I’m thinking about this question again given my current research. Until the 1980s, Senate proceedings were not televised. (The Watergate Committee was the notable exception.) Thus, none of the Bayh committee hearings that I am reviewing were recorded. I have to read transcripts.
While transparency is a worthy goal, there’s a good argument that televising hearings or other routine aspects of government business is unnecessary and turns them into a circus. (They can, of course, still be open to the public and on the record.) Take the daily White House press briefing. Is there any value in putting that on the air? I doubt it. Probably the conversation would be more productive and informative if it wasn’t. Ditto for committee hearings, which are supposed to be about gathering information and working through drafts. Now they often turn into verbal slugfests in search of a viral clip.
Put another way, has greater transparency improved Congress’s work? I don’t think so. Nobody thinks that Congress is better now than it was in, say, 1980. In that sense, I support the Supreme Court’s exclusion of cameras from argument. (Personally, I don’t like the live streaming of arguments, but it’s not terrible.)