Opinion | Should Trump’s Jan. 6 Trial Be Televised?

More from our inbox:

To the Editor:

Re “Let the World See the Jan. 6 Trial,” by Steven Brill (Opinion guest essay, Aug. 7):

If you put a live camera in the courtroom with Donald Trump, you will give him exactly what he wants. He is better at playing to the crowd than anyone who will be in that courtroom. The trial will very quickly spin out of control, and that is exactly what Mr. Trump wants.

You will never convince Mr. Trump’s die-hards that he got a fair trial. You are assuming that these people are rational and will believe what they are shown. They are not rational, they will not believe and Mr. Trump will tell them on live TV that he is being set up.

Conduct a normal untelevised trial and prepare for violence if Mr. Trump is convicted.

Bruce Higgins
San Diego

To the Editor:

Steven Brill is right. The pending trial of Donald Trump on charges related to the 2020 election will be, far and away, the most important court proceeding of our lifetimes. In an era of dangerous disinformation, televising the trial is imperative for democracy.

The media owes it to America to work together to mount a high-profile campaign to televise the trial. Multiple petition drives involving respected legal scholars, retired federal judges and the general public should be organized. Leaders of the Fourth Estate need to start a campaign now.

Vince Wade
Cave Creek, Ariz.
The writer is a former TV news reporter, anchor and producer.

To the Editor:

I agree with Steven Brill’s point that Americans need to be able to watch the trial of Donald Trump. However, I also feel that televising the trial could contaminate the process with toxic theatrics.

I personally would be fine with a tape delay. Allow the proceedings to continue without live in-court coverage. Reporters, sketch artists and the public can be there. Then when the verdict is reached, the trial tapes could be released.

This way we would have as fair a trial as possible, while also being able to see everything in detail later.

James Bettles

To the Editor:

As a retired appellate attorney in federal criminal court, I found Steven Brill’s essay about televising Donald Trump’s trial compelling. However, knowing well the federal court system’s rigid rules against televising proceedings, I suggest an admittedly inferior alternative: Court TV (or any channel) could stage a duplicate trial using court professionals that literally tracks the daily trial transcript and follows only slightly behind the actual court schedule.

Gwen Spivey
Tallahassee, Fla.

To the Editor:

Re “Televising the Trump Trial Is a Bad Idea,” by Nick Akerman (Opinion guest essay, Aug. 11):

The points raised by Mr. Akerman against broadcasting the trials Donald Trump is facing with respect to juror and witness safety seem valid as presented. But these are no ordinary trials, and Mr. Trump is no ordinary defendant.

Courts routinely balance potential adverse impacts with the public’s right to know, and in these cases, visibility and transparency tip the balance to broadcast.

But there is a middle ground that will achieve all aims: livestream audio. It works for the Supreme Court, and it will work for these trials.

Mark Abrahams
Oyster Bay, N.Y.

The Republican Loyalty Pledge

To the Editor:

Re “Ex-President Says He Won’t Sign Pledge Needed for Debate” (news article, Aug. 11):

Will anyone believe a pledge by Republican candidates to support the eventual party nominee, as a requirement to participate in the first Republican presidential debate?

It’s hard to imagine that Mike Pence, Chris Christie and Asa Hutchinson would not “rethink” their pledge should Donald Trump be the nominee.

As for the ex-president, it’s no surprise that he won’t sign the pledge (for once he is being honest) since he was probably not planning to engage in the debate in the first place.

Since the Republican National Committee sets the rules, and Mr. Trump leads in the national polls and more than qualifies for the stage, perhaps it should place a lectern on the stage with a picture of Mr. Trump. The elephant in the room should have a fake presence at the least. It will highlight the absurdity of it all.

Eddy A. Bresnitz
Bala Cynwyd, Pa.

The Cruelty Behind Cheap Pork

To the Editor:

Re “The Truth About Your Bacon,” by Nicholas Kristof (column, Aug. 6):

I want to thank you for bringing attention to the grave ethical concerns surrounding pig farming and slaughter practices. The treatment of these sentient beings in the meat industry is a matter that demands immediate reflection and change.

The standard practices in factory farms, where pigs endure a life of confinement, neglect and cruelty, contradict the principles of compassion and nonviolence most people aspire to. The indiscriminate killing of these intelligent creatures is not only morally troubling but also contributes to environmental degradation.

As a society, we must re-evaluate our relationship with animals and move toward plant-based alternatives to end this cycle of suffering.

James Corcoran
Glorieta, N.M.

To the Editor:

It’s interesting how just about every time an animal rights organization is able to sneak a camera into a factory farm, the footage obtained is enough to make you lose your lunch. Thanks, Nicholas Kristof, for giving readers a glimpse of where their food comes from.

Vegans are often characterized as extremists, but what I find extreme is brutally torturing animals in order to provide cheap food and huge profits. It prompts the question: If you wouldn’t abuse an animal, why are you comfortable paying others to do it for you?

Stewart David
Venice, Fla.

Driverless Cabs in San Francisco

To the Editor:

Re “Spread of Driverless Cabs Is Approved in San Francisco” (Business, Aug. 11):

One of the best things about living in San Francisco for the past five decades has been the ability to bicycle everywhere: to stores, restaurants, films, even to the hospital on occasion.

I’ve been happily pedaling the streets of San Francisco at age 80-plus, but now that the California Public Utilities Commission has given the green light to the expansion of service by the ghostly driverless cars, I will venture forth by bike no more.

I’ve already encountered too many Waymos making wrong turns and ignoring pedestrians in crosswalks.

Caroline Cooley Crawford
San Francisco

Homesick at Camp

To the Editor:

Re “Sleepaway Camp Staples: Sun, Fun, Games and Now Therapy” (front page, Aug. 6):

When my youngest daughter was a preteen, I sent her to a weight-loss sleepaway camp. In the snail-mail era, we received letters dripping with homesickness and sadness. She begged to be brought home. “What’s more important, how your child feels or how much money you spent?” she asked us.

We and she stuck it out. But she has never sent her own daughter to a sleepaway camp!

Norma A. Orovitz
Bay Harbor Islands, Fla.

Source: Read Full Article