A lot of union voters have cast ballots for Donald Trump: 43% of us in 2016 and 40% in 2020, according to the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. So organized labor’s rank and file must be divided about whether his criminal trials should be televised.
However, legal and civic leaders are less divided on showing viewers the testimony and other evidence in his upcoming trials: for January 6 (in Washington, D.C.), for taking and keeping classified documents (in Florida), for fraud (in New York City), and for election interference (in Georgia) – much less for campaign violations in connection with hush money paid to an adult actress and other issues.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
WHY SHOW?
* The allegations and issues before juries of everyday Americans are important to people not empaneled to vote not guilty or guilty;
* watching the proceedings could help heal divisions in the country, and
* could reassure regular people that no one’s above the law;
* the U.S. Constitution’s 6th Amendment guarantees public trials.
January 6 – the conservative Wall Street Journal called it “the worst offense against democracy” – and attempts to interfere with the election in Georgia are significant accusations deserving of a full airing. (Trump’s main lawyer, John Lauro, also thinks it should be televised, saying, “I would hope that the Department of Justice would join in that effort so that we can take the curtain away and all Americans can see what’s happening.”)
Americans could find common ground by watching witnesses (almost all of whom are Republicans); a televised trial could increase public confidence that there are at least merits to the charges.
Conversely, such a consequential trial conducted outside open proceedings could lead people to doubt its legitimacy, wrote Neal Katyal, who was a special prosecutor earlier this year in the televised murder trial of Derek Chauvin for killing George Floyd.
Plus, “this criminal trial – the gravest matter of public concern imaginable – is being conducted in the name of the people of the United States,” Katyal said. “It is our tax dollars at work. We have a right to see it. And we have the right to ensure that rumormongers and conspiracy theorists don’t control the narrative.”
WHY NOT SHOW?
* Trump has a history of confusing the public – or convincing them of falsehoods;
* the ex-President excels at manipulating media; his antics and expressions of outrage get attention.
* the cases may seem complex – dull TV?
* televised trials could risk the political climate getting more divisive – “If you listen to his speeches, they are deeply, deeply divisive in addition to being horribly negative about the immediate future of this country,” said journalist Mike Barnicle (who nevertheless supports televising them);
Currently, only Georgia plans to televise its case. Federal and New York state courts prohibit televised trials. However, there are exceptions in other high-profile cases. The U.S. Supreme Court broadcasts live audio of oral arguments it hears; the Bush-Gore dispute in Florida in 2000 was broadcast in real time; Congressional hearings about January 6 and Watergate were shown live, and the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, televises its proceedings.
Further, federal trials may be permitted to be televised if OK’d by the U.S. Judicial Conference, chaired by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, or if Congress passes a law approving it. (U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican, has introduced a bipartisan measure doing so, and 38 Democratic members of Congress have urged the federal judiciary to permit a TV trial. That letter from those dozens of House members split the difference as Members of Congress who urged the Judicial Conference to approve televising the trial due to its “extraordinary national importance.”
Even attorney Alan Dershowitz (who was on Trump’s defense team for Trump’s first impeachment) said televising the trials would directly show the cases without it being filtered through courtroom drawings or summaries by reporters.
“If the Trump trial is not televised, the public will learn about the events through the extremely biased reporting of today’s media,” wrote Dershowitz. “It will be as if there were two trials: one observed by reporters for MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times and other liberal media, the other through the prism of reporters for Fox, Newsmax and other conservative outlets. There will be nowhere to go to learn the objective reality of what occurred at trial.”
MORE PRO-TV TRIAL
Court TV founder Steven Brill wrote, “The last thing our country and the world needs is for this trial to become the ultimate divisive spin game, in which each side roots for its team online and on the cable news networks as if cheering from the bleachers.”
Televising Trump’s trials “might temper the national mood,” he added.
Arkansas newspaperman Gene Lyons wrote, “Some must see it to believe it.”
It’s possible that some viewers would see facts clarified too often disputed online or by partisan commentators.
For instance, only 17% of Republican primary voters say the indictments are legitimate, according to a recent poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University, so it seems possible that sworn testimony and physical proof would help observers appreciate the investigations as legitimate, whether or not there are convictions.
“All the bad news in the world doesn’t matter if voters aren’t paying attention to the news,” said government and politics professor and FDU poll director Dan Cassino.
