Bitterly at war with each other for social proof of greater audience patronage, the two superpowers of domestic broadcast media and news, by occasionally exchanging blows and parries on issues touching on ethics and professionalism, create newsworthy material in the process itself. In the wake of these oftentimes, hilarious skirmishes, an independent appreciation of the controversies is sought by the public, not through a third television news network that harps on and infuses the material for public consumption, but to a myriad of Internet channels, where individual patrons play the part of journalists, barking at one another with comments and replies, which, whether fortunately or unfortunately, leads to a lush and livid exchange of ideas.
As both superpowers claimed first blood in delivering to the public their respective newly acquired yet strikingly identical hologram-effect technologies (where “virtual reporters” in the field were projected in the studio a la Obi Wan Kenobi in the course of covering of the recently concluded national elections), controversy again erupted when one of the superpowers, through its IT firm, cried foul when an anchor of the other superpower declared, wittingly or unwittingly, that their network used the same hologram technology which the CNN used in its coverage of the 2008 United States polls. What the other network used was not “hologram” but “chroma key” technology, explained the IT firm representative, as it pitched its own creation, “augmented reality” technology, which its contractor network used. ("Halalan 2010: Embracing Citizen Journalism & New Technology in Poll Coverage". Starmometer: Your Total Entertainment Blog. URL: http://www.starmometer.com/2010/05/09/halalan-2010-embracing-citizen-journalism-new-technology-in-poll-coverage/)
Whether the reason for igniting the issue was a compulsion for intellectual honesty or otherwise, I take interest in the technology itself, for its prospective value in the presentation and examination of witnesses in court. This technology, whether it be “hologram”, “chroma key” or “augmented reality”, can dramatically change court proceedings with appropriate adjustments in our procedural rules, if necessary. The application of this species of technology can dispense with a witness’ physical presence in court without compromising the administration of justice by the expedient of a deposition and its inherent deficiencies. Such an arrangement would particularly benefit, among others, child witnesses, or those under the witness protection program, whose actual locations must remain undisclosed, lest their lips be forever sealed by a series of unfortunate events before they’re before the court. ("Recording Evidence Through Video Conferencing In India". All India Reporter Pvt. Ltd. airwebworld. URL: http://airwebworld.com/articles/index.php?article=1151)
At present, the United Kingdom and several other jurisdictions specifically leave to the courts’ sound discretion to allow witnesses to “give evidence through a video link or other means”. (“PART 32 - EVIDENCE - MInistry of Justice". UK Ministry of Justice. http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part32.htm) The clause, “other means” seems susceptible to an interpretation expansive enough for the aforementioned hologram-effect technologies. While our Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC) provide for the admission as evidence of electronic documents, data messages, and ephemeral electronic communications, it does not yet clearly provide for the allowance of electronic testimonial evidence.
Raul S. Grapilon, Entry No. 1
2 comments:
When the world of the cutting edge collides with the Court, things get nasty. But when the time comes when that kind of evidence is to be presented, I want to be part of that arguing For it.
Post a Comment