Press in the Courtroom

By Gordon Hopkins Congressman Jeff Fortenberry was accused of lying to the FBI and, yesterday, was convicted on all charges in a courtroom in Los Angeles. Now, I am not going to opine on the alleged crime or conviction. As I have said many times in the past, while I may have opinions on all manner of subjects (boy, do I ever), I don't feel it is appropriate for me to express those opinions on stories I have to report on. It is my hope that readers of my news pieces count on me to present the news in a fair and unbiased manner. I feel tossing around my own viewpoint into the mix, even on a separate page clearly identified as opinion, would cast doubt into the minds of some readers as to my veracity. Especially when dealing with politics.Maybe it's different in bigger newspapers, where a reporter writes stories about people he or she will likely never see again. That's not really an option for a small-town reporter. In a place like Jefferson County, I run into people I've written stories about at the market or on the street all the time. Not every one likes what I write, but at the very least, I better be sure what I write is accurate and fair, even if the subject doesn't always feel like I was.Of course, I'm not apt to run into Congressman Fortenberry while I'm out buying eggs and milk, but I still feel the rule should apply.That is why my column consists mostly frippery about my cats or movies or just general grousing.So that is why I don't feel it is my place to opine about the trial of a Congressman.Except (yeah, you knew that was coming), there is one thing I feel I can talk about, because it directly affects me. Or, rather, my profession.See, something rather odd happened during the first day of the trial. It seems reporters from Nebraska, who traveled all the way to that strange, inexplicable foreign land known as California, were denied access to the courtroom. Instead, they were herded into what those reporters described as an “overflow room,” and forced to watch on a video monitor. Keep in mind, many of those reporters traveled to the Golden State because the judge had ruled against streaming or televising the trial. Okay, that makes it hard, but not impossible for reporters to cover the trial. At least, until the audio and video feed went out. Reporters appealed the decision and the court eventually relented, allowing some Nebraska reporters into the courtroom.The strangest thing, though, is that to date, at least as far as I have been able to discern, no explanation has ever been given.People often assume that, once the court system has made a decision on a thing, like allowing journalists to cover a trial, it's a done deal. But it's not. We have to periodically re-fight that same battle.There have been numerous attempts over the years to keep reporters out of courtrooms. Do you know when the Supreme Court first held that the press and the public had a First Amendment right to attend criminal trials? Are you thinking that must be a hundred years ago, 75 maybe? Try 1980, in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia.It is true, circus trials lead to heavy criticism of the press in the courtroom and that criticism is sometimes deserved. The press has a responsibility to report the news, not exploit the news. No matter what you think about reporters in the courtroom, keep in mind, they serve an important function, the same as they do at city council meetings and school board meetings and every other government operation. The knowledge that the people are watching is a bulwark* against corruption. Justice administered behind closed doors is rarely just. *This is the first time I have ever used “bulwark” in a sentence.

Bulldog Track & Field Challenge

On Beards

Related Articles

The Stuff Sequels Are Made Of

Trendsetters in the News

Gage County Newsletter

Contempt Breeds Familiarity