Lawyers and politicians are lining up to demand that cameras be allowed into the courtroom, especially as the other reality TV star faces a jury on charges of trying to tamper with the results of the 2020 presidential election.
The requests for the criminal trials against Donald Trump are broadcast live are more and more numerous, while the United States is faced with the idea of seeing an ancient -and perhaps future- president in the dock of the defendants.
Lawyers and politicians line up to demand that cameras be allowed into the courtroom, especially when the other star reality television faces a jury on charges of attempting to tamper with the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Given the historical nature of the charges brought in these cases, it is hard to imagine a more powerful circumstance. to televise the proceedings”read a letter signed on Thursday by California congressman Adam Schiff and dozens of colleagues from the Democratic Party.
“For the public to fully accept the result, it will be vital that you witness, in the most direct way possible, how the trials are carried out, the strength of the evidence adduced and the credibility of the witnesses”, the document adds.
Trump has already been indicted in three different criminal cases: lying about paying money to a porn actress, mishandling secret documents, and trying to subvert the election result.
A fourth indictment looms, this time related to a phone call to a Georgia electoral official in which Trump pressured him to “find” the 11,780 votes that would prevent his defeat against Joe Biden in that southern state.
In spite of the extensive and detailed media coverage Of the allegations against Trump, an overwhelming majority of Republican voters – 74% – and a third of all voters believe that he has done nothing wrong, according to a New York Times and Siena College poll.
Trump himself insists that is innocent, victim of a “witch hunt” by an establishment desperate to silence him while he runs for the White House again.
Debunking this myth and exposing the depth of his crimes is a primary reason for showing the trial to a wide audience, said Alan Dershowitz, specialist in Constitutional Law.
“If Trump’s trial is not televised, the public will learn of the events through the extremely biased reporting of the current media,” he wrote in The Hill newspaper.
For Dershowitz, “There will be nowhere to go to know the reality orobjective of what happened at the trial.”
The OJ Simpson precedent
Although some state court proceedings have been shown on US television – the OJ Simpson murder trial, which shocked to the country between 1994 and 1995, was a ratings success-, federal proceedings cannot be photographed or broadcast, due to 1946 regulations.
Neal Katyal, professor de Georgetown University Law, argued in the Washington Post that it was time to update that “dated” edict.
“We live in a digital age, what people think about visually and is used to seeing things with her own eyes,” she wrote.
The decision of allow or not the presence of cameras in the courtrooms will ultimately correspond to the Judicial Conference, the body that develops the policies of the federal system, directed by the president of the Supreme Court, John Roberts.
Another possibility is that the Congress amends the law.
Katyal, who was a prosecutor in the murder trial of Derek Chauvin, the white Minnesota police officer who killed George Floyd, a black man, he said the broadcast of those proceedings had helped a sharply divided public accept the guilty verdict.
The same would happen with the Trump’s trial, Katyal said.
“This criminal trial is carrying out in the name of the people from United States. It’s our tax money,” she wrote.
“We have the right to see it. And we have the right to make sure that rumormongers and conspiracy theorists do not control the narrative.”
The risk of transmission
The problem of putting it all on the small screen, he said Christina Bellantoni, expert in mass media and political journalism at the University of Southern California, is Trump’s formidable ability to dominate the discourse and divert the narrative.
«My prediction… would be that syour public acceptance ratings would go up, regardless of the evidence that is presented,” he told AFP.
The risk is that a judgment about a alleged attempt to overthrow democracy becomes little more than entertainment, where no one changes their minds.
«People will see it with hate; people will join and support you. And there will be no one who says: ‘Wow, I think I’m going to see this and understand how justice works,'” he closed.
2023-08-06 15:22:30
#Entertainment #information #Requests #grow #broadcast #Trumps #trials #Mediatiko
