5 ms·

The idea that cameras "had a corrosive influence on the dignified conduct of American jurisprudence" is a deeply odd one, for all that it seems to be obviously

The idea that cameras "had a corrosive influence on the dignified conduct of American jurisprudence" is a deeply odd one, for all that it seems to be obviously true. What is the mechanism? I suspect it has more to do with how the footage is used outside the courtroom than anything that directly happens inside, but that's only a start of an answer. Is video actually easier to sensationalize than other media?

SllX 6y ago
People behave differently on camera than off. If you know you’re being recorded, this will have an effect on your actions. If you have career ambitions, then anywhere there’s a camera is a chance to move up by using that camera as a platform and the area it is recording as a stage. I want prosecutors, public defenders, lawyers and judges in our courtrooms. I want Representatives and Senators in Congress. The actors can stay in Hollywood.
- andi999 6y ago
  "The actors can stay in Hollywood." That ship has sailed since Reagan hasnt it.
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    The last bastion of "they can stay in Hollywood" is the Court. If we change the structure of how we cover it to reflect this kind of BS social media optimization, yeah, we'll get the actors on the Court and not actual judges.
  - SllX 6y ago
    Reagan was a politician last. He came out of Hollywood, he went to the White House and he worked the part, but he wasn’t on camera with all of his business in the Oval Office all the time. How is a Congressman supposed to negotiate on a bloody camera? That’s bad craft, you don’t negotiate that way, you don’t get anything done and we haven’t. Congress hasn’t and they’ve long let the White House run the show, bought into Nixon’s BS about being coequal branches when Congress used to reign supreme. Courts have a similar problem, if you have the public and the Republic breathing down their necks the whole time, how is a good Judge, Jury, Prosecutor and Defense supposed to bring justice with all of the details aired out to the public in such a visceral and relatable form? You want to know the facts of the case, you can go there in person or read the damn documents, and the people that need to know will put in the legwork. There’s no need to make every trial into a YouTube video.
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    Reagan also benefited from good editing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBYrGQCHW7M&t=180 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBYrGQCHW7M&t=180
Barrin92 6y ago
any form of public broadcasting turns private deliberation between peers into an event performed in front of an audience, which is to say it has the tendency to turn something into a spectacle. It's why all these congressional hearings with CEOs are absolute clown car events, the hearing only exists for the political audience rather than for actual deliberation. All media has this effect of turning things into a simulated spectacle but video is likely worse because it's unmediated and real-time. This tendency of turning everything into a movie, available to consumers at the click of a button permeates American society at this point, from protests[1], to hearings, to the presidents medical status. [1]https://imgur.com/QzDHOEy https://imgur.com/QzDHOEy
akiselev 6y ago
>Is video actually easier to sensationalize than other media? It has nothing to do with video (although the fidelity of recording likely has an impact). It's now know as the Hawthorne effect [1] but even before it was given a name, anthropologists who came to openly study remote tribes often reported markedly different cultural behaviors from more clandestine anthropologists and the locals whose contact with the remote tribes brought them to the attention of academics. Just knowing that something is being closely observed and even recorded for posterity seems to significantly alter behavior. Basically like a possum playing dead, except with far more complex social interactions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > It's now known as the Hawthorne effect [1] The citation doesn't seem to support much of anything: > Descriptions of the well-known and remarkable effect, which was discovered in the context of research conducted at the Hawthorne Western Electric plant, turned out to be fictional. > The original research involved workers who made electrical relays at the Hawthorne Works, a Western Electric plant in Cicero, Illinois. Between 1924 and 1927 the famous lighting study was conducted. Workers experienced a series of lighting changes in which productivity was said to increase with almost any change in the lighting. This turned out not to be true. > Later interpretations such as Landsberger's suggested that the novelty of being research subjects and the increased attention from such could lead to temporary increases in workers' productivity. This interpretation was dubbed "the Hawthorne effect," although the data does not support that view. > Other researchers have attempted to explain the effects with various interpretations. J. G. Adair warned of gross factual inaccuracy in most secondary publications on the Hawthorne effect and that many studies failed to find it.
  - tboughen 6y ago
    Last time I heard the Hawthorne effect discussed (on BBC radio 4), two psychologists explained that the lighting changes were enacted on a Monday, and lasted for the week. The increase in productivity detected on the Monday was then attributed to the change in lighting from the previous Friday. Despite this seeming like a classic case of conflating correlation with causation, and the workers simply being more productive due to being more rested. The psychologists then concluded that although this wasn’t evidence for the Hawthorne effect, the effect was still real. I turned off the radio.
sjy 6y ago
“The single most important fact about television is that people watch it, which is why it is called ‘television.’ And what they watch, and like to watch, are moving pictures—millions of them, of short duration and dynamic variety. It is in the nature of the medium that it must suppress the content of ideas in order to accommodate the requirements of visual interest; that is to say, to accommodate the values of show business.” Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985)
im3w1l 6y ago
Maybe one thing is that people become more afraid of looking stupid. They may not ask for important clarifications. There was a question here in another thread "if you saw your surgeon reviewing a text book just before he started cutting you up, would you feel more or less safe?". I would feel less safe. But it's obviously better if those surgeons who don't feel 100% confident do review.
- salawat 6y ago
  >Maybe one thing is that people become more afraid of looking stupid. They may not ask for important clarifications. This 1000 times. I learned extremely early there is great value to be found in being "the strategic dunce" in the room in any Engineering context, and it is the most difficult 'skill' to teach to Junior Quality people. When you get a bunch of Engineers in a room, you can often follow what they think is going on, and if you only observe and question shallowly, everything appears fine. Then you play the dunce and ask them to clarify a basic point. Do it once. Do it twice. Do it a third time. Usually by 3 or four, unless planning has gone off without a hitch, you'll uncover some misunderstanding or assumption someone made, but the rest weren't aware of. It doesn't take much, just a willingness to hold people to make what they think explicit. It can seem like a tiresome practice, but by doing it, you can also short-circuit the pattern by which everybody delegates a complete understanding of the system to 4 or 5 people, and you start to have everyone able to delve into the details of larger and larger swathes of the system, reducing the chances of only discovering fundamental holes in understanding until it's too late. I find 80% time investment making sure everyone is saying the same thing about the same thing any day; since at that point, the implementation basically lays itself out in front of the mind's eye,and you turn the builders into walking cross-check functions.
tt433 6y ago
I don't remember the author but one historian of Germany (I think) used the phrase the "historicizing gaze of the camera" to describe how shooting footage of an event freezes that singular, imperfect perspective in amber. When that recording is all that survives of the event in the historical record, it becomes the single "true" way that event unfolded. At the time of film's invention, this was very remarkable, although we may take it for granted now. (It cannot be a perfect representation of the event, of course, such a film is impossible unless the event is watching paint dry, and even then the whole wall better fit in the camera's view)

