Many readers may question The Times' editorial marking the 20th anniversary of the O. J. Simpson trial for its dismissive view of courtroom TV cameras' tendency to compromise the pursuit of justice. But all should applaud The Times for impartiality in abiding staff writers' reports that credibly contravene its editorial's stance. ("Another casualty of the O.J. trial: cameras in courtrooms," Editorial, June 11)
First, in the same day's Calendar section, reporter Greg Braxton aired the opinion of an eminent authority on television and popular culture that "because the trial was on camera … everyone involved in the courtroom was performing as if they were stars of the highest-rated miniseries ever."
Then on Saturday, reporters Gale Holland and Matt Stevens recounted prominent lawyers' opinions about how many Simpson trail participants "seemed star-struck" with an "eye on the camera."
I usually find The Times' editorial positions quite persuasive. This time, however, I'm giving the nod to your diligent, insightful reporters.