Sometime late this year, or more likely early next year, hopefully early, the most consequential trial of our time perhaps of all time will be held. The very future of democracy is hanging in the balance. If Trump was acquitted on charges of election interference prior to the election, it could very well give him that precise, “see, they were out to get me” ammunition that he needs to win again.
Interestingly, one topic that both sides of the aisle seem to agree on is that the proceedings should be televised for the public. This isn’t a given or necessarily even a probability, though, because federal court rules prohibit cameras in a criminal trial setting. But we need to suspend those rules, according to me, and also everyone from journalists to lawmakers. And here are the primary reasons they give.
First, and to my mind, most importantly, we have grown into a culture where the press is deeply partisan. Fox, obviously but, come on, your choice of mainstream news outlet will very likely impact your mindset on important issues up to and including the guilt of the former president. So being able to watch those proceedings live to unpack the evidence for ourselves to hear testimony with our own ears, at least somewhat assuages the risk that citizens will simply hear information from third parties. Of course, of course, newscasters will still put their own spin on the recap of the day’s proceedings. That’s inevitable, but offering people the opportunity to see the evidence for themselves is unquestionably a step in the right direction.
Second, the trial is going to be a circus. Even if Trump supporters don’t show up en masse — which, given recent precedent, they just might not — the press is going to be just sheer madness outside that courthouse and some feel that if a single live stream camera is present in the courtroom, feeding live to various channels that’ll take away some of the pandemonium, which, maybe, I don’t know.
The final reason is what I find fascinating. It’s apparently a fact that individuals who serve on juries frequently leave the experience with a greater respect for the judicial system. They realize that more often than not, it works. So for Trump defenders to actually see the process played out and be confronted with evidence that they genuinely may have never been privy to before because of the biases of their preferred news station. It could be huge in terms of swaying those who are on the fence about Trump to finally step away from his side. Selfishly, I want to see the trial played out live rather than listen to often biased reports accompanying pastel court imagery. I think we all want to, in fact, I think we all need to. This is a good moment to break the rules.
Commentary
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
‘Overblown’: Americans debate the merits of DEI policies
Yesterday Dr. Frank Luntz‘Biased’: What Americans think of ‘mainstream media’
Feb 21 Dr. Frank Luntz‘Getting rid of them’: Americans discuss Trump and immigration
Feb 14 Dr. Frank Luntz‘Woke’: Why some Biden 2020 voters backed Trump in 2024
Feb 6 Dr. Frank LuntzWhy Trump’s trial should be televised
By Straight Arrow News
Former President Donald Trump has pleaded not guilty to four felony charges accusing him of attempting to overturn the 2020 election results. While a trial featuring the former president would appeal to many viewers, including some members of Congress, federal criminal courts prohibit the presence of cameras or recording devices in the courtroom.
Straight Arrow News contributor Jordan Reid says now is the time to bend the rules. Reid lays out crucial reasons why watching the trial unfold in real-time, instead of relying on interpretations of potentially biased journalists, is so important.
First, and to my mind, most importantly, we have grown into a culture where the press is deeply partisan. Fox, obviously, but, come on, your choice of mainstream news outlet will very likely impact your mindset on important issues up to and including the guilt of the former president.
So being able to watch those proceedings live, to unpack the evidence for ourselves, to hear testimony with our own ears, at least somewhat, assuages the risk that citizens will simply hear information from third parties.
Of course, of course, newscasters will still put their own spin on the recap of the day’s proceedings. That’s inevitable, but offering people the opportunity to see the evidence for themselves is unquestionably a step in the right direction.
Second, the trial is going to be a circus. Even if Trump supporters don’t show up en masse — which, given recent precedent, they just might not — the press is going to be just sheer madness outside that courthouse and some feel that if a single livestream camera is present in the courtroom, feeding live to various channels, that’ll take away some of the pandemonium, which, maybe, I don’t know.
Sometime late this year, or more likely early next year, hopefully early, the most consequential trial of our time perhaps of all time will be held. The very future of democracy is hanging in the balance. If Trump was acquitted on charges of election interference prior to the election, it could very well give him that precise, “see, they were out to get me” ammunition that he needs to win again.
Interestingly, one topic that both sides of the aisle seem to agree on is that the proceedings should be televised for the public. This isn’t a given or necessarily even a probability, though, because federal court rules prohibit cameras in a criminal trial setting. But we need to suspend those rules, according to me, and also everyone from journalists to lawmakers. And here are the primary reasons they give.
First, and to my mind, most importantly, we have grown into a culture where the press is deeply partisan. Fox, obviously but, come on, your choice of mainstream news outlet will very likely impact your mindset on important issues up to and including the guilt of the former president. So being able to watch those proceedings live to unpack the evidence for ourselves to hear testimony with our own ears, at least somewhat assuages the risk that citizens will simply hear information from third parties. Of course, of course, newscasters will still put their own spin on the recap of the day’s proceedings. That’s inevitable, but offering people the opportunity to see the evidence for themselves is unquestionably a step in the right direction.
Second, the trial is going to be a circus. Even if Trump supporters don’t show up en masse — which, given recent precedent, they just might not — the press is going to be just sheer madness outside that courthouse and some feel that if a single live stream camera is present in the courtroom, feeding live to various channels that’ll take away some of the pandemonium, which, maybe, I don’t know.
The final reason is what I find fascinating. It’s apparently a fact that individuals who serve on juries frequently leave the experience with a greater respect for the judicial system. They realize that more often than not, it works. So for Trump defenders to actually see the process played out and be confronted with evidence that they genuinely may have never been privy to before because of the biases of their preferred news station. It could be huge in terms of swaying those who are on the fence about Trump to finally step away from his side. Selfishly, I want to see the trial played out live rather than listen to often biased reports accompanying pastel court imagery. I think we all want to, in fact, I think we all need to. This is a good moment to break the rules.
RFK Jr.’s war on psychiatric meds risks decades of progress
Loss of USAID makes America and the world less safe
Trump’s ‘Gulf of America’ renaming is mere political spectacle
President Trump politicizes DC plane crash as Americans mourn
Project 2025 is Trumpism on steroids
Underreported stories from each side
Audit finds Illinois vastly underestimated cost of noncitizen health care on taxpayers
18 sources | 8% from the left Getty ImagesTrump ally demotes at least 8 senior federal prosecutors who worked on Jan. 6 cases
12 sources | 0% from the right Getty ImagesLatest Stories
Greenpeace official discusses $300M lawsuit filed against the organization
Stafford returns to Rams, what’s next for quarterback-needy teams?
Where does your state rank when it comes to people’s control over energy?
Watchdog group may not release reports on USAID cuts for fear of retaliation
Congress could overturn rule that treats payment apps like Venmo as banks
Popular Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.
America is a republic with a legislative sausage factory
4 hrs ago Star ParkerJoy Reid firing at MSNBC rooted in systemic bigotry
6 hrs ago Dr. Rashad RicheyRFK Jr.’s war on psychiatric meds risks decades of progress
Yesterday Jordan ReidWhy didn’t Netflix, Oscars vet Karla Gascón’s social media?
Wednesday Adrienne Lawrence