The Utah Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, joined by several corporate television and radio broadcasting entities, seeks modification of Canon 3A(7) of the Utah Code of Judicial Conduct to permit broadcasting, televising, and recording of judicial proceedings.1 We are authorizing a one-year experiment to allow the televising, broadcasting, and recording of proceedings in the Utah Supreme Court. Following that experiment, we can better evaluate the impact of cameras in the courtroom and determine whether more extensive coverage of judicial proceedings is warranted.
This petition does not present the issue of cameras in the courtroom for the first time. Only five years ago, the petitioners requested modification of Canon 3 A(7) to allow still photography, television, and radio broadcasting of court proceedings. See In re Modification of Canon 3 A(7) of the Utah Code of Judicial Conduct, 628 P.2d 1292 (Utah 1981). As the Court noted then, “Freedom of the press and the right to a fair trial are among our most cherished values. Any tension between these values is therefore difficult to resolve.” Id. at 1293. In response to the petition, the Canon was modified to permit still photography, but the request for television broad*199casting and recording of court proceedings was denied because it was not clear that the interests of a fair trial protected by Canon 3 A(7) would be improved by allowing such coverage. Nonetheless, the Court expressly held that “[experiments underway in other states may yet suggest appropriate modifications to the Canon in this respect” and that “[e]xperience with [still photography] coverage may provide the basis for changes to expand or curtail coverage in the future.” Id. at 1293-94.
In the present petition, the Society argues that more than three-quarters of our sister states permit some form of electronic coverage in their trial and/or appellate courts and that “[mjedia coverage of judicial proceedings has become the rule, rather than the exception.”2 Certainly, the decision of Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560, 101 S.Ct. 802, 66 L.Ed.2d 740 (1981), in which the Supreme Court held that cameras in the courtroom did not per se violate a litigant’s due process rights, has fostered the acceptance of such media access. The Society has done an admirable job of collecting data concerning the effect of broad media access upon judicial proceedings in other states.3 The studies are difficult to evaluate, however, largely because subjective judgment is necessarily involved in determining whether media coverage has affected judicial proceedings. For example, the Society has submitted copies of a study conducted in Arizona to measure participants’ reactions to cameras in the courtroom which indicated that while nearly seventy percent of the jurors did not feel that the presence of a camera made them nervous during the proceedings, nearly forty percent felt that the presence of the media made them feel that the case was more important than others. See Raker, Cameras and Recorders in Arizona’s Trial Courts: An Evaluation of the Experiment (undated) (attached as Exhibit B to petition). These statistics are open to differing interpretations. It is difficult to determine, for example, whether a juror who perceives that a case is “important” is more or less likely to convict a defendant in a criminal case or is likewise affected in a civil case. Moreover, even if the majority of jurors usually are unaffected by cameras in the courtroom, there is no way to determine in advance whether a particular jury will be composed of persons easily affected by such media coverage and whether substantial injustice could result.
The opposition to cameras in the courtroom generally emanates from a fear that the media will focus only on sensational cases and even then use only short excerpts that distort the proceedings, while those who favor extensive media coverage argue that the media is responsible and will present the balanced view and that better coverage by the most widely used news source — television—will contribute to better public understanding of the judicial process. We are not wholly convinced by either argument. Given the time constraints inherent in televising a news story, there will be little opportunity, as a practical matter, to educate the public. Nevertheless, if even limited television coverage helps the public to a better understanding of the judicial system, some good may be accomplished. Therefore, an experiment in broadcast media access is warranted.
Effective this date and continuing for a period of one year, the provisions of Canons 3 A(7) and 3 A(8) that prohibit “broadcasting, televising, or recording in the courtroom and areas immediately adjacent thereto during sessions of court or recesses between sessions” and prohibit “taking photographs (including motion picture and videotape),” respectively, are suspended with respect only to proceedings in this Court. Instead, televising, broadcasting, recording, and still photography shall be *200permitted in this Court in accordance with the guidelines attached as Appendix A.4 During the experimental period, the provisions of Canons 3 A(7) and 3 A(8) shall remain in full force and effect with respect to all other judicial proceedings. At the end of the experimental period, this Court will reconsider the Society’s petition for more extensive coverage.
It is so ordered.
HOWE, J., concurs.. The petition must necessarily include a modification of Canon 3 A(8). Canons 3 A(7) and 3 A(8) provide as follows:
(7) A judge should prohibit broadcasting, televising, or recording in the courtroom and areas immediately adjacent thereto during sessions of court or recesses between sessions, except that a judge may authorize:
(a) the use of electronic or photographic means for the presentation of evidence, for the perpetuation of a record, or for other purposes of judicial administration; or
(b) the broadcasting, televising, recording, or photographing of investitive, ceremonial, or naturalization proceedings.
(8) A judge should prohibit taking photographs (including motion picture and videotape) in the courtroom and areas immediately adjacent thereto during sessions of court or recesses between sessions, except that still photographs of the judge and other court personnel, counsel, spectators, parties and witnesses are permissible, subject to restrictions specified by the court and subject, in the case of parties and witnesses, to their advance consent in writing, provided that the court shall specifically forbid the taking of any photographs where it finds a substantial likelihood that such activity would jeopardize a fair hearing or trial in the matter at issue.
. The extent of coverage permitted varies widely. Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, and Wyoming permit coverage of appellate proceedings only.
. Unfortunately, the Society has failed to produce any analysis of whether the addition of Canon 3 A(8) to the Utah Rules of Judicial Conduct has had any effect upon participants in judicial proceedings in Utah.
. These guidelines conform generally to those in other states permitting appellate coverage only. See footnote 2, supra. The guidelines are tailored to appellate court proceedings. Should the Court later decide to extend the experiment to lower courts, the guidelines will need substantial revisions.