Also agree and want to add to my rueful experience with the dark side of transparency. When I started as an aide to Senator in 1985, CSPAN hadn’t been permitted to show the Senate with live cameras. A year later, when they did, I watched Senators change from being genuine debaters to using scripts to score points. Listening turned into preening, debating turned into verbal boxing. Everything changed for the worse. Humans can’t help but to show off and avoid getting caught not knowing something when cameras are airing them.
This is an important point from an experienced and thoughtful observer. During the period she references, Tamera served ultimately as chief of staff first for Sen. Jay Rockefeller and then for Sen. Hillary Clinton.
great line: "Too often, the press just sold Cracker Jacks and watched." You raise interesting points about the effect of TV cameras on otherwise rational people.
I am, for history, in favor of video-recording all trials, and also Supreme Court oral arguments and decision hand-downs—put everything in the can, so that we have it. Then release it when appropriate—in a criminal trial, after acquittal or sentencing; in the Supreme Court, after decision is rendered.
I may have found one I disagree with you on! I would say the grandstanding in Congress is due to the lack of any rules, unlike a trial where a judge can impose order and consequences. OJ was from a different time. Chauvin is much more relevant.
But the biggest reason to have video is to think about what will fill the void without it. There will be a greater opportunity (and market) for those who traffic in misinfo and disinfo. Many people are not swayed by facts and video, but some are. Every aspect of this trial will be pulled apart and twisted for political ends. Letting people see the testimony themselves will mitigate this. True, the American people are not the jury, but they will reach a conclusion too.
Also agree and want to add to my rueful experience with the dark side of transparency. When I started as an aide to Senator in 1985, CSPAN hadn’t been permitted to show the Senate with live cameras. A year later, when they did, I watched Senators change from being genuine debaters to using scripts to score points. Listening turned into preening, debating turned into verbal boxing. Everything changed for the worse. Humans can’t help but to show off and avoid getting caught not knowing something when cameras are airing them.
This is an important point from an experienced and thoughtful observer. During the period she references, Tamera served ultimately as chief of staff first for Sen. Jay Rockefeller and then for Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Good points!
great line: "Too often, the press just sold Cracker Jacks and watched." You raise interesting points about the effect of TV cameras on otherwise rational people.
I am, for history, in favor of video-recording all trials, and also Supreme Court oral arguments and decision hand-downs—put everything in the can, so that we have it. Then release it when appropriate—in a criminal trial, after acquittal or sentencing; in the Supreme Court, after decision is rendered.
Completely agree!
You make a very good case for not televising the trial(s)
Thanks. Thoughtful. Persuasive.
I may have found one I disagree with you on! I would say the grandstanding in Congress is due to the lack of any rules, unlike a trial where a judge can impose order and consequences. OJ was from a different time. Chauvin is much more relevant.
But the biggest reason to have video is to think about what will fill the void without it. There will be a greater opportunity (and market) for those who traffic in misinfo and disinfo. Many people are not swayed by facts and video, but some are. Every aspect of this trial will be pulled apart and twisted for political ends. Letting people see the testimony themselves will mitigate this. True, the American people are not the jury, but they will reach a conclusion too.
You make a good argument for not televising the trial(s), but I’d still like to watch and learn.