VITAMEDIAS
The Case for TV: Trials and most judicial proceedings are meant to be public, of course, and cameras make it possible for more citizens to see them. But there are limits. If a judge determines that cameras would be inappropriate in a particular case, that decision should not be subject to appeal. The judge presides over the courtroom, and he or she must have the ultimate discretion to determine what is in the public interest — even if that decision goes against the interests of the electronic media.
That said, cameras should be routinely permitted in the courtroom, as are reporters for the print media. A judge should have to explain the reasoning for imposing a ban. At present, all 50 states allow cameras in some courts. Thirty-eight allow them in criminal courts. The federal government permits them only in certain appellate courts, but there is a growing consensus that having cameras in courtrooms serves the public interest.
Under no circumstances, however, should cameras be allowed in the jury room. [...]
The beauty of the camera is that it can expand the courtroom and enable the public to freely observe the functioning of the judicial branch of government, as was intended by the founders.