Reporting the courts in the 21st Century

Journalist and Freedom of Information campaigner Heather Brooke (pictured) has sparked a debate on modern court reporting by asking whether court cases should be allowed to be recorded by journalists.

It seems to have polarised opinion: some journalists argue that it is the natural progression, allowing for more accurate reporting, and could go further - tweeting and live blogging for example; others say that going as far as using twitter and the like could endanger the practice of fair and accurate reporting if it were swamped with opinionated blogging and snippets of information.

Here are a selection of comments so far:

Heather Brooke: "The simple answer is to allow tape recorders for all: no party is disadvantaged and an ‘official’ recording is there for checking. This is how it works in other countries. But this is to ignore the root objection of the courts: that they are losing control of how court proceedings are presented to the public.

"Many trials in the upper courts are now officially recorded (and in the case of the new UK Supreme Court, filmed) yet these records are not accessible to the public. All High Court hearings have been digitally recorded since February 2010 and sit in a basement in the Royal Courts of Justice. When I spoke to the court’s governance officer he told me there were no plans to make these accessible directly to the public. Why not?"

Siobhain Butterworth, The Guardian: "There is something rather quaint about journalists in the 21st century using pens and notebooks to record what goes on in court hearings when the tools of the trade now include laptops, mobiles, BlackBerrys and other digital paraphernalia. Why not use them in court? In fact, why not report live from the courtroom? The obvious answer is that judges won't let you.

"The difference between scribbling notes (publishing later) and filing copy instantly from the courtroom using an electronic device is self-evidently slight and there's a lot to be said for the sort of full, accurate, contemporaneous, reports of court hearings that live-blogs and twitter reporting could achieve."

Mike Dodd, Editor, Media Law: "You'd need to trial it, to see how it worked. I'd be very suspicious about tweeting - I'm not sure that court cases are the sort of thing where you'd want to put out short, pithy messages."

(Quoted in Siobhain Butterworth's article)

Steve Dyson, Media Consultant and former Editor, Birmingham Mail: "No, no and no again. Why not? Only by insisting on accurate, balanced, fair and contemporaneous reports can court coverage be reasoned, calm(ish) and not damaging to justice. Wild snippets as tweets, opinionated blogs and even edited broadcasts will make a mockery of something very precious.

"Live broadcasts, maybe, but courts cannot be subjected to the unhindered internet media. Yes, a pencil and dated notebook sounds archaic but, do you know what, it works; it engenders care; it encourages factual checks; as does the process from reporter to newsdesk to sub... For legal checks on court copy. Let's not get shoddy."

(Commenting on Jon Slattery's blog post on this topic)

What do you think? Should court cases be recorded? Should we go further and start tweeting and blogging in court?