The Supreme Court blocked a feed to a few more courthouses and thus one to the general public is currently out too. So, we are left with secondhand accounts, such as here.
Video reports appeal to some more than reading extended transcripts, particularly transcripts that are actually at times summaries of what occurs. Video can also be more democratic -- some might not be as comfortable with extended transcripts, finding video easier to understand or relate to. This is useful to recall even if you or I may not be a member of this group. Reading is fundamental, but video is educational as well.
People can also dismiss the live blogging as the work of biased pro-same sex marriage sorts or otherwise erroneous. The "MSM" often is also dismissed as biased and/or incompetent. Coverage will be incomplete (as live blogging of the Sotomayor hearings tended to be). When such an error is cited or something is left out, being about to directly download the video of the trial can be used to judge things for oneself, including things that rest on viewing the demeanor of witnesses or others involved and so forth.
Viewing the trial also would deal with live people, making it harder to stereotype or ignore the personal on both sides. This is true even regarding questions we all are tired hearing about. "Oh, well, yes, that [fill in blank] sort seemed reasonable. I mean other [fill in blank] faceless people on the other side." Certain issues that are very personal and sensitive are hard to reasonably handle. Facing real people changes things in various cases.
Though many here speak from direct experience, including involving themselves and loved ones, it also amounts to a lot of faceless philosophizing. Having seen Bazelon and Lithwick [Slate commentators] on television speak their mind (or even listening to audio of them) alone matters to me and others, if in a small way. When dealing with same sex couples or Prop 8 supporters, it would even more so. Video reports of the Haitian disaster underlines this.
The coverage is helpful. But, direct video would be more so, even if it also brings negatives. How much? Hard to quantify. Enough to matter, probably.
---
* I added:
Bottom line, video helps the function of public trials, expanding the role in the process beyond media gatekeepers, even if the latter group includes bloggers. Online video has an educational and oversight function in any number of cases, as its use on political blogs show, and can in respect to trials too.
Some are not comfortable with this role, but the fears tend to address issues that would arise anyway, such as outing witnesses whose names and faces are in no way secret or the expansion of the noise of cranks. This must be weighed against the positives as well.
I might have referenced this before, but this was originally posted on the Slate fray and I wanted to post it here as well.