Mar
27

Supreme Court’s TV ban helps reasonable discourse

Lance Morgan

I have enormous respect and affection for Brian Wommack as a person and a professional. But as far as his views on televising the Supreme Court are concerned, he is — to quote a very wise man — wrong, wrong, wrong.

Many barrels of ink have been spilled and innumerable millions of pixels wasted debating whether or not the Supreme Court should have televised the oral arguments on the health care bill this week. A few more won’t hurt.

As a firm subscriber to the Kikuyu theory that cameras may steal your soul (relax, I’m only half serious), I thought it was a lousy idea when Congress started televising floor “debates.” Before arguing with me on that one, hold a roster of the Senate in 1987 in one hand and a roster of the Senate in 2012 in the other and compare quality.

Televising the Supreme Court doesn’t seem like a good idea either. Before you send me threatening emails, please go to C-Span.org and listen to the oral arguments. You will hear things that will astonish you: temperate discussion, calm questioning and reasonable discourse from both sides of the bench and the political aisle.

Then ask yourself this simple question: If cameras were on, would the tone be the same, the demeanor as professional, the discussion as thoughtful? Or would any (all?) of the participants have been compelled -- by virtue of the all-seeing eye – to be just a little cuter, pithier or more telegenic than they would have been without the cameras?

There is much good about the visual world we are increasingly inhabiting. And something important to be said for not letting everything be televised.

Michael Stopford

Executive Vice President and Senior Global Corporate Strategist

Brian Wommack

Senior Vice President

Lance Morgan

Chief Communications Strategist