Even though various individuals believe in what they read, I am firmly confident there is
full trust in first-hand information through live broadcasts. Such information helps people to
make informed decisions about their everyday lives. For instance, many people rarely trust the
court's verdicts unless they get involved in court proceedings through watching live broadcasts.
Guaranteeing the accused’s right to privacy while ensuring the public right to transparent access
to open government information is likely to bolster public confidence in the court’s decisions.
The courts administer justice to all people, including the accused persons. The accused
has the same right as those of other citizens and is innocent until proven guilty. Televised court
proceedings may portray the accused as being guilty and produce a climate of hostility towards
the defendant. In such a case, there is a likelihood of the court returning a guilty verdict due to
the broadcasting of court proceedings. However, the court exercises its jurisprudence in
providing the defendant with the context to be more informed before the trial.
On the other hand, the public has right to transparent access to government function
information. Professionally televised court proceedings, subject administration of justice to
public scrutiny; therefore, denying the public access to such information is justice denied. Many
people across the world are accustomed to televisions as a primary source of information and as
a fact of everyday life. Therefore, televised court proceedings make the public virtually present
in courts listening to the court proceedings, thus preventing the public from distrusting the
court’s verdict. Subsequently, the professionally televised court proceedings bolster the image of
the court and also improve confidence in the courts.
In conclusion, allow courts to administer justice to all, courts guarantee the accused’s
right to privacy while the public watches the court proceedings, to prevent mistrust in the court’s
