Full Picture

Article analysis:

The article argues that the criminal trials of former President Donald Trump should be televised to provide an unvarnished look at all of the evidence and testimony. The author believes that allowing cameras in the courtroom is not a novel idea, as about 35 states routinely allow cameras in their courtrooms, and Massachusetts has been allowing them for decades. However, the author notes that New York often prohibits cameras from the courtroom, which means that we will have to get reports about the trial in bits and pieces from the news media.

The author argues that any trial should be conducted fairly and that a just verdict is reached. The author also notes that whatever a judge or jury decides, the decision will be controversial. But if we can see the proceedings for ourselves - unfiltered - perhaps the majority of us will accept the results.

However, there are potential biases in this article. The author seems to have a bias against Fox News opinion show hosts, who knowingly lied and allowed others to lie about Dominion voting machines. The author also seems to have a bias against Trump's lawyers, who are afraid to have the court proceedings televised.

Moreover, there are missing points of consideration in this article. For example, while it may be true that allowing cameras in the courtroom can provide an unvarnished look at all of the evidence and testimony, it may also create risks such as witness intimidation or harassment. Additionally, while it may be true that some news media outlets have political biases, it does not necessarily mean they cannot report on court proceedings accurately.

Furthermore, there are unexplored counterarguments in this article. For instance, opponents of televising court proceedings argue that it could lead to sensationalism or distortions of justice by focusing on dramatic moments rather than legal arguments.

In conclusion, while this article makes a compelling argument for televising Trump's criminal trials to provide an unvarnished look at all of the evidence and testimony without political spin or interpretation, it also has potential biases and missing points of consideration. Therefore, readers should approach this article with a critical eye and consider other perspectives before forming their own opinions.