Furthermore, the media has been known to slant certain criminal trials in particular directions. For example, the Casey Anthony trial of just a few years ago, some argue, was slanted in such a manner that the entire nation thought she was guilty. The jury, however, found her not guilty. Given the portrayal of this woman in the media, an entire nation thought that justice had not been served. Jurors were ridiculed and even threatened. An entire uproar had occurred. By allowing court proceedings to be covered by the media, there's a lack of authenticity which is surrendered for recording everything on television. Furthermore, allowing court proceedings to be televised cheapens the process of justice, by making it a form of entertainment for the masses. This is simply unacceptable. It negates the entire reason that the judicial process was created: the judicial system was developed in order to employ a level rightness to the wrongs that had been committed against individuals. Moreover, some witnesses...

Televising court proceedings puts these jurors in danger of mooning for the cameras or from being authentic while on the witness stand. The jurors may also desire anonymity, as in the case of the Casey Anthony trial, when such a high-profile defendant was found not guilty.
Thus, while the televising of court proceedings might sound like an ideal proposition, this only exists in theory. Televising court proceedings such as criminal trials might create a greater amount of transparency, but at the price of justice. Real justice cannot breathe within the deep scrutiny of television cameras, television commentary and a mass audience of an entire national and international community. In many respects, justice is best served quietly and in private in numerous circumstances.

References

Debate.org. (2013). Should criminal trials be televised? Retrieved from Debate.org: http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-criminal-trials-be-televised