aving failed to get their cameras inside the Supreme Court for yesterday's arguments, cable networks improvised by turning themselves into glorified radio stations.
In the strangest melding of old and new media since TV reporters furiously scanned computer screens to read Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's report on air in real time, the networks applied their high-tech skills to the low-tech job of playing the audiotapes of the 90-minute court hearing shortly after it concluded.
In one striking juxtaposition, financial network CNBC displayed its state-of-the-art stock charts on most of the screen. But in one small corner - accompanying the sounds of the lawyers and judges speaking - it showed one of those old-fashioned recording devices that conjured up Richard Nixon's infamous White House tapes.
''The one thing that you could not accuse this of was being slick,'' said Robert Thompson, founder of Syracuse University's Center for the Study of Popular Television. ''It was like the old days listening to Fibber McGee and Molly.''
Tom Rosenstiel, executive director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said: ''The low-tech quality of it created a sense it was new and real. There were no spinning graphics, and they didn't have John Williams draft special music for it.''
Using close-captioning to provide an ongoing transcript of the courtroom dialogue and displaying the image of the Supreme Court justice or lawyer who was speaking, the cable networks relied on old-fashioned ingenuity and legwork to turn the audiotapes into an effective multimedia presentation.
In order to identify which justice was speaking at a given time, MSNBC had former court clerks who could identify justices by their voices stationed in its control room. A Fox News Channel producer dashed from the hearing to the control room, and relying on notes of the proceedings, was able to match the speakers with their words. CNN, which had several people in the courtroom, used a similar system to identify who was talking.
In Boston, only WHDH-TV (Channel 7) aired the entire tape before going into a shortened newscast and then rejoining regular network programming. ''This was an historic event,'' said station spokeswoman Ro Dooley. ''And we felt we have no other choice but to cover it.''
WBZ-TV (Channel 4) ran some of the audio just before and during its noon newscast, and WCVB-TV (Channel 5) aired a few minutes during its noon news.
NECN, the regional cable news outlet, aired the entire court hearing. ''I listened to the whole thing, and I was absolutely riveted,'' said station manager Charles Kravetz.
''My sense is that if you're a news junkie, then it worked well. If you weren't, you were watching the soap operas. You really had to concentrate.''
Yet Rosenstiel thought the absence of cameras actually made it easier to follow events. ''You were able to concentrate on the language because you weren't distracted by the courtoom,'' he said. ''You were not distracted by any of the aesthetics of the camera.''
In the debate over whether to open up the Supreme Court to the camera's glare, many journalists contended that such a move was warranted under the extraordinary circumstances.
''I am arguing that in a case of this importance - affecting the public, affecting the presidency, they should have opened the door this one time,'' said Marvin Kalb, executive director of the Washington office of Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy. ''It would have been clean, it would have been pure.''
Yet in its own way, yesterday's big story harkened back to a cleaner, purer news culture, when words meant more than graphics and inquiring judges counted more than talking heads.
''I was absolutely riveted, and I wasn't expecting to be,'' Rosenstiel said. ''It was cool. Like real news.''
