Supreme Court nixes cams for prez hearing
Print, public allowed, but no pix, sound for Bush vs. Gore
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered the bad news in a letter sent to C-Span chairman-CEO Brian Lamb, who was the first to ask the supremes last week to break the longtime ban on cameras and allow coverage in the case of GOP presidential contender George W. Bush versus Democratic opponent Al Gore.
"Today the Court took up the question of televising these proceedings and a majority of the Court remains of the view that we should adhere to our present practice of allowing public attendance and print media coverage of argument sessions, but not allow camera or audio coverage," Rehnquist said.
C-Span and other newsies were sorely disappointed by the decision, arguing that there is no better opportunity to let the world watch a Supreme Court proceeding. Rehnquist offered to make a transcript of the hearing available on an expedited basis, but broadcasters weren't mollified.
Asked to reconsider
CNN and the Radio-Television News Director Assn. submitted papers late in the day asking the high court to reconsider its decision. Court TV also has made a formal request to allow cameras.
"Without television of these historic proceedings, the public will be forced once again to depend on second-hand accounts from the few observers permitted to attend in person," RTNDA prexy Barbara Cochran wrote. "Such a result thwarts the intent of our Founding Fathers, who advocated holding trials 'before as many people as choose to attend,' and will inhibit the ability of the public to accept and understand any decision made by the Court that affects the outcome of the election."
Cochran and other execs took heart that Rehnquist used the word "majority," implying that at least some of the justices are indeed in favor of allowing cameras in the chamber.
"Apparently, it was not a unanimous decision today when all nine justices met to discuss televising Friday's hearing. Maybe one of these days the minority in favor of a televised Supreme Court will become a majority," C-Span VP and general counsel Bruce Collins said.
A Supreme Court spokesman declined to elaborate on Rehnquist's letter.
Rehnquist and other justices have long argued that cameras in the courtroom would lead to distraction and disruption and somehow degrade the proceedings.
Justices justified?
Renowned constitutional and First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams, who has been retained by CNN, told Daily Variety that these reasons do not justify a ban on cameras.
Others agreed.
"We believe it's better to have an open system of courts," said Court TV spokeswoman Betsy Vorce. "When the proceedings at the Florida State Court were televised, it was an orderly and informative process. We believe that it would be equally compelling and educational to the public to see how the Supreme Court would conduct the hearings."
At the very least, the high court should consider making a real-time audio broadcast of the hearing available, Cochran said.
