.-') _      .-') _  
                      ( OO ) )    ( OO ) ) 
          .-----. ,--./ ,--,' ,--./ ,--,'
         '  .--./ |   \ |  |\ |   \ |  |\  
         |  |('-. |    \|  | )|    \|  | ) 
        /_) |OO  )|  .     |/ |  .     |/  
        ||  |`-'| |  |\    |  |  |\    |   
       (_'  '--'\ |  | \   |  |  | \   |
          `-----' `--'  `--'  `--'  `--'
       lite.cnn.com - on gopher - inofficial
       
       
       ARTICLE VIEW: 
       
       /
       
       Did Donald Trump fall asleep in court? Why the trial is posing
       challenges for reporters and the public
       
       Analysis by Oliver Darcy, CNN
       
       Updated: 
       
       8:43 AM EDT, Tue April 16, 2024
       
       Source: CNN
       
       Did Donald Trump fall asleep in court?
       
       As the first criminal trial of a former American president commenced
       Monday, The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman delivered  from the
       Manhattan courtroom. Trump, she reported, “appeared to nod off a few
       times,” with his mouth “going slack and his head drooping onto his
       chest.”
       
       Haberman, it goes without saying, is in a class of her own when it
       comes to reporting on Trump. When Haberman reports news about the
       Republican frontrunner, readers can take it to the bank. And her
       observation about Trump’s apparent low-energy demeanor was
       corroborated by other reporters who confirmed that the defendant’s
       eyes were shut for lengthy periods of time.
       
       “He looked like he was nodding off and at one point in a pretty true
       tell that he was falling asleep, his head nodded down and then he sort
       of jolted back up at one point,” The NYT’s Susanne Craig also
       said on MSNBC.
       
       But the Trump campaign later denied the former president had fallen
       asleep during the hearing — an obvious problem for a candidate who
       has made the “Sleepy Joe” moniker a key attack line — claiming
       that the mid-trial snooze never happened.
       
       “This is 100% Fake News coming from ‘journalists’ who weren’t
       even in the court room,” a Trump campaign spokesperson later
       insisted.
       
       On this particular matter, the stakes are not very consequential.
       Nevertheless, the episode underscores the information vacuum that has
       been birthed by the lack of transparency into the case. The Trump
       campaign forcefully denying Haberman and other reporters’ accounts
       quickly created two versions of events for people at home to choose to
       believe: Trump or Haberman. And it’s a safe bet that much of the
       country would (wrongly) place its trust in Trump, despite his
       propensity to lie.
       
       The public was not permitted to see the hearing with its own eyes, as
       cameras have been barred from the courtroom, in keeping with a New York
       state court rule.Instead, Americans, unable to watch the historic
       proceedings play out, will have no choice but to place its trust in
       Haberman and a small group of reporters selected to sit inside the
       courtroom to observe the high-stakes trial.
       
       While photographers are only briefly allowed in the courtroom at the
       start of the day, there will be no undeniable proof one way or the
       other to surface. The only visuals from inside the courtroom will be
       provided by a sketch artist tasked with depicting the range of
       expressions and emotions during the unprecedented trial.
       
       The lack of cameras in the Manhattan courtroom is not new. Federal and
       New York state courts have long barred the filming of proceedings, much
       to the chagrin of news organizations and advocacy groups that have
       pushed for the judiciary to increase transparency. One of the concerns
       has been that by welcoming the public into the courtroom, cases will
       transform into public spectacles, similar to the O.J. Simpson trial
       in the mid-1990s. But there are a lot of holes in that argument. And,
       given the historic nature of the Trump trials, with a former president
       staring down dozens of criminal charges, news organizations have
       requested that exemptions be made. But thus far it has been to no
       avail.
       
       As a consequence, a select few reporters will need to be the eyes and
       ears of the country, providing accurate representations of what
       transpired behind closed doors. While a handful of journalists are
       granted access inside the actual courtroom, most others are actually
       stationed in an overflow room, where they can watch a video stream of
       the proceedings and file dispatches.
       
       The setup effectively ensures that there will be no shared reality of
       the unprecedented case as members of the public will have news from the
       trial filtered through the lens of whichever media they choose to
       consume. That fragmented media environment is where Trump also thrives,
       given that he has a powerful propaganda machine at his disposal, with
       outlets like Fox News willing to do his bidding, no matter how
       dishonest it is.
       
   DIR  <- back to index