In July 1984, British Channel 4 began televising Case on Camera, a series based on genuine arbitration of civil cases carried out by a retired judge, recorded as it happened, and edited into half hour programs. Because of the Independent Broadcasting Authority's concern for the rights to privacy, a systematic study of public reaction to the series was done. Using a questionnaire based on the fictional series, Crown Court, and the real series, Case on Camera, 500 adult Londoners were interviewed. The study yielded modest claims of viewers' having learned from the series in three areas: (1) details of the law; (2) the atmosphere of a law court; and (3) advantages and disadvantages of the legal system. It was also found that people of lower socioeconomic status claimed to have learned more than those of higher status, suggesting some lessening of a knowledge gap commonly associated with differences in social status. Links with other attitudes toward the broadcasting of courts and legislative chambers were also observed. The results suggest that viewers might more readily come to accept the idea of televising court proceedings if they could be convinced that benefits would ensue, rather than being reassured that no harm would result. Three appendixes contain a description of the study methodology, extracts from viewers' written opinions, and four statistical tables. (CGD)