Yearbook of radio and television (1959)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

'[QUAL ACCESS' DRIVE GAINS GROUND . . . Canon 35 Study Is Important Step By ROBERT O. SWEZEY Chairman, NAB Freedom of Information Committee CANON 35 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics of the American Bar Association is still the focal point of the broadcasters' struggle for equal access and recognition comparable to that afforded the print media. It will be recalled that Canon 35, which has been officially adopted in some eighteen states and followed as a matter of course in many others, arbitrarily denies the use of radio and television equipment as well as photographic equipment in the coverage of court proceedings. Considerable headway has been made during the past year in familiarizing lawyers, broadcasters and, to a certain extent, the general public with the arguments, pro and con, on this issue. Many articles have been written and many speeches made. Gradually, out of the welter of argument and discussion, it has become apparent that the real question involved is only whether photography and the broadcasting of court proceedings will interfere with the due administration of justice. If they do not, there is no basis for their prohibition. A signal forward step was taken by the American Bar Association itself, motivated by the insistent appeals of the broadcasters, the press photographers, and a progressive element within the legal fraternity, including a number of prominent judges and attorneys. In the annual meeting of the Association held in Los Angeles in August of 1958, the House of Delegates, following the recommendation of its Board of Governors, authorized the President of the ABA to appoint a special committee composed of nine members of the Association "to conduct a continuing study of the problem involved in connection with Canon 35 and the proposed amendment, with the authority to conduct such surveys (with the prior approval of the Board of Governors) as may be deemed necessary to obtain reliable factual data on the experience of judges and lawyers in those courts where either photography, televising or broadcasting, or all of them are permitted." In due course, after the Los Angeles meeting, the President of the ABA appointed that committee, which is presently considering the problem assigned to it. We anticipate that the committee will give the broadcasters ample opportunity to meet with the committee and fully discuss the situation. The most helpful judicial support which our position has received during the past year was the decision of the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals— the court of last resort in criminal matters — rendered in the case of Lyles vs. Oklahoma in September, which held that Canon 35 was"obsolete and unrealistic", and that radio and television are entitled to the same courtroom rights as the press. It remains for us broadcasters to demonstrate convincingly that we can cover court proceedings without causing interference or distraction of the participants; that television and radio are bona fide professional news media, and not merely purveyors of entertainment; that we are willing and able to conform to the standards of conduct essential to the preservation of dignity of court proceedings. 777