Postman on Politics of the Seattle Times posts on a recent debate that asks:  "what the civic value would be of broadcasting federal court proceedings."

I can think of a variety of benefits from having cameras in courtrooms, ranging from educating the public about what court proceedings are really like and in the process demistifying the legal process, to aiding in the education of and evaluation of lawyers, allowing journalists (and bloggers more likely) to more closely watch and report on proceedings and judges.  (Oh, and there's the possibility that the appellate court can actually watch, rather than only read, the proceedings.)

I can't think of any negatives.  I do wonder how much it would cost and whether any difficult/distracting logistical decisions would be made (all live proceedings would be broadcast; would there be more arguments over which ones should not be televised)?  Could the money be better spent on other things (such as pacer and electronic filing for all courts)?

The issue has obviously been debated with respect to the US Supreme Court, where it doesn't seem like there will be cameras any time soon (notwithstanding actions taken by Congress):

Court TV anchor Fred Graham, who has covered courts for the New York Times and CBS, said that the U.S. Supreme Court sets the worst example by banning cameras in its courtroom.

NB:  the Washington Supreme Court broadcasts (and has archived broadcasts) arguments before it [link].