News outlets demand cameras in federal courtroom for Trump’s election interference trial.
News Outlets Clamoring For Cameras in Federal Courtroom at Trump’s Election Interference Trial
The establishment media never much cared about the ban on camera coverage in federal courtrooms, despite a whole host of very prominent defendants over the years.
When Donald J. Trump is involved, however, the media apparatus couldn’t be more in unison when it comes to clamoring about the unfairness of it all.
In a brief filed on Thursday, a whole host of broadcasters and media outlets — ABC News, the Los Angeles Times, Univision, The Washington Post, Politico, C-SPAN and a multitude of others — “respectfully submit[ted] this Application for leave to record and telecast the March 2024 criminal trial of former President Donald J. Trump.”
“Alternatively, the Media Coalition respectfully requests that the Court that the Court contemporaneously publish on YouTube its election interference trial.”>internally administered audiovisual livestreams and recordings of the proceedings,” the filing read.
“As a final alternative, the Media Coalition respectfully requests that the Court release visual and audio recordings of proceedings at the conclusion of each day that this mater is heard in Court.”
The reason given in the application, of course, is the historic nature of a former president and the current front-runner for the GOP nomination in 2024 being put on trial effectively for his actions leading up to the Capitol incursion on Jan. 6, 2021.
“We have never, in the history of our Nation, had a federal criminal trial that warrants audiovisual access more than the federal prosecution of former President Trump for allegedly trying to subvert the will of the people,” the brief read.
“The prosecution of a former president, now a presidential contender, on charges of subverting the electoral process, presents the strongest possible circumstances for continuous public oversight of the justice system.”
However, as The Hill noted, this is essentially “asking for an unprecedented shift in the federal court system.”
“Long-standing federal court precedent bars televising the hearings or recording them in any fashion,” the outlet noted.
“Some lawmakers have pushed for a change in federal court system rules that prohibit the practice, but such a process would likely take years.”
And since “years” clearly isn’t going to happen before March 4, the so-called Media Coalition is going to bang on about the momentous nature of the event.
Steven Brill, who founded Court TV and now serves as co-CEO of media ratings system NewsGuard, said televising the trial would stop malinformation, misinformation, disinformation and cisinformation from taking hold.
“I think what we’ve seen for the last X number of years is that people are not debating from the same set of facts,” Brill told NPR. “Everything’s an opinion. Nothing’s a fact. Nobody believes anything.
“What you see online, you have no idea how credible it is, who the source is, who’s paying them to say something – the total opposite of what happens in a courtroom, where all the evidence is vetted, lawyers are bound by standards of conduct where they can’t just voice their opinions,” Brill said.
“They can’t introduce hearsay or rumors. That’s what the world needs to see in this trial because we’re going to be debating this trial forever.”
How having a camera in a courtroom is going to stop people from having an opinion about the proceedings is anyone’s guess; whatever happens will invariably be filtered through the media organs that Brill surveys, none of which — save perhaps C-SPAN — can truly claim even an attempt at non-partisanship, much less actual objectivity.
Brill also argued that “trials, as a general matter, you know, constitutionally, were always meant to be public.” Which it will be: just likely without cameras in the courtroom. Given that this is the first federal trial that would be streamed or recorded, this is hardly how it was “always meant” to be.
The Media Coalition, meanwhile, says that the ban on cameras relies on “outdated and long disproven views about recording and broadcasting trials” — something few if any of these media organs go to court to challenge on any sort of regular basis, so there’s that.
Only the momentous and consequential nature of putting a former president on trial makes these arguments even slightly holds up — and then, you have to consider the why behind this all.
When it comes to the potential divisiveness and media spectacle of a televised trial event, particularly when sociopolitical aspect is in play, some of us are old enough to remember the 11 months between November of 1994 and October of 1995 when Orenthal James Simpson was on trial for allegedly murdering his ex-wife and a waiter. O.J. was a football player and rental-car pitchman; Donald Trump is a candidate for president of the United States.
In saturating the airwaves with coverage of the trial, it’s obvious to all but the most naïve that the media aims to use the coverage to affix the criminal label to Trump no matter what the jury finds. This has as little to do with transparency as it does with a narrative — a narrative that can be crafted without cameras in the courtroom.
This has nothing to do with, as the Media Coalition claimed in its filing, “a critical step in stemming false conspiracy theories across the entire spectrum of public opinion, regardless of the outcome of the trial.” It has everything to do with politics as entertainment and that entertainment fitting the conception of Trump they’ve already established. Even if there were a reason to do away with long-standing rules regarding federal court proceedings, this wouldn’t be it.
A Note from Our Founder:
Every morning, we at The Western Journal wake up and pursue our mission of giving you the important information you need about what’s happening in America.
We can’t do that without your help.
America has been on the receiving end of false narratives. The purpose of these false narratives is to make you feel powerless. The Western Journal empowers you by breaking these false narratives.
If you’ve never chosen to donate, let me be honest: We need your help today.
Please don’t wait one minute. Donate right now – our situation in America is dire. Our country hangs by a thread, and The Western Journal stands for truth in this difficult time.
Please stand with us by donating today.
Floyd G. Brown
Founder of The Western Journal
The post News Outlets Clamoring For Cameras in Federal Courtroom at Trump’s Election Interference Trial appeared first on The Western Journal.
How do opponents of allowing cameras in the courtroom believe it could impact the behavior of trial participants and media coverage?
Nded Court TV and is now the CEO of NewsGuard, a company that rates the credibility of news sites, argued in a Politico op-ed that the trial of a former president is of such national importance that video cameras must be allowed in the courtroom.
Brill wrote that the public has a right to see the trial unfold in real time, as it is “unprecedented in our history.” He pointed to the impact the trial could have on the political landscape, as Trump is currently the front-runner for the GOP nomination in 2024, and emphasized the need for transparency and accountability.
The argument that cameras in federal courtrooms would infringe on the rights of defendants was also addressed. Brill stated that precautions could be taken to ensure a fair trial, such as limiting the number of camera operators and placing restrictions on what can be shown. He cited the successful implementation of cameras in state courtrooms as evidence that this can be done without compromising the integrity of the proceedings.
Brill’s op-ed received support from various media outlets and organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Society of Professional Journalists. They argue that allowing cameras in the courtroom would enhance public understanding of the legal process and promote transparency in a case of national significance.
Opponents of the proposal argue that it would set a dangerous precedent and could potentially influence the behavior of participants in the trial, including the judge, lawyers, and witnesses. They also express concerns about the potential for grandstanding and sensationalism in the media coverage of the trial.
Ultimately, the decision regarding cameras in the courtroom will be made by the judge presiding over the case. It remains to be seen if the media’s clamoring for camera coverage will have any impact on the outcome. Regardless of the decision, the trial of former President Trump for alleged election interference will undoubtedly be closely watched by the public and continue to generate significant media attention.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
