Without cameras to live stream, Trump’s trial is proving the power of live blogs as news tools

NEW YORK — They watched from the courtroom or via closed-circuit television in a packed room — about 140 reporters, most with laptops or other electronic devices muted, presenting news in its most elementary and rapid form.

There were statements posted a few seconds after they left the mouth of a lawyer. Observations on how Donald Trump is reacting. Information about which testimonies are causing jurors to scribble notes. “Let me give you some quotes to make you feel like you’re inside the courtroom,” MSNBC’s Yasmin Vossoughian said before reading her colleagues’ reports.

The trial of Trump’s silence is illustrating the power of live blogging as a news tool — by necessity.

Television and text journalism are typically two very different mediums. However, because New York state rules prohibit in-camera coverage of trials and the former president’s case has such high interest, blogs are emerging as the best form of communication for both formats.

During opening arguments in the case on Monday, CNN used a third of its television screen to display brief printed updates on what was happening, written by its three journalists stationed at the Manhattan courthouse. MSNBC did something similar with “chyrons” on the screen – superimposed text.

Traditional outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Associated Press regularly use news blogs, an experience that proved useful on Monday. While these blogs often supplement traditional television coverage of major events like the Oscars or election night – it’s known as a “second screen” experience – this time consumers had no other option.

About 140 reporters watched from the courtroom or via closed-circuit television in a packed room, relaying the news to editors. They themselves are closely watched: Two reporters covering the trial were expelled on Monday for violating rules prohibiting recording and photography in the crowded courtroom, where reporters who are unable to enter the courtroom watch the proceedings on large screens, according to court officials.

The blog’s dispatches sometimes seemed like bits of a developing print story, like this one from The Washington Post’s Devlin Barrett: “They disguised what the payments were,” said (prosecutor Matthew) Colangelo, speaking clearly and calmly with his hands on his chest. suit pockets.”

Others try to set the scene: “All 18 jurors are looking directly at the veteran prosecutor, who stands at a lectern in the middle of the courtroom, halfway between them and Trump,” wrote AP’s Michael R. Sisak.

The New York Post’s Kyle Schnitzer wrote that Trump lawyer Todd Blanche ended his opening statement with a plea from his hometown, quoting him as saying, “use your common sense, you’re New Yorkers, it’s That’s why we’re here.”

Other observances are more analytical or seek to correct the record.

The Post’s Shayna Jacobs wrote that “in opening statements, prosecutors focused heavily on circumstantial evidence that they say will help prove that Donald Trump paid Stormy Daniels in 2016 to stop her from going public with an alleged meeting with Trump a decade before.”

Maggie Haberman of The Times wrote as Trump’s lawyer gave his opening statement that “Blanche is trying to portray the National Enquirer’s practices as similar to the way other media outlets operate, in terms of deciding when and how to publish a story . This is not correct.”

For CNN and MSNBC, which covered the opening arguments more extensively on Monday than Trump-friendly outlets Fox News Channel and Newsmax, there were some growing pains getting used to the new way of counting. stories.

MSNBC used text less frequently, occasionally relying on the oddity of correspondents trying to search for the latest quotes in the notes. “Trump Lawyer: Trump is not subject to what Cohen did,” read an MSNBC article. “Trump Lawyer: There’s nothing wrong with trying to influence an election,” read another.

A few times, CNN’s Jake Tapper interrupted speakers to read blog posts that viewers could also see for themselves on their screens.

Still, the blog-like reports were often more useful than the on-screen analysts, especially when trying to predict what would happen next. An MSNBC expert confidently predicted that Judge Juan Merchan would end the day’s proceedings before a first witness was called and a CNN analyst said the first witness would end his testimony with an interesting revelation.

It didn’t even happen.

___

David Bauder writes about media for the Associated Press. Follow him on