SllX 6y ago

People behave differently on camera than off. If you know you’re being recorded, this will have an effect on your actions. If you have career ambitions, then anywhere there’s a camera is a chance to move up by using that camera as a platform and the area it is recording as a stage. I want prosecutors, public defenders, lawyers and judges in our courtrooms. I want Representatives and Senators in Congress. The actors can stay in Hollywood.

andi999 6y ago
"The actors can stay in Hollywood." That ship has sailed since Reagan hasnt it.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  The last bastion of "they can stay in Hollywood" is the Court. If we change the structure of how we cover it to reflect this kind of BS social media optimization, yeah, we'll get the actors on the Court and not actual judges.
- SllX 6y ago
  Reagan was a politician last. He came out of Hollywood, he went to the White House and he worked the part, but he wasn’t on camera with all of his business in the Oval Office all the time. How is a Congressman supposed to negotiate on a bloody camera? That’s bad craft, you don’t negotiate that way, you don’t get anything done and we haven’t. Congress hasn’t and they’ve long let the White House run the show, bought into Nixon’s BS about being coequal branches when Congress used to reign supreme. Courts have a similar problem, if you have the public and the Republic breathing down their necks the whole time, how is a good Judge, Jury, Prosecutor and Defense supposed to bring justice with all of the details aired out to the public in such a visceral and relatable form? You want to know the facts of the case, you can go there in person or read the damn documents, and the people that need to know will put in the legwork. There’s no need to make every trial into a YouTube video.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  Reagan also benefited from good editing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBYrGQCHW7M&t=180 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBYrGQCHW7M&t=180

