There are many states that don't allow the cameras in the courtroom, and the reason is sound. Cameras screw up the proceedings.

I have seen many a routine legal proceeding or argument get botched because the participants were playing to the camera.

The OJ trial is the classic example. I think the judge spent way to much time being a 'celebrity' and to little being a judge. The whole glove thing was an effort by the prosecution to be dramatic on TV. And the emphasis was on the cameras not the case. As you have pointed out many times, the civil attorney w/o cameras, and with much less fuss, put together a solid case (albeit a preponderance standard).

Federal courts don't allow them because of the mess that cameras made in the Lindbergh kidnapping case (this would be a great opportunity to make some joke about you being old enough to remember that).

That is not to say that there aren't reasonable arguments to the contrary as well. We get to see how bad some judges are. IN more mundane cases we get to see the system at work (but TV always seems to skew it a little).

99% of everything that goes on in court is boring. That is another thing they tend to skip on TV.