Critics have been praising “In the Jury Room,” the ABC News summer series airing Tuesday nights at 10 p.m. that takes viewers inside real jury deliberations. ABC has shown an unusual and commendable (in theory, anyway) willingness this summer to turn over its airtime to news shows; limited-run series like “NYPD 24/7” and, now, “In the Jury Room” have the imprimatur of ABC News and ostensibly exist for a purpose other than escapist entertainment. As I keep watching these broadcasts, however – out of loyalty to what I consider the best news division of the top three networks – I grow increasingly troubled by what they represent.

It has become axiomatic (and tedious) for critics to ridicule reality TV and praise news documentaries; but ABC has twisted the form around so much this summer that I find myself appreciating the reality shows for their honesty, and resenting the news shows for their intrusive cameras. Instead of using their reportorial muscle to dig deep for stories, ABC News has instead devoted itself to positioning its cameras in places previously off-limits to television – and selling audiences on the unusual level of access accorded its producers. Rather than selling me on all this inside reporting, ABC’s approach has led me to question the entire enterprise. Does the presence of TV cameras unduly affect the behavior of those in front of them? The answer is a resounding yes – something we’ve learned from years of shows like “Survivor” and “Big Brother.” When they know they’re being watched by millions, human beings can’t help but perform. (Hell, most people I know put on a show even when a friend or family member spontaneously points a home video camera at their face.) That’s what I found troubling about “NYPD 24/7,” a series that purported to show what life is really like in the nation’s largest police department, but instead revealed only the performance skills of a handful of charismatic cops who agreed to allow cameras to tail them.

This time, the camera goes where few cameras have gone before: into a jury room. And once again the presence of ABC News begs the question left unanswered (or asked, for that matter) in the episodes I saw: Should cameras be placed inside a jury room at all? I’m no legal expert, but something about it seems invasive and wrong. A court proceeding is meant to be public; there’s ample reason to televise them, even over the objections of participants, if there’s a compelling benefit. Lawyers typically perform for juries, anyway.The addition of cameras in the courtroom doesn’t create the audience; it only supplements it. But jurors don’t have the same need to perform – and shouldn’t have to. That’s why Fox’s recent summer misfire, “The Jury,” had a legitimate place in the marketplace of series ideas; it’s a setting more appropriately captured by writers than recorded by cameras.

It turns out I’m not alone in feeling displeasure at the notion of televised jury deliberations.In Wednesday’s New York Post, Court TV chief Henry Schleiff pointedly declared that he’d never televise a jury deliberation on his network.Almost two years ago – in a lengthy editorial entitled “The 13th Juror” – the New York Times also took emphatic opposition to the idea, likening it to putting cameras in a voting booth. The Times argued that less educated and articulate jurors would be intimidated from speaking out on camera, and that otherwise-qualified jurors would be excused because of their opposition to their use. “The harm that would be done by turning jurors into public actors far outweighs the benefit,” the Times wrote, and I agree.

ABC News isn’t scoring any points for freshness here, anyway; it’s only taking the notion a step further – and too far – by turning the jury process into a weekly series. The notion was introduced in April 1997 with “Enter the Jury Room,” a CBS News special anchored by Ed Bradley that marked the first time television cameras were allowed in a jury deliberation. Interestingly, the disconnect between TV critics and editorial pages existed even then.”As to … whether the jurors were on their best behavior in prospect of being seen on network television,” critic Walter Goodman wrote in his Times review, “the plea is not guilty.” In 2002, an uproar followed an effort by PBS’s Frontline to film a jury in Texas.

Everything in American life has become fodder for television cameras; everyone is a potential actor. But at least reality shows exploit humanity for laughs and titillation. It’s sad to see the news division of a major network exploit the privacy of the jury room for the sake of ratings,without considering the consequences. I doubt David Westin asked himself whether he’d done society any harm by commissioning “In the Jury Room” – he probably figured that since no one on his show was eating cockroaches, it was contributing to the public good. But in a way his acquiescence to this idea (and the blessing of ABC Entertainment programmers) has done more damage to our society than anything promulgated by the producers of “Fear Factor.”

***

In its defense, ABC News is offering what looks like a fascinating hour-long documentary next Wednesday at 10 p.m. – “The Reunion,” a look at the effects of Brown v. Board of Education on multiple generations in the upscale community of Shaker Heights, Ohio. If the networks had the courage to devote more hours to shows with that kind of ambition and reach, they’d be more likely to distinguish themselves from the trash-mongers they’re hoping to supplant with cheaper programming.