NYT editorial: Your Reality TV

In a new poll, more than 60 percent of respondents said televising Supreme Court proceedings would be good for democracy. We agree, but the court seems determined to keep its work out of the public’s eye.

Since 1988, C-Span — which broadcasts Congressional debates, White House news conferences, think tank panels, and all manner of Washington necessities and some oddities — has been asking the Supreme Court for access. The court has consistently refused. When the cable network asked for permission to broadcast the arguments in Bush v. Gore in 2000, the court agreed only to release audiotapes after the fact. In the big University of Michigan affirmative action case of 2003, the court again only released audiotapes.

Cameras in the court would allow Americans to see for themselves how an extremely powerful part of their government works. They would also allow voters to hold presidents accountable for the quality of justices they nominate. Right now, we see the justices during their confirmation hearings and rarely after that.

Opponents of televising the lower courts argue — unpersuasively, in our opinion — that cameras could deprive defendants of a fair trial by intimidating witnesses and jurors. None of those concerns apply to the Supreme Court, where there are no witnesses or jurors. The main objections are the justices’ own concerns about privacy and a vague assertion that televising proceedings would somehow diminish the court. In the new poll by New Jersey’s Fairleigh Dickinson University, only 26 percent of respondents believed that cameras would undermine the court’s authority and dignity.

(Original here.)