associating him with the conspiracy. The judge stated expressly that he had no concern that the coverage would adversely impact the dignity of the proceedings or offend decorum. ¶ 4. The paramount concern must, of course, be assuring fair trials for the parties. Nevertheless, the right of openness in judicial proceedings is also a fundamental right shared by the accused and the public. Gannett River States Publ’g Co. v. Hand, 571 So.2d 941, 942 (Miss.1990) (citing Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (Press-Enterprise II), 478 U.S. 1, 7, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 2739, 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986)). Most often, that concern is raised, as it was here, on motion of press representatives, who have standing to contest court orders restricting public access to legal proceedings. Hand, 571 So.2d at 944 (<HOLDING>) ¶ 5. In Hand, we addressed circumstances under
holding that representatives of the news media have the standing to contest a court order restricting public access to legal proceedings holding that media members had no constitutional right of access to tapes recognizing a right of access to civil proceedings holding that access rights of the news media and of the general public are identical in scope holding that general creditors do not have standing to contest forfeitures