Informed Opinions on Today’s Topics : Charging the Media for O.J. Trial Coverage

The trial of the century is proving to be the bill of the century.

And it’s about time the media pays a greater share.

At least, that’s the view of Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who claims that jury sequestration, security and other costs incurred directly because of live television coverage of the O.J. Simpson murder trial has added significantly to the county’s financial burden.

Through January, the case had already cost almost $2.5 million, according to the county, and that doesn’t include Los Angeles Police Department expenses.

On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a motion proposed by Antonovich that asks Judge Lance Ito to make broadcasting of the trial conditional on the media paying for costs generated or increased by its coverage.

Antonovich called for the action after County Counsel De Witt Clinton released an opinion Monday that the trial judge has broad discretion to set conditions on the televising of court proceedings.

Should Judge Ito require the media to help pay for the O.J. Simpson trial?

Rick Marks, Cal State Northridge broadcasting professor and former producer for NBC and KNBC News

“No. As journalists, we’re performing a public service in covering that trial. The public is entitled to know what’s going on in the courtroom, and the defendant has the right to a public trial. Journalists have been covering trials and other major events for years without paying. I covered part of the Manson trial, and that was a major trial and we didn’t pay for that coverage. It is basic to our freedom of press that we can’t be put in that position. I’m not saying we never pay for information, but we can’t be forced to pay. Journalism evolved as the watchdog of government and therefore can’t be forced into paying to perform that most basic function.”

County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky

“It may not require the judge. The media should do it on their own. I believe the media should be required to pay those costs for which they are directly responsible, and nothing more. While it’s tempting for some to demand a share of the media’s profits, it would set an unsettling precedent. Charging the media for costs that go beyond what can be accurately attributed to them would raise questions about the whole justice system. The public should never have a question about whether an individual is charged just because he’s famous and would generate good ratings in television and could help bring revenues into the coffers of government.”

Elizabeth Kaufman, president of the San Fernando Valley Bar Assn.

“I don’t know if he has the authority, but if he does, definitely. It’s probably a bad idea in general to mix money and justice. When we talk about justice, we don’t consider money. The public has a right to know about the trial. But since we live in a world that’s not perfect, we are paying what we incur, and when you have a case like this, it creates extra expenses. If the media is creating the extra expenses, and television certainly is, they should pay their share of the cost. Los Angeles County doesn’t want to be in the same position as Orange County.”

Sylvia Teague, president of the Radio and Television News Assn.

“We don’t feel he’s within his rights. We’re already bearing the cost that is associated with having a camera in the courtroom. We’ve paid for wiring the courtroom to enable the feed to come out. We’ve supplied all the personnel, the tens of thousands of hours of work to make this possible. All of that was donated by all the stations and networks involved in the pool coverage. We’re paying rent to the county on the parking lot across the street--$24,000 a month--and we’re paying for our security and garbage pickup and electric services in Camp O.J. None of that is paid for by the county.”