No, it’s a great idea - but then so was the 3-D movie until America discovered that the movies were as tacky as those cardboard glasses. There’s no longer any question that the wired nation is trial addicted. Whether starring Arnie Becker or Judge Wapner, courtroom histrionics may be the single most popular source of today’s home entertainment. The question facing the 24-hour Courtroom Television Network is one of quality rather than quantity: can excess yield success without getting mired in the tedious or resorting to the tabloidish?
Certainly, the network, which debuts on July 1 with Time Warner as its prime backer, will enjoy verdant pickings. No fewer than 44 states now permit cameras in their courtrooms. And next month the federal court system (thanks largely to Brill’s persuasive prodding) will begin allowing video coverage of some of its civil proceedings. Court TV plans to visit several high-visibility trials each day, delivering long portions live and others in taped wrap-ups. Anchors and experts will explain and analyze much the way the networks cover a golf match. “We’re going to bring the whole world of the courtroom into the open,” proclaims Brill.
That sound you hear is the panting of a thousand lawyers as they comb the Yellow Pages for a power agent. But whether Court TV represents good news for viewers is far less clear. The folks mounting this judicial marathon voice nothing but lofty intentions; they envision it as part “community service,” part “civics lesson.” Says Aaron Freiwald, the network’s editorial director: “This will not be ’the murder channel.’ We’ll have cases that will give viewers interesting issues to think about - abortion, the right to die, First Amendment protections. People will come to understand how the justice system works.”
It’s hard to find evidence of that in the promotional cassette the network is sending to cable operators. After flicking at New York’s “Fatal Attraction” murder trial and that of Marlon Brando’s son, the tape homes in on a 17-year-old Kentucky girl accused of killing her father as he allegedly tried to rape her. “I got out of the bathtub,” she sobbingly testifies. “I was putting on my underwear and he came into my room.” Nor is a viewer’s uneasiness arrested by what Court TV plans to accord major coverage in its first month: the trial of the white policemen accused of beating black motorist Rodney King in Los Angeles and the sexual-assault trial of William Kennedy Smith in Palm Beach.
In fairness, a lengthy list of the network’s rules of conduct - dispatched by Brill to his staff - suggests that he’s aiming higher than “A Current Affair.” Along with banning dramatic re-enactments and the naming of rape victims, the list includes measures to protect the audience from sexually graphic testimony. To fill air time when trials are in recess, the network is considering some inventive weekly series. “Night Court Live” would drop in on small-claims courts around the nation while an educational program for children would feature kids playing lawyers and judges in mock trials. As for the genuine articles, Court TV’s toughest challenge will be to keep viewers tuned during those eye-glazing patches of legalistic haggling that invariably surface. On the other hand, the unpredictability of live coverage can also serve as a plus. Two weeks ago the network’s cameras visited a New York courtroom to record a copyright dispute involving the estate of the late James Dean. Amid a cascade of numbingly technical testimony, an old friend of the actor suddenly launched into a riveting recollection of the night he died.
Court TV’s own launch is expected to be witnessed by viewers in more than 40 states. “Our investors are in for the long haul,” says Brill. “We’re not being asked to show a profit until the end of our fourth year.” As for the quality of the show viewers will end up with, it may be illuminating to note two names on the network’s roster of major players. One, anchor Fred Graham, is a former Supreme Court correspondent for CBS News; the other, executive producer Bill Boggs, once oversaw “The Morton Downey Jr. Show.” The final judgment on Court TV could well hinge on which of those diametrically opposite perspectives prevails. Come to think of it, isn’t that what makes any trial worth watching?
