Due to the speed “to press,” bloggers hold an advantage by getting coverage of live events online, almost always ahead of other news reporters. But this advantage has led to some recent controversy regarding the effects this may have on the proceedings of the events themselves. Case in point—the ability to provide live trial coverage has recently become a matter of controversy in American courtrooms.

On January 14, the judge in a Florida capital murder trial banned several individuals—including a Florida Times-Union reporter using a laptop in the courtroom—from blogging about the trial specifically “for purposes of communicating with the outside world” on the grounds that the electronic media was causing a distraction. Some camera use was banned as well. The blog had drawn more than 1,300 readers before it was shut down. The following day, the judge modified the order to authorize the use of alternation of still photos and live blogging.

This still did not go over too well, as the following day, the Times-Union filed an emergency appeal with the First District Court of Appeals in Tallahassee, which quashed the restrictions on January 20, writing “The matter is remanded with directions to allow petitioner’s reporter the use of a laptop computer in the courtroom unless the court finds a specific factual basis to conclude that such use cannot be accommodated without undue distraction or disruption.”

“Tweeting” trial coverage has also been controversial. In November 2009, U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land barred tweeting by the Columbus, Georgia newspaper Columbus Ledger-Enquirer as a form of “broadcasting” during a drug-trafficking case. He did allow for a media room in the courthouse near the entrance where journalists “could use their electronic reporting devices near but outside of the courtroom.” On the other hand, U.S. District Court Judge J. Thomas Martin ruled that a reporter for the Wichita Eagle could tweet updates about a criminal trial in another high-profile case involving alleged gang members.

The arguments against allowing live trial coverage seem to be that the coverage unfairly biases the public and that the use of electronic devices to provide live updates is distracting to the court personnel. But there is no consensus as to whether or not one can cover a trial by electronic means. It seems to come down to the individual views of the judge.

News organizations and their personnel, struggling to survive in the current economic and technological environments, are trying to meet their readers’ needs through speed and immediacy. There seems to be a growing trend toward permitting live coverage—provided it is done discreetly and accurately. Hopefully, the trend will continue, and the court system will come to embrace, rather than suppress, greater public access to its rulings. In the meantime, bloggers covering trials need to find out the presiding judge’s own rules on live updates before starting to blog—lest they get hit with prohibitions against blogging inside the courtroom.

This entry was posted on Saturday, February 6th, 2010 at 11:29 am and is filed under Editing Blogs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.