First of all, this thread is about cameras, not Trump.
I opposed or would oppose cameras for Trump, the January 6th defendants, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Casey Anthony, O…J. Simpson, ad naseum.
So since this issue is coming up again.
I must voice my vehement opposition to cameras in federal trial court, in particular for criminal trials. I have never seen any public good of this practice, other than fulfilling people’s prurient curiosity and love of drama.
If cameras are approved, it should still require the direct consent of the defendant, the defendant’s counsel, prosecution counsel and the Judge to actually broadcast proceedings in a particular case.
I am more open to cameras in appellate proceedings, as long as they are fixed in place and tightly focused on the counsel or judge actually speaking at that moment in time.
Transcripts of trial proceedings are available, if you truly must know the gory details of a case.
People live watch cases for the same reason they watch scripted dramas or soap operas, pure prurient enjoyment. Basically, reality TV. Broadcasting trial proceedings does not serve any interest beyond that very base level.
With all due respect Saf, i disagree in the case of Trump or any former president. There must be transparency in the process. The consequences of the verdict are too important for there to be any doubt in how the result was achieved.
I am torn on this. I remember the O.J. trial on TV and there were quite a few folks who commented that they learned something new about legal proceedings. And there was a lot of interest in the televised January 6th Committee Hearings. What I am not sure of is how the request process works. It sounds like no cameras in federal court proceedings is a pretty strict rule of thumb.
The public good is the public’s right to know what is being said and done in the public’s name. The public’s oversight of the government of, by and for The People.
No government branch, agency or other entitity should be allowed to operate in the shadows barring some real security issue or to protect individual citizens’ rights.
In a trial, who does the prosecution claim to represent?
But despite my personal desire to see on video all the testimony and evidence presented in real time, I’d have to say know.
If televised live the process would become not the presentation of evidence and testimony to the jury of his peers, it would be kaboki for the TV cameras. That would make it even less about seeking justice for crimes committed and make even more like another episode of “The Apprentice”.
Let the courts do their job. The process will be open and above board and the public will be aware of the proceedings without the video.
I wouldn’t use a cameraman to distract from the trial that is taking place. Three stationary camera angles would be enough. We have tech that will automatically turn to whomever is speaking. One at defense desk, one at prosecution desk and a third that captures the judge and witness stand. No production value should be added. Just a plain video feed so there is no doubts.
