3 ms·

> That said, would this be mitigated by only allowing release of the footage after everything is over? I'd recommend only releasing the footage if the person w

> That said, would this be mitigated by only allowing release of the footage after everything is over? I'd recommend only releasing the footage if the person was found guilty.

dedward 16y ago
How about neither - there can always be a retrial and/or appeal and/or exoneration by other means.
anigbrowl 16y ago
...and has exhausted all appeals, and... I know I'm being grumpy about this, but I just don't see what public good will be served by such a move. I can't think of any clear benefit the televised coverage has brought to the legislative process, and extrapolating from existing coverage of the courts I suspect the vast majority of airtime would be spent on catering to the most prurient sort of public curiosity. If one considers McLuhan's famous remark that 'the medium is the message,' it's hard to ignore the fact that the medium of television is awash in sensational trivia, relies heavily on emotional manipulation of the viewer to construct a compelling visual narrative, and frequently oversimplifies complex issues to the point of distorting the facts. Now this is no more the fault of broadcast technology or infrastructure any more than lies are the fault of the speaker's larynx or distant relatives; but the sad reality is that a great deal of television is the intellectual equivalent of a sewer, and whatever you drop into a sewer is going to end up getting dirty. It's a problem that law and the legal process are so obscure and inaccessible to the public - but not one that will be solved by turning courtrooms into studio sets.
- epochwolf 16y ago
  Okay, let me clarify. I do not support releasing the footage. (I've argued both sides of this for an ethics class in college, I'm definitely against) I, for one, am definitely not sexy enough to be innocent on TV. If footage is ever to be released that guy had been damn well be guilty. (I'd disagree with releasing footage that involves a plea bargin)

> That said, would this be mitigated by only allowing release of the footage after everything is over? I'd recommend only releasing the footage if the person was found guilty.

dedward 16y ago

How about neither - there can always be a retrial and/or appeal and/or exoneration by other means.

anigbrowl 16y ago

...and has exhausted all appeals, and... I know I'm being grumpy about this, but I just don't see what public good will be served by such a move. I can't think of any clear benefit the televised coverage has brought to the legislative process, and extrapolating from existing coverage of the courts I suspect the vast majority of airtime would be spent on catering to the most prurient sort of public curiosity. If one considers McLuhan's famous remark that 'the medium is the message,' it's hard to ignore the fact that the medium of television is awash in sensational trivia, relies heavily on emotional manipulation of the viewer to construct a compelling visual narrative, and frequently oversimplifies complex issues to the point of distorting the facts. Now this is no more the fault of broadcast technology or infrastructure any more than lies are the fault of the speaker's larynx or distant relatives; but the sad reality is that a great deal of television is the intellectual equivalent of a sewer, and whatever you drop into a sewer is going to end up getting dirty. It's a problem that law and the legal process are so obscure and inaccessible to the public - but not one that will be solved by turning courtrooms into studio sets.

epochwolf 16y ago
Okay, let me clarify. I do not support releasing the footage. (I've argued both sides of this for an ethics class in college, I'm definitely against) I, for one, am definitely not sexy enough to be innocent on TV. If footage is ever to be released that guy had been damn well be guilty. (I'd disagree with releasing footage that involves a plea bargin)