Barrin92 6y ago

any form of public broadcasting turns private deliberation between peers into an event performed in front of an audience, which is to say it has the tendency to turn something into a spectacle. It's why all these congressional hearings with CEOs are absolute clown car events, the hearing only exists for the political audience rather than for actual deliberation. All media has this effect of turning things into a simulated spectacle but video is likely worse because it's unmediated and real-time. This tendency of turning everything into a movie, available to consumers at the click of a button permeates American society at this point, from protests[1], to hearings, to the presidents medical status. [1]https://imgur.com/QzDHOEy https://imgur.com/QzDHOEy

akiselev 6y ago

>Is video actually easier to sensationalize than other media? It has nothing to do with video (although the fidelity of recording likely has an impact). It's now know as the Hawthorne effect [1] but even before it was given a name, anthropologists who came to openly study remote tribes often reported markedly different cultural behaviors from more clandestine anthropologists and the locals whose contact with the remote tribes brought them to the attention of academics. Just knowing that something is being closely observed and even recorded for posterity seems to significantly alter behavior. Basically like a possum playing dead, except with far more complex social interactions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect

thaumasiotes 6y ago
> It's now known as the Hawthorne effect [1] The citation doesn't seem to support much of anything: > Descriptions of the well-known and remarkable effect, which was discovered in the context of research conducted at the Hawthorne Western Electric plant, turned out to be fictional. > The original research involved workers who made electrical relays at the Hawthorne Works, a Western Electric plant in Cicero, Illinois. Between 1924 and 1927 the famous lighting study was conducted. Workers experienced a series of lighting changes in which productivity was said to increase with almost any change in the lighting. This turned out not to be true. > Later interpretations such as Landsberger's suggested that the novelty of being research subjects and the increased attention from such could lead to temporary increases in workers' productivity. This interpretation was dubbed "the Hawthorne effect," although the data does not support that view. > Other researchers have attempted to explain the effects with various interpretations. J. G. Adair warned of gross factual inaccuracy in most secondary publications on the Hawthorne effect and that many studies failed to find it.
- tboughen 6y ago
  Last time I heard the Hawthorne effect discussed (on BBC radio 4), two psychologists explained that the lighting changes were enacted on a Monday, and lasted for the week. The increase in productivity detected on the Monday was then attributed to the change in lighting from the previous Friday. Despite this seeming like a classic case of conflating correlation with causation, and the workers simply being more productive due to being more rested. The psychologists then concluded that although this wasn’t evidence for the Hawthorne effect, the effect was still real. I turned off the radio.

sjy 6y ago

“The single most important fact about television is that people watch it, which is why it is called ‘television.’ And what they watch, and like to watch, are moving pictures—millions of them, of short duration and dynamic variety. It is in the nature of the medium that it must suppress the content of ideas in order to accommodate the requirements of visual interest; that is to say, to accommodate the values of show business.” Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985)

im3w1l 6y ago

Maybe one thing is that people become more afraid of looking stupid. They may not ask for important clarifications. There was a question here in another thread "if you saw your surgeon reviewing a text book just before he started cutting you up, would you feel more or less safe?". I would feel less safe. But it's obviously better if those surgeons who don't feel 100% confident do review.

salawat 6y ago
>Maybe one thing is that people become more afraid of looking stupid. They may not ask for important clarifications. This 1000 times. I learned extremely early there is great value to be found in being "the strategic dunce" in the room in any Engineering context, and it is the most difficult 'skill' to teach to Junior Quality people. When you get a bunch of Engineers in a room, you can often follow what they think is going on, and if you only observe and question shallowly, everything appears fine. Then you play the dunce and ask them to clarify a basic point. Do it once. Do it twice. Do it a third time. Usually by 3 or four, unless planning has gone off without a hitch, you'll uncover some misunderstanding or assumption someone made, but the rest weren't aware of. It doesn't take much, just a willingness to hold people to make what they think explicit. It can seem like a tiresome practice, but by doing it, you can also short-circuit the pattern by which everybody delegates a complete understanding of the system to 4 or 5 people, and you start to have everyone able to delve into the details of larger and larger swathes of the system, reducing the chances of only discovering fundamental holes in understanding until it's too late. I find 80% time investment making sure everyone is saying the same thing about the same thing any day; since at that point, the implementation basically lays itself out in front of the mind's eye,and you turn the builders into walking cross-check functions.

tt433 6y ago

I don't remember the author but one historian of Germany (I think) used the phrase the "historicizing gaze of the camera" to describe how shooting footage of an event freezes that singular, imperfect perspective in amber. When that recording is all that survives of the event in the historical record, it becomes the single "true" way that event unfolded. At the time of film's invention, this was very remarkable, although we may take it for granted now. (It cannot be a perfect representation of the event, of course, such a film is impossible unless the event is watching paint dry, and even then the whole wall better fit in the camera's view)