One factor will surely trump all others in the nuanced debate over whether broadcasters should be allowed to televise civil and criminal court proceedings.

What Rupert Murdoch wants, government ministers of all stripes (Vince Cable excepted, it would seem) fall over themselves to give him.

It is no surprise that it is Sky which is lobbying most vigorously for relaxation of the longstanding prohibition.

Yet arguments that televising the courts is ‘in the public interest’ and ‘about democracy’ are disingenuous.

Sky’s recent launch of live coverage of the Supreme Court ought to be viewed as the Trojan horse that it is, whether you view the move as progressive or not.

What broadcasters really want is to be able to film celebrity and high-profile criminal trials to attract viewers and burnish their ‘product’.

It’s reality TV taken to another level.

Of course, there is a perfectly legitimate argument to be made that bringing cameras into courts could demystify the courts and increase public understanding of the justice system.

But the risks must not be downplayed: the potential for witness intimidation, for example; and for lawyers and other participants to ‘play up’ to the camera, as was widely believed to have happened in the OJ Simpson trial.

The broadcasters aren’t necessarily wrong, in summary: it’s just that one should not grant much credibility to their professed motives for seeking reform.