One small step for the courts . . . one giant leap for journalists

Oct. 23, 2010

CALGARY, AB, Oct. 23, 2010/ Troy Media/ – While it may best be described as a small step forward, the recent decision by an Ontario court justice to allow journalists to bring their phones and computer note pads into his court is, nevertheless, a step in the right direction – particularly for a court system that routinely limits journalists’ use of their normal news gathering tools, while at the same time complaining that the public has a distorted sense of how the system works.

Justice Robert Scott’s decision was in relation to the appearance in court of Col. Russell Williams, the former commander of Canadian Forces Base Trenton who, as expected, pleaded guilty Monday to two murders, two of forcible confinement and sexual assault, and 82 counts of break and enter.

Real time reporting

Scott gave reporters permission to report the proceedings in real time using digital devices. Whether Scott would have made the same decision had Williams opted for a trial is an open question, but given the history of the debate over the use of electronic news gathering equipment in court rooms, it seems unlikely he would have done so.

Judges have historically denied the majority of media requests to bring recording equipment and other news gathering devices (apart from notepads, pens and artist sketch pads and pencil crayons) into courts to preserve courtroom decorum and to focus on the business at hand, which is to ensure a fair hearing for an accused person. Arguably, the most legitimate reason offered is to protect witnesses: particularly in the case of citizens who might be intimidated.

Media organizations have for years argued that reporters covering court cases should be allowed the use of all the tools they would normally employ. For a broadcaster, that means audio and video recorders, while today in a multimedia universe it could also mean carrying devices to permit Tweeting, blogging, and instantly filing voice reports and video clips. The bottom line for reporters is to tell the story in the best way possible, though journalists rightly argue as well that providing a more accurate sense of court proceedings could increase public understanding of the nature and function of the system.

When the CBC National News reported earlier in October on the expected guilty plea of Williams, the announcer’s introduction twice alluded to the families of his victims being relieved that there would not be a long drawn-out trial. The phrase was not attributed directly to family members, and was instead a CBC-chosen characterization of their feelings. The problem is that the phrase also characterized the justice system as moving unnecessarily slow or purposefully slow in dealing with criminal matters, underscoring an often heard public preconception, and perhaps a misconception, over the nature and purpose of the system. To be fair to the CBC, it is by no means the only news organization that at times perpetuates misunderstanding. Nor does it or others intend any malice or purposefully try to confuse news viewers and readers.

Ultimately, the public has a responsibility to better inform itself on legal issues. How often have people been quoted saying “he got off on a technicality” in describing a justice-related outcome they don’t understand or accept? Rules that govern legal processes are not trivial technicalities.

Criminal justice matters are about process. The justice system, which is really a series of systems, moves at the pace its processes permit in pursuit of a fair and impartial hearing of legally obtained evidence, rooted in the rule of law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — and in the context of society’s ability and willingness to pay for it all.

As a former board member with the Alberta Criminal Justice Association, an organization that provides workshops on justice issues for its membership, I can testify under oath that the people I know who work in justice circles are distrustful and critical of media coverage of crime and courts. Among their complaints: the coverage is often shallow, sensationalized and focuses on violent crime. As a career journalist and journalism educator, I would remind them that they really shouldn’t expect much more when the legal system limits reporter access at all levels and handcuffs reporters who attend trials by restricting use of the tools required of the medium they work in.

Supreme Court allows cameras

There have been instances when the courts have been more open to reporters than would normally be the case. The Supreme Court of Canada has allowed cameras in its courts for many years, and there have been notable other exceptions and experiments across the country.

As a CBC producer, I and others from our newsroom once worked with court officials on a project to allow camera use to explain family court processes to viewers. While it will certainly take some work and compromise to establish basic ground rules for broad use of electronic news gathering devices, the effort to do so would ultimately serve the justice system by expanding public understanding of how the system works.

Terry Field is an associate professor and program chair of the journalism major in the Bachelor of Communication program at Mount Royal University.

Channels: The Calgary Herald, Oct. 22, the Moncton Times & Transcript, Nov. 3, the Victoria Star, Nov. 10, the Pembroke Observer, Nov. 19, the Tribune (Campellton) Nov. 26, 2010