Is there a reason an illustration is allowed and a photograph isn't? Why would you prefer a version of events warped through an artist's mind and hand OVER an exact picture?
I would say that a picture isn't an exact replica either. The photographer chooses what to photograph at what time and with specific framing and with a particular set of features on the camera. A photographer makes choices just like an illustrator does. So a photographer is still warping a version of events through their mind as well.
One photograph of a person crying or upset could be used to represent then entirety of a trial. Imagine if that one moment is published in a newspaper. The person would be immediately assumed guilty in the court of public opinion.
I agree, but also think that neither is really necessary, courtrooms could have CCTV, that could be archived and made available to people that are involved with the case. A professional photographer or illustrator in a courtroom, now that I think about it, seems bonkers.
This reminded me of an article I read years ago in Spy magazine. It was a collection of cliches from court reporting, lots of different cases where the defendant was described as "emotionless as the guilty verdict was read out".
After about 20 examples of famously (to different degrees) guilty criminals it followed up with another 10 or so where the defendant was later cleared of the crime when new evidence came out, but still they sat "emotionless" as they were found guilty of a crime they didn't commit.
Because no one poses for a courtroom sketch. Just by force of habit, the photographer would be a distraction and jurors would be looking at the camera, smiling, fixing their hair/teeth, and not focusing on the information being presented.
The article states that cameras were allowed in the US until the Lindbergh trial, which was the 'trial of the century' of that year. It was a zoo in the courtroom, so the Bar barred cameras. But now, with digital cameras that can operate quietly without a flash in ordinary indoor light, that objection would seem obsolete.
Plus couldn't they institute a lottery system. Offer ten slots for photographers, to avoid a "zoo", but still allow for photography. All photos would be made public, so everyone gets images regardless of news org.
Because one feels imaginary, while the other one feels real. If you see a drawing of an event, it doesn't have nearly the same impact as a picture of it.