MORE OPPOSITION
Boston University researcher Lee McIntyre, author of the forthcoming “Disinformation and Democracy,” warns, “Trump is an expert at disinformation and understands intuitively how to capitalize on short attention spans and lack of political literacy. One way he does this is by creating a constant state of chaos where so much is happening that people don’t have time to think, talk to one another, and form their own opinions.”
Some say people don’t read details, like indictments, and viewers could be swayed by dramatic or even outrageous comments or behavior, but Dershowitz disagrees, saying that in the wall-to-wall televised O.J. Simpson trial “the judge and some of the lawyers played to the cameras, but their presence had no discernible effect on the trial or verdict.”
Still, Marjorie Cohn, who analyzed the Simpson trial for her book “Cameras in the Courtroom: Television and the Pursuit of Justice,” has misgivings.
“With a camera present, critics assert, lawyers embellished arguments, waged unnecessary debates, prolonged the examination of witnesses and tended to ‘perform’ for the camera,” Cohn said.
Again, Dershowitz disputes that conclusion, saying we should have faith in viewers.
“The public can generally distinguish pomposity from authenticity. But whatever small risks that there are, they are more than outweighed by the benefits of transparency.
“The more people see it, the more justice there will be.”
Further, Trump’s popularity with his base (and fund raising) could increase, commented Christina Bellantori, media director at University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, who said, “My prediction would be that his public-opinion ratings would go up, no matter what evidence is presented.
“People will hate-watch it; people will rally and root for him,” she added. “And there’s not going to be anybody that’s like, ‘Gee, I think I’ll watch this and see how justice plays out’.”
The bottom line, according to Bill Tubbs, publisher emeritus of the weekly North Scott Press in Iowa, is that “every American should have the right to watch it in real time, to see and hear witnesses for themselves instead of a talking head on any network spinning the issues to partisan advantage – or paying attention only to the words of the defendant himself,” he wrote. “This is not forcing anyone to watch, but we should have that right as informed citizens – and voters. If ever a trial needed to be televised, this is the one. Let the people watch!”
A sampling from the chorus of comments about whether or not we should be able to watch Trump’s trials as they happen
“The is the trial America deserves.”
- the neo-conservative magazine The New Republic
Trump thrives in the spotlight. Giving a reality TV star a reality TV trial is almost too easy. Viewers see what they want to see. Trump’s fans are unlikely to be swayed by a live feed.”
- Amherst College political science professor Austin Sarat.
“Given the historic nature of the charges brought forth in these cases, it is hard to imagine a more powerful circumstance for televised proceedings. If the public is to fully accept the outcome, it will be vitally important for it to witness, as directly as possible, how the trials are conducted, the strength of the evidence adduced and the credibility of witnesses.”
- letter from 38 Democratic House members
“The reality is that the public now expects audiovisual coverage of events that are of great significance. The best way to counter any spin from any side is to allow people to see what’s actually transpiring and let them draw their own conclusions, and the only way you can do that is with cameras in the courtroom.”
- University of Minnesota professor of media ethics and law Jane Kirtley
“In our polarized information world, with millions getting only news that is politically palatable, it’s excruciatingly difficult to convey basic facts. But trials, especially trials that will dominate every single news outlet, are probably the one way to penetrate those hermetically sealed bubbles.”
- conservative columnist Mona Charen
“Televising the trial would provide deep educational benefits. Law is often viewed as inaccessible, chock-full of jargon and impenetrable procedures. This broadcast would provide a real-time civics lesson, especially for children, in how our legal system operates.”
- Georgetown law professor or former Acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal
“The American legal system is under attack from both the Right and the Left. Although it is far from perfect, our legal system is, in general, better than how it is perceived by partisans. Most of the participants — judges, jurors, lawyers and even litigants — try to do their jobs honestly. Some do better than others, and we the public are entitled to see the good, the bad and the ugly. The more people see it, the more justice there will be.”
- Attorney Alan Dershowitz, member of the defense team for Trump’s first impeachment trial
“It’s not just four prosecutors. It’s grand juries — dozens of American citizens who reviewed the evidence and indicted him — what do they know that you as a voter don’t? People believe what they see on their screens.”
- Svante Myrick, president of People For the American Way
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.