Prop 8 TV? The Educational Argument for Governing in the Wide Open
BY Nancy Scola | Wednesday, January 6 2010
Whether or not there is any actual utility to allowing C-SPAN, that eye on democracy sponsored by the cable industry, to broadcast the House and Senate's final negotiations over their respective health care bills is a debate gripping the blogosphere. There seems, generally speaking, to be a particular bent to the critique thus far that focuses on whether transparency-via-video would actually improve how legislation gets made. To catch up on the commentary, check out how the Wonk Room's Igor Volsky (somewhat oddly) uses the vapidness of congressional floor debate, which is often little more than kabuki at this point, to argue against the airing of this final, substantive round. Matt Yglesias concludes that it's "a terrible idea," while Ezra Klein finds himself conflicted about the prospect.
Perhaps fortuitously for advocates of televising how government works, there's a somewhat simpler case on the horizon that highlights the other selling point for institutional camera work: its educational value. Televising government, the thinking goes, can help us all understand how government works, even if it is a total mess. What's come up is that the California judge presiding over the Proposition 8 case Perry v. Schwarzenegger has raised the possibility of allowing a single pool television camera into his courtroom to cover the trial. He's accepting public comments on the matter until Friday. Opponents of same-sex marriage are arguing that, since this is a trial, with witnesses and the like, cameras aren't proper. Generally speaking, though, these same-sex marriage cases are kind of the perfect storm (in a good way) of incentives towards allowing cameras in the court.
There's considerable public interest in the same-sex marriage in general, and Prop 8 in particular. And more than that, we're dealing here with some of the core, enduring questions about the complications of doing democracy American-style. How do we balance the rights of the minority and the will of the majority? How do states and the federal government engage with one another when personal rights are in question? Cameras in the court aren't going to change any verdicts here. (At least one would hope not.) But it could create the opportunity for more people to better understand how the operating system of government works today -- and the mechanisms we have available to change it.
The Courage Campaign, for one, is running a "Televise the Trial" petition drive.
But would anyone watch? Hard to say, but a point in favor of the idea that they would is the March 5th California Supreme Court hearing on the validity of Prop 8. To cite one example, Ana Marie Cox ran a lively live blog of the proceedings, all few hours of it. You had lawyers helping law people parse the nuances of the law, and all assembled debating the moral and social aspects of the case. It was really quite wonderful, and you can't ask for much more than that.