Television Courtroom Broadcasting Effects

The Empirical Research and the Supreme Court Challenge

By (author) Paul Lambert

Publication date:

05 July 2013

Length of book:

494 pages

Publisher

University Press of America

Dimensions:

235x161mm
6x9"

ISBN-13: 9780761860051

Court and policy makers have increasingly had to deal with—and sometimes even embrace—technology, from podcasts to the Internet. Televised courtroom broadcasting especially remains an issue. The debate surrounding the US Supreme Court and federal courts, as well as the great disparity between different forms of television courtroom broadcasting, rages on. What are the effects of television courtroom broadcasting? Does research support the arguments for or against? Despite three Supreme Court cases on television courtroom broadcasting, the common thread between the cases has not been highlighted. The Supreme Court in these cases maintains a common theme: there is not a sufficient body of research on the effects of televising courtroom proceedings to resolve the debate in a confident manner.

1 Introduction
2 The Supreme Court and the Research Challenge
3 Camera Developments in US
4 Cameras: The UK Perspective
5 What Exactly is Courtroom Broadcasting?
6 What is Television Courtroom Broadcasting (TCB)?
7 Are There TCB Genres and Formats?
8 General (Non Social Science) Research Literature
9 General (Non Social Science) Research Themes
10 Empirical Research and Themes
11 The Psychology Challenge
12 The Distraction Challenge
13 The Location Challenge
14 Education Effects Research
15 Education Effects Challenge
16 TCB Effects: Meeting the Research Challenges
17 The First TCB Eye Tracking Demonstration
18 Conclusion
Appendix 1: Select General Literature on Courtroom Broadcasting
Appendix 2: Summary and Categorisation of Supreme Court Effects Issues and Concerns
Appendix 3: General (Non Social Science) Research Literature
Bibliography
Index

This book is a corrective. First, it recounts the arguments for and against television in courtrooms, and reveals most of them to be self-serving assertions with next to no evidence to support them. Second, it takes the claims and counterclaims seriously, and sets out a sensible approach to replace hot air with hard evidence. This topic is timely. Courts are under pressure to revise their rules. It will become the indispensable read for everyone interested in the topic.