Judicial Wars: John Dean has an interesting essay on the meaning of "judicial activism," including a link to a law review article that puts the matter in historical context (have yet to read it, but it is provided in easy .html format and looks interesting).
Furthermore, Congressional Quarterly also has some good resources on the judicial nomination battles, again providing some historical context. The CQ site in fact has tons of background materials on a myriad of current matters of public concern. Boon to civic classes everywhere.
Media: Al-Jazeera: The Inside Story Of the Arab News Channel That Is Challenging The West by Hugh Miles is a sympathetic look at the revolutionary news channel that also provides a questioning eye on Western (especially American) opposition. Serious questions can be raised about providing a forum of terrorist voices, but Al-Jazeera does stay true to their motto: "the opinion and the other opinion" by providing other voices as well. It has a point of view, but so does our news stations. And, working at such stations tends to be a helluva lot less risky.
This ironically means it is criticized from all sides, especially from the autocratic leaders of local Arab governments. The number of misleading attacks by the United States (and suspicious actual physical attacks, a few leading deaths) suggests the importance of having such a balancing resource. It is actually an amazing example of freedom of press in action with a credibility based on its journalistic ethics and BBC sponsored personnel origins. Taken with a grain of salt, this continual subject of scorn can be rightly said to be a blessing to the cause of freedom.
Televising Trials In NY: Meanwhile, a ruling was handed down by the New York Court of Appeals that rejected a constitutional claim by Court TV concerning the state's ban of televisions in the courtroom. The U.S. Supreme Court once came close to ruling that any broadcasts threatened the fairness of trials, but later tempered their concerns. Nonetheless, the same ruling held that states had the discretion to choose whether or not to televise, and N.Y. basically has a negative policy until this very day.
Putting aside constitutional compulsion, this is probably a bad policy. Even a limited allowance of cameras would promote understanding and openness, giving the "public trial" provision of the Sixth Amendment a truly up to date touch. Local access channels can very well be used to air such trials with educational commentary. This would also be useful for potential jurors. And, careful selection can be used to deal with troublesome cases where television might be considered to be exploitative, invasion of privacy, or some other threat to fair trials.
I question if television generally can be treated as a second class citizen in this area, but a near blanket ban is overkill either way.