News
Conrad Murray Case: Online Feeds Are the Wave of the Future
11-07-2011
The Michael Jackson Doctor Trial iPhone app was one way to watch the trial live. (iPhone photo by theOOBE/flickr)
When it comes to media coverage of the courts, it is not a good thing to never know what you’re going to get.
That’s why the involuntary manslaughter conviction of Dr. Conrad Murray for causing the death of pop superstar Michael Jackson, noteworthy as the latest "Trial of the Century," may be more memorable in the long run as the trial that cut out the television middleman. Using the miracle of modern media, the Murray trial may become known as the world’s first truly online trial.
Online, unedited, and un-commented upon. On an iPhone near you.
Maybe it’s for the best.
How did the online feed differ from television? Continuity, context and commentary – that is, the lack of subjective commentary from those feeding the trial to the viewer.
First, continuity. The sins of the main “gavel to gavel” networks in Jackson-Murray (In Session and HLN, both CNN affiliates) were not that they only showed snippets; it was that they left out snippets –- and at really critical times.
For example, on Thursday, Nov. 3, Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney David Walgren stood and delivered his closing argument. For a case of this magnitude it was not particularly long –- 120 minutes max, starting at about 10:30 a.m. and ending just before 12:30 p.m. But the In Session television feed saw fit to take four commercial breaks, often while Walgren was in mid-sentence.
For those old enough to remember 1968, think NBC, New York Jets, Oakland Raiders, think cutaway to show the movie "Heidi."
The second reason the online feed was preferable in Murray-Jackson was context. Every moment the camera was on, you got the feed. No editorial decisions, or split screens while a “boring” witness talked. The viewer decided what to watch and what to tune out.
Just like football. (Imagine if ESPN decided that special teams play polled badly and therefore decided to cut to commercial whenever the punter took the field.) In fact, judges who oppose cameras in the courtroom often say it is not generally cameras they oppose, but the out-of-context feed managed by editors and producers that distorts the proceeding and potentially undercuts the credibility of the verdict.
I may be the only law nerd on the planet who watched the trial of Dr. Conrad Murray from all three vantage points. Opening arguments and early witnesses from inside the courtroom, most of the middle of the trial on DVR-recorded “gavel to gavel” television coverage, and finally, on my iPhone. I watched the closing arguments online and on television simultaneously, making frequent use of the remote.
Another major difference between the online and television feeds was the lack of commentary from the online feed. You got a picture and camera angle clearly chosen from among the three privately owned in-court house black camera boxes. But no editorial gloss on what you were watching.
For instance, just after In Session returned to viewers from one of its commercial breaks, the lower part of the screen, in black, yellow and red outlined lettering read: "Prosecution: 'Michael Jackson paid with his life.'"
The continuous online feed eliminated this issue. When the ball is snapped, the camera rolls. When open court is in session, the viewer gets to watch.
And if not in the Murray case, then perhaps in the next "Trial of the Century," that level of transparency could make all the difference to the public’s faith and trust in the legitimacy of a verdict.
-v-
Ben Holden, a lawyer and journalist, is director of the Reynolds National Center for Courts and Media at the National Judicial College on the campus of the University of Nevada, Reno.
