TV or not TV: Should the federal trials of M. Tiny Fingers be televised?

You can read Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-Calif) letter here. I think the only reason to broadcast any trial is to show people the huge difference between legal drama trials and real trials. My main concern about cameras in the courtroom is that it might make one or more jurors nervous and that could influence their decision.

Make no mistake, this is historic. But televising the trials won’t meet this goal:

If the public is to fully accept the outcome, it will be vitally important for it to witness, as directly as possible, how the trials are conducted, the strength of the evidence adduced and the credibility of witnesses.

Two problems:

1. Who is going to watch this? The vast majority of people don’t have the time to watch a trial from start to finish. Of those who do, most lack the patience. Exciting TV, this won’t be. So most people will see clips. Some of those clips will be edited by right wing outlets. Some of the viewers will shout “DeepStateDeepFake!” if they see something they don’t like, even if they’re watching it live.
2. Who needs convincing? If we lived in a world where the existence of an unbiased record – such as a live audio/visual broadcast – could sway the sort of people who vote Republican, that fuck would have never gotten within a hundred light years of the presidency. Are there really that many Democrats out there who are that concerned that he isn’t getting a fair trial? And I mean real Democrats. Not independent fence sitters who exist in the fevered dreams of sub-par pundits.

For the sake of giving the public a chance to witness these historic trials, an audio-only broadcast [to clarify – I mean a live audio broadcast] followed by a transcript of each day’s proceedings would be more than sufficient. Plus the audio recordings would be great for people who suffer from insomnia.

People who post off-topic comments smell like Republican flop sweat.