The Supreme Court: What Do They Have To Hide Essay, Research Paper
Matthew J. Vowell
Ms. Lanctot
English 122
Dec. 5, 2000
The Supreme Court: What Do They Have To Hide?
The tone of this article is pretty much summed up in the first sentence. The author writes, “ I wonder what the pompous justices on our Supreme Court have to hide by not letting their actions be viewed live on national television?” (Aldrich 6B) He is obviously angry that we have been somewhat shut out from the Supreme Court decision on the Florida recount. Anger and aggression fill the voice of this article as “we the people” have been kept in the dark and robbed of our right to know how the system works.
What this article is trying to accomplish is to let the people and media know that we are being shut out from what is really going on inside the doors of the Supreme Court. It is also trying to persuade the media to try and get more coverage on the trial. The general public is being persuaded to think that we are not seeing enough coverage and that we don’t know what is really going on in the trial.
This article makes a lot of sense to me. I think they should show coverage of the trial on national television. This is the election of our highest official in the U.S. and we are not allowed to see the trial on TV. The O.J. Simpson trial received more air coverage than this. To me the election of our countries president is a lot more important than the O.J. Simpson trial.
I believe this article is very logical. I am sure there are many people who think exactly the same way that Aldrich thinks. He is right in the fact that “we the people” should know and see more of the trial. Having it broadcast on national television would show how the system really works. In the article he writes, “This election is such a closely followed subject, it seems to me that the public should be allowed to see h
Aldrich really has no evidence that the Supreme Court does not want to be viewed live on national television. Maybe it’s the television stations that don’t want to broadcast the trial live. He does not give evidence that there has been massive coverage of the trial since the very beginning of it. Just take a look at the newspapers and magazines. The presidential election is the front page of every one of them. Looking at the article, there are no facts of why the Supreme Court does not want the trial on live television or of what others have to say about it as well. Aldrich omits all of these things to get his point across and to persuade others to believe in his way of thinking. He purposely leaves out information about the coverage that is shown on TV to make his point clearer and more extreme. If he does give all of this information then his point will be totally lost and the anger of not seeing the trial live will also be lost.
Reading my essay and the original side by side I think the audience would see how the Supreme Court not letting the trial be viewed live on national television is not as bad as Aldrich makes it seem. The audience would see all of the information excluded from the original essay and would maybe question the purpose of the article. By looking at my essay readers would see how there is an overwhelming amount of coverage already without having the trial broadcast live on national television. They would also see that Aldrich saying, “ Yes, I guess justice is blind. At least they want “we the people” to be kept in the dark” (Aldrich 6B) is going a little overboard.
Aldrich, John K. “Kept in the Dark.” The Denver Post 30 Nov. 2000: 6B.