Doctoral Dissertations

Date of Award

3-1985

Degree Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy

Major

Communication

Major Professor

M. Mark Miller

Committee Members

Herbert H. Howard, Jack B. Haskins, Michael W. Singletary, Frederic S. LeClercq

Abstract

The controversy about news cameras in the courtroom has pitted reporters, print and broadcast, against judges and others in the legal profession since at least 1937. In that year Canon 35 of The American Bar Association's Canon of Professional Ethics barred photographing and broadcasting proceedings. Therefore, television depended on courtroom artists to make sketches. During the early seventies judicial rules began to change, and states began allowing cameras and electronic equipment in their courtrooms. Building on information processing theory, this study investigated news producers' assumption that photographic video and live sound from criminal trials is more interesting and informative than the sketches with voice-over and presentation by a talking head. Or, as feared by some jurists, will photographic coverage negatively affect audience members, who are potential jurors and witnesses? Subjects were randomly assigned to one of four treatment conditions: courtroom videotape actuality, sketch and voice-over, talking head, and non-courtroom (placebo) news segment. Subjects watched a complete half-hour newscast with commercials and then filled out a questionnaire to determine audience information-seeking behavior, aided recall of material, appeal, attitudes toward the justice system and media coverage of it, willingness to testify in a criminal case or serve on a jury, and perceptions of defendants' guilt.

The study found:

1. The television viewers' aided recall of factual information about the criminal case was significantly higher with videotape actuality coverage than with sketches or a talking head.

2. The television viewers' information-seeking behavior and appeal of presentation were enhanced with videotape but not to a statistically significant degree.

3. One viewing of a videotaped report of a criminal trial had no appreciable effect on the attitudes of the audience toward the justice system and the media coverage of it.

4. The presence of cameras in the courtroom and the viewing of a videotape actuality suggest no influence on an individual's willingness to testify in a criminal case or serve on a jury or on perceptions of defendants' guilt.

The results indicate that cameras in the courtroom enhance viewers' information about the trial but show no attitude changes that would imperil justice.

Download
Files over 3MB may be slow to open. For best results, right-click and select "save as..."

Share

COinS