“Court is a quiet, somber sanctuary, where rules prevent the disorienting chaos we experience online,” said Steven Brill, founder of Court TV, in a Saturday New York Times essay in support of televising Donald Trump’s upcoming trial.
We also want a televised trial. A reprieve from the immediate noise of political spins, a televised trial would allow Americans to tune in and discern whether legal arguments are thin or well-played. Whether evidence is beyond a doubt.
Of course, our tailor-made online algorithms will feed us what we want to hear and preferred talking heads will be at the ready to validate our beliefs. But virtual seats in the courtroom will more easily help us decide for ourselves whether Trump is guilty of plotting to negate the democratic process and overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Trump’s demeanor would have to meet the judge’s expectations. For those who have never sat through a trial, it would be a portal into our justice system.
Federal court rules do not allow cameras in criminal trials. Nor would it be easy to suspend or change these rules. But if there’s any reason to allow cameras – most state courtrooms do – this trial of national consequence is the one.
We imagine Chief Justice John Roberts is pondering this very situation. The U.S. Judicial Conference would have to vote to suspend the nationwide camera rule, as well as the District of Columbia Circuit, which has its own rule. The federal rules of criminal procedure would have to change, too. These procedures could take months or more than a year.
Whether or not this happens, going into the trial, we have better science on how continual information – or misinformation or disinformation – shapes our beliefs.
In four studies published in July in Science and Nature, researchers studied the impact of social media on democracy and the 2020 presidential election. As expected, liberals and conservatives were ideologically separated, living in their own news bubbles. In one study, authors learned that Facebook users get about half their content from people, pages or groups that share their convictions. When researchers tweaked content, making it more diverse, changes didn’t alter users’ views. They were already deeply entrenched.
What if we Americans were to watch the live trial like viewers did back in the day with fewer media sources? A throwback when – simultaneously – everyone watched the O.J. Simpson trial or, much earlier, astronauts landed on the moon. Seeing Trump sitting quietly, would we shift our positions a little, surprising ourselves? Would we become more united around the outcome of the verdict? Or more deeply divided?
Because this courtroom is not the place for politics. It’s a serious space and those who don’t follow rules are held in contempt. This is where and how we want indictments – and defenses – presented and explained. A televised trial would deliver this.
As Brill argued, 19th century courthouses, many in the neoclassical architectural style, were built with large seating areas for locals to watch trials. Under the Constitution, trials were supposed to be made public. Televising Trump’s trial is a timely update to allow as many Americans access as possible.
Trump recently told supporters, “It’s not just my freedom on the line, but yours as well.” No. A jury trial would clearly show this is Trump’s freedom at risk. Only his. This is his doing.
See for yourself. Make up your own mind. Both political parties can likely agree on this.
