MAKE THE COURT SYSTEM ACCESSIBLE AS POSSIBLE

Missouri is one of five states that bars all cameras and recording devices from its state courts. The logical question is simple: "Why?" A logical answer is a bit trickier to come by. We believe it's time for the Missouri judiciary to advance its thinking and open its courts to electronic coverage. Missourians need fuller access to their court system.

Of the 50 states, only Missouri, Indiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and South Dakota don't allow some type of electronic coverage in their courts. We won't claim that numbers alone are reason enough to change this long-standing exclusionary policy but a debate on the matter would be of some value. Why hold back when so many states have moved forward? Tradition might be one reason, but that's only speculation; the Missouri Supreme Court, which oversees courtroom restrictions, has done little to address the question in the decade since the Missouri Bar Association first posed it. The high court gets little prodding from others in the state judiciary; a gathering of state judges in November voted down the idea of even setting up a committee to study the idea.

Were there a debate on the subject, judges opposing electronic coverage of the courts would have some valid arguments to present. In certain circumstances, witnesses would need protection from being photographed. Cameras could prove a distraction to proceedings. Certain attorneys, prosecutors and judges might become "starstruck," playing for the cameras at the expense of good courtroom judgment.

In fact, these situations have probably arisen in other states and been dealt with appropriately. At this point, Missouri could establish guidelines that benefit from the trial-and-error processes undertaken by other states; certainly no mysteries would develop in Missouri that haven't been encountered in other systems.

Understand that this is a position many Missouri newspapers may recoil from. Newspaper reporters are allowed to take most of the tools of their trade into court proceedings. (Still cameras are the notable exception.) The easiest position for a newspaper would be to let broadcasters fight their own fight. We believe, however, that the public (the people we work for) is best served by courts open to full coverage.

We point to the example of C-Span and the televising of congressional sessions. As the pre-television warnings went, some "showboating" and demagoguery were inevitable. (Make no mistake, these legislative traits were abundant before the invention of the camera.) However, the important result has been that people now understand the legislative process better than before the cameras were present. The same could happen with the courts.

A.J. Seier, a veteran circuit judge in Cape Girardeau County who says he can live with whatever rules the high court establishes, makes a relevant point in saying the camera will only show what is there to be shown. "I assume the camera won't lie," he says. But the camera has to be there. We encourage the Missouri Bar Association in its efforts to make the courts as accessible as possible.