CAMERAS IN THE COURT #2
by Dick Kraus
Newsday Staff Photographer (retired)
The two year test of Cameras in the Court in NY State was finally enacted into
law but with more stringent restrictions than ever. In arraignments, if either
the prosecutor or the defense attorney denied the camera application, the judge
was not permitted to over rule.
Permission
had to be attained to shoot most witnesses. And on and on to the
point where about the only thing that was left to photograph
were the attorneys (and excuse me, folks, but why bother?) and the defendant.
Unless the story was a major epic, we found ourselves doing fewer and fewer
courtroom stories. Some of us saw this coming and pleaded with
our department heads to
be allowed to go to the state capitol and try to talk reason with the senate
and legislative committee members. The answer we got was that the publisher’s
lobbyists would plead our case. Well, if you’ve read this far, it’s
obvious that little effort was made on our behalf before the new rules were rammed
down our throats. I can’t help but wonder what the reaction from the editors
and publishers would have been if such restrictions were placed on the writers.
Well, 40 years ago, when I entered this noble profession, I was told by the man
who hired me that journalism is a word man’s game and I had better get
used to it.
However, our forays into the sacrosanct halls of justice has
not been without its’ share of stories for this thread. Here are a few.
At a recess in one of the first cases I covered, a judge called
me up to the bench. “I’m not at all happy with this cameras in the court thing.” stated
the judge. “It disrupts my courtroom and delays the trial.”
I asked why and he went on, “You cameramen come in to my courtroom wearing
tee shirts and jeans and I have to delay the trial while you string your wires
and set-up your cameras.”
“I beg your pardon, Your Honor,” I replied. “I’m wearing
a jacket and a tie and pressed slacks, and every morning I have my camera and
tripod set up and resting in a corner before you even start your calendar call.
When you call for the trial, I walk up and set-up my camera before the defendant
is even brought to the defense table.”
“Oh, I didn’t mean you, Dick” he said. “I was talking
about the tv crew.”
Aha. I realized then and there that we would have to make sure
that the judges and lawyers made the distinction between
stills and video,
and
if there was
a problem with one, we had to make certain that the other was not
penalized.
“With all due respect, Your Honor, I blame you for the problem,” I
told him. “The rules from the Legislature concerning dress
and decorum are very explicit. As are the rules stating that
the court should not be delayed
because of the media. All you have to do is bar the tv people
because they are wearing inappropriate clothing; especially when
they wear tee shirts with their
station logos because logos are forbidden. And if you refuse
to delay the start of the trial because the crew arrived late
and was unable to string their mike
cables, you can be sure that the next time, their station manager
will see to it that they are dressed accordingly and arrive on
time.”
I don’t like to fink on my fellow photographers, but it is quite common
for them to appear in court dressed with little or no regard to the regulations.
And then is it any wonder that we get such little respect from the courts? I
don’t mean to single out only video crews, although they seem to be the
worst offenders. I have seen still shooters poorly dressed for the occasion.
I feel that if you know that you will be covering a court story before you leave
for work, you should be able to dress appropriately.
No, I am not a member of the clothing police. But, we really
don’t have
a leg to stand on when we are denied access to the courtrooms with our cameras
if we continue to disregard some basic regulations enacted by the Legislature.
Dick Kraus
newspix@optonline.net
http://www.newsday.com
|
