Supreme Court Oral Argument Video: A Review of Media Effects Research and Suggestions for Study

By Carter, Edward L. | Brigham Young University Law Review, November 1, 2012 | Go to article overview

Supreme Court Oral Argument Video: A Review of Media Effects Research and Suggestions for Study


Carter, Edward L., Brigham Young University Law Review


I. INTRODUCTION

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepared to hear three days of oral argument about the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in early 2012,1 C-SPAN co-founder and CEO Brian P. Lamb wrote a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts asking the Court to permit cameras in the courtroom for the arguments. Given the Court's past rejections of his requests to allow cameras in the courtroom, Lamb tried a targeted approach: "[W]e ask you and your colleagues to set aside any misgivings you have about television in the Courtroom in general and permit cameras to televise live this particular argument."2 In recent decades Lamb and C-SPAN have carried the banner for live video at the Supreme Court, dedicating a prominent portion of the C-SPAN website3 to the effort and regularly discussing the topic on the program "America and the Courts." In his letter, Lamb appealed to the Justices' sense of the importance of their work:

We believe the public interest is best served by live television coverage of this particular oral argument. It is a case which will affect every American's life, our economy, and will certainly be an issue in the upcoming presidential campaign. Additionally, a five-and-a half hour argument begs for camera coverage - interested citizens would be understandably challenged to adequately follow audio-only coverage of an event of this length with all the justices and various counsel participating.4

Lamb anticipated that the Court might consider cameras and accompanying electronic broadcast equipment in the courtroom obtrusive, and he promised C-SPAN would minimize disruption of court proceedings and serve as the pool provider to facilitate video access to all interested broadcasters without the need for multiple organizations' cameras.5

Lamb and C-SPAN were not the only ones who thought broadcasting oral arguments in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius6 would be a good idea. Just weeks before oral argument, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois introduced a bill in Congress to require television cameras in oral arguments unless a majority of the Justices concluded it would violate the due process rights of at least one participant.7 Predictably, the legislation went nowhere. But news media organizations formed a chorus in favor of cameras. In the run-up to the health care oral arguments, news organizations that editorialized in favor of cameras in the Supreme Court included the St. Petersburg Times, Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, Portland's Oregonian, Boston Globe, Hufflngton Post, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times} Former Solicitor General Kenneth Starr wrote an op-ed in the New York Times pointing out the irony of the Court's reluctance to allow cameras in light of the Court's own opinions in free-speech cases that manifest a "stubborn insistence on freedom of communication in a democratic society."9

The Justices, apparently, were underwhelmed by it all. Roberts declined the broadcast invitation from Lamb as well as a similar one from Grassley, who responded by taking credit for the Court having released same-day audio recordings in twenty cases since Bush v. Gore10 in 2000. n In the health-care case, the Court again acquiesced to sameday audio release rather than waiting until the end of the week.12 During three days of oral argument, the lack of cameras may have contributed to a frenzied atmosphere in which reporters scrambled in and out of the courtroom to provide live updates, and at least one observer was accused of live tweeting from the courtroom in violation of Court rules.13

Although the fight over cameras in the Supreme Court is not new, this Article seeks to shift the debate - in line with invitations from the Justices themselves14 and in concert with a thus-far relatively small number of other scholars15 - from a legal discussion to a conversation about the effects of televising Supreme Court oral arguments. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Supreme Court Oral Argument Video: A Review of Media Effects Research and Suggestions for Study
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.