There are sincere concerns that television cameras would disrupt proceedings, encourage flamboyant lawyers to play to the TV audience, intimidate witnesses or make people reluctant to serve on juries. But those concerns do not overcome the right, the need, of the public to look over the shoulder of the system and see if all is running properly.
Today's television cameras are smaller and require much less supporting technology or lighting. Thus they are much easier to incorporate into a courtroom without calling attention to themselves. And the adoption of televised proceedings in other states has shown that, properly managed, trials can proceed unimpeded and that those involved are less in awe than they might have been a generation ago.
Judges would, and should, retain authority to limit television coverage when, for example, there is reason to fear that a particular witness is in danger. And rules should utterly prohibit anyone from identifying members of any jury.
Still to be worked out are details on the use of yet more modern gizmos, particularly smart phones with built-in video capacity. Such devices rightly give judges pause because they can be operated in stealth, by individuals who don't work for established news outlets and thus aren't interested in keeping the court's favor for the next case they will want to cover.
Whatever rules come out of the process, the point here is not media web traffic or morbid curiosity. The point is to demystify the way our courts operate.
When those courts function properly, they deserve to be seen and win the public's faith. When they do not function properly, the public needs to see that, too, and to do its duty by demanding improvements in a system that has no longer been kept a secret from them.