1989-03-24 Comments of Star Tribune.pdf - Minnesota Judicial Branch

audio coverage, regardless of its nature, is bound to
lead to some educational and informational benefits,
there \Jas no evidence of any meaningful educational and
informational value to-the public from the limited and
unbalanced coverage that is characteristic of presenting
video and audio coverage under current commercial tele-
vision ne7i.s formats for such coverage.
D. There was no evidence tendered nor were the .e any special
arguments made by Petitioners ,that they regard any of
the foregoing considerations expressed in this Paragraph
4 as determinative of, or of any specific signific-.nce
in respect to, their request for a change in Canon 3A(7).
5. The media derives broad protection from the First Amendment.
its own protection, it must also have due regard for the laws of libel
and slander. However, aside from that consideration, and aside from rules
or guidelines prescribing the conditions under which video and audio equip
ment can be brought into the courtroom and limitations on what can be
covered , the media has very broad discretion in the selection of the
portions of the proceedings to be broadcast and what commentary it can
make thereon.
6. Rules and guidelines regu lating video and audio coverage of trial
courts and adequate authority vested in the trial judge are essential
establish constraints
-I
so as to assure courtroom decorum,
fair treatment of
courtroom participants and a fair and open trial of the litigants.
Relian
on self-discipline by the media is not adequate.
Appellate courts appear
to accept this fact, or at least to expect that the primary duty to
t0
For