unnecessarily intrusive

i've decided that i'm against having television courtrooms. i came to this conclusion after watching coverage of the bain trial yesterday. both radio and television played the horrible 111 tape of david bain ringing in to report the murders. i just can't see the point of publicly playing it. the jury will need to hear for, but the general public don't. it's like intrusive voyeurism at its worst.

well not quite at its worst. the worst were the tv news close-up shots on mr bain as the court was shown television footage of the dead bodies in the house. i can't say how awful and intrusive i've found that. not that i generally have much sympathy for mr bain, he may or may not be guilty and the jury will come to a decision about that. but still, to do a close-up focus on his face while he is having difficulty dealing with it is plain wrong.

again, it serves no purpose and causes much discomfort. i don't see the benefit of having trials filmed really. transcripts are available, reporters can give eye-witness accounts of what they have seen and heard during the day, and that is more than sufficient to full the purposes of "news" ie the need to be informed. more than that is unnecessary.

we have no right to view someone else's pain without their consent, and i don't believe mr bain's express consent would have been sought prior to airing of the courtroom footage. i felt equally uncomfortable with the footage of tony vietch while the judge was reading her statement during his sentencing. that he chose to give a media conference afterwards is up to him. but his visual reaction to hearing what the judge said is really none of our business.