments: arraignments, opening arguments, the defendant taking the stand, the verdict.

TV stations don’t ask to cover court as often as they did, but judges are indeed saying “no” more often when they do ask. Superior Court Judge Stephen Fortunato is one who will deny access upon occasion, and has no qualms about saying why: He’s often disappointed in the coverage.

“I’m not enamored of the idea of cameras, especially when some of the reporters don’t have an idea of what is transpiring,” he said in an interview. He’s still angry about one local television reporter’s account of a labor dispute just before the opening of the Providence Place mall in 1999. Fortunato recalls being careful to say in court that his decision would not affect the planned opening date of the mall — he knew a lot was riding on getting the place open on time and didn’t want any confusion about his role. Still, he remembers what he saw on the 6 o’clock news that night: “A reporter stood in front of this building and said, ‘As I speak right now, a judge is pondering whether or not the mall will open.’ To me it was the shoddiest piece of reporting I’d ever seen…”

Because of cases like that one, Fortunato doesn’t trust television journalists to get the story right, and he says that’s why he’s likely to forbid television coverage during criminal trials. “The stakes are so high for the individuals involved,” he says.

Fortunato’s attitude isn’t unique. Other judges voiced similar attitudes at a recent conference. The message is this: Do a better job of reporting what happens in the courts, or we may not let you in.

This is the kind of talk that makes journalists cringe. After all, we argue, judges shouldn’t have anything to say about the content and quality of our work. (Unless, of course, we’re sued for libel and are standing before them as defendants.)

Like it or not, the Rhode Island Supreme Court does, in effect, give judges that right. Judges cannot bar reporters from sitting in most court proceedings, but reporters have no right to bring their TV cameras with them. Judges can say “no” for any reason, and never have to explain themselves. So more and more judges seem to be deciding not to bother with cameras.

The stakes are high for reporters. We need pictures or we don’t have much of a story. Courtroom sketches are okay, but they’re visually dull. And there’s no sound! Nothing beats hearing the voices of the people involved.

It’s important to note that overall, the electronic media still has a pretty good deal here in Rhode Island. Most judges still make it easy for us to get our jobs done. Nobody can remember a District Court judge saying “no.” Judge Robert Pirraglia is one who is a big proponent.

“Every camera person who comes here, in 18 years, no one has ever crossed the line. All I say to them is: Set up before we begin, do not disrupt court proceedings when you break down, and otherwise, do your job. And they always have.”

In fact, most judges still say “yes” to television coverage. Even Judge Fortunato opens his doors during civil cases.

But the fact that the doors are closing at all is something worth thinking about. It could get worse. Until the United States Supreme Court takes the unlikely step of mandating free access for cameras nationwide, we in Rhode Island have to bow to the wishes of state judges.

I submit there are some very simple things television stations can do to improve their status with the courts:

¦ Sit reporters down for a basic tutorial on court procedure. The Bar Association gladly supplies lawyers to do this pro bono. It’s amazing how much this can help — once someone translates legal jargon, court isn’t such a foreign place. And the quality of news reporting should improve.

¦ Make sure photographers show a measure of respect by dressing properly. My station recently reminded photographers to carry a pair of long pants with them at all times. In my early days here, photographers just wouldn’t go into court wearing shorts, but things became a bit too casual over the years. Judges appreciate the gesture.

¦ Finally, television reporters can certainly benefit by making personal connections with judges. Traditionally, judges stay silent during trials but are often open to talking, either on or off the record, once the trial is over. The new Supreme Court chief justice, Frank Williams, has done this himself and is encouraging his colleagues to do the same. Not only will reporters get some insight, but judges will see that these reporters do indeed care about getting the facts.

All this takes time, planning and preparation— scarce commodities in today’s television newsrooms. But at the very least, these gestures are an investment in keeping the courts truly open to the public in the future.

Barbara Meagher, a former ABC6 television news reporter, teaches broadcast journalism at the University of Connecticut.