Televising Trump's Trials Would Be A Ratings Bonanza... But Would It Help Him Or Harm Him?

How About Pay-Per-View To Shore Up Social Security?

I was a small child, maybe 6 or 7, when my parents decided to buy a TV set. It was a clunky piece of furniture with 3 commercial channels and a public channel. Prior to the 1950s, virtually no one had TV in their house even though it had been invented in 1926 (in London) and reinvented with a cathode ray tube in the U.S. in the 1930s. There was no TV in 1924 when Hitler went on trial for his failed coup in Munich. Although Guglielmo Marconi had invented a practical radio in1897, it wasn’t until the early 1920s that commercial radio was available. People had started buying sets before Hitler’s trial and his testimony was broadcast.

His testimony made quite a splash and played a significant role in shaping his image and propelling his rise to power, solidifying his followers and making a positive impression on Germans who had never heard of him before. His courtroom performance basically transformed him from a fringe agitator into a captivating orator and potential national leader. His ability to articulate his grievances, defend his actions and sway the audience with his charismatic persona left an indelible mark on the German public. His courtroom exploits were extensively covered by the press and radio. Newspapers published transcripts of his speeches and radio broadcasts brought his impassioned pleas to a wider audience, amplifying his message, in part because he possessed a natural talent for oratory, captivating his audience with his fiery speeches and persuasive arguments. He skillfully employed rhetorical devices, repetition, and emotional appeals to connect with his listeners and sway their opinions. His messaging was very disciplined and he maintained a composed demeanor, projecting an image of authority and control.

The trial is best known historically for how Hitler was able to skillfully turned it into a platform for Nazi beliefs, while portraying himself as a misunderstood revolutionary acting out of patriotism and a desire to make Germany great again. He cultivated an image as a victim of political persecution, portraying himself as a champion of the oppressed and a defender of German rights, a narrative that resonated with many Germans disillusioned with the post-World War I political and economic turmoil.

So… will broadcasting Trump’s trials, as he has petitioned the courts to do, help solidify and expand his support as it did for his idol? Whatever you think of him, you have to admit that he’s been a skilled communicator able to connect with low IQ audiences projecting an image of strength and confidence. He’s a very experienced public figure accustomed to being in the spotlight. These qualities could help him to navigate the challenges of a trial and present himself favorably to the jury. Unless he’s as senile and cognitively impaired as I think he is. We also know he can be both ingratiating or polarizing, known for his impulsive and inflammatory, ugly rhetoric. He has a history of making offensive statements and he’s often quick to anger and lash out, qualities that could alienate jurors.

The new issue of The New Yorker has a piece by Amy Sorkin advocating for the trials to be broadcast, making an argument on behalf of a media that sells things.

“Trump, unsurprisingly,” she wrote “is happy to be tried on camera. His lawyers filed a brief saying that he ‘absolutely agrees, and in fact demands, that these proceedings should be fully televised.’ He and the media are on the same side, but for different reasons; his brief compares him to the victim of an ‘authoritarian regime.’ And his claim that cameras ‘will ensure that all can see how the Biden Administration is unlawfully and unconstitutionally attempting to eliminate its leading political opponent’ is delusional. Regardless, the best way to demonstrate that something is not a show trial is to show the trial.

Objections to giving Trump a “platform”— or, really, to having to listen to another word he has to say— are, unfortunately, incompatible with putting him on trial. He will be able to choose whether to testify. There is apprehension about what he might say, and what his supporters might then do if they heed him, which is also fuelling higher-court showdowns about gag orders in the various trials.

Yet to believe that allowing the country to watch as Trump takes the stand would be more of a threat to the Republic than it would be to his defense is to accept his own myths about himself. The evidence against Trump ought to stand up to scrutiny far better than he will. Everybody should see that. Trump isn’t camera-shy; prosecutors have no reason to be, either.