I asked because there are some personal comments that indicated the writer was viewing it, like she wouldn't speak, she glared at the judge, called her "witchy," etc.
For example,
Vice Adm. Hannink looked at a handcuffed Clinton, asking if she cared to speak on her behavior. She turned her dark, smoldering eyes on him but said nothing, observing the same reticence she has since the tribunal began.
Whoever wrote this had a viewpoint where he/she could see her, like the judge was seeing her.
Another example,
The M.P.s left the room a moment and returned with none other than John Podesta, shackled at the wrists and donning a white prison jumpsuit.
"donned in a white prison jumpsuit" would be better, as the gerund (a noun formed from a verb, denoting an action or state) indicates he was donning (putting it on) as he entered the courtroom. A real journalist would have known better.
Another example,
The M.P.s seated Podesta directly opposite Clinton. Clinton opened her eyes to narrow slits, like knife cuts, peering intently at her former friend and campaign manager.
I'm not sure where the reporter was seated but to see Clinton's face indicates he was up near the front. Normally, in courts, people sit towards the back of the courtroom.
Jim Haas said:
I know they said there wouild be analog video recordings of the Tribunals, so there would be an unimpeachable record. If that is true, I would think there might be an independent stenographer allowed, or some member NOT from the Fake News, allowed...... just my gut feeling...
I know they said there wouild be analog video recordings of the Tribunals, so there would be an unimpeachable record. If that is true, I would think there might be an independent stenographer allowed, or some member NOT from the Fake News, allowed...... just my gut feeling...
These articles are written like the reporter was in the courtroom, observing the proceedings. Are journalists allowed into military tribunal proceedings?
Replies
I asked because there are some personal comments that indicated the writer was viewing it, like she wouldn't speak, she glared at the judge, called her "witchy," etc.
For example,
Vice Adm. Hannink looked at a handcuffed Clinton, asking if she cared to speak on her behavior. She turned her dark, smoldering eyes on him but said nothing, observing the same reticence she has since the tribunal began.
Whoever wrote this had a viewpoint where he/she could see her, like the judge was seeing her.
Another example,
The M.P.s left the room a moment and returned with none other than John Podesta, shackled at the wrists and donning a white prison jumpsuit.
"donned in a white prison jumpsuit" would be better, as the gerund (a noun formed from a verb, denoting an action or state) indicates he was donning (putting it on) as he entered the courtroom. A real journalist would have known better.
Another example,
The M.P.s seated Podesta directly opposite Clinton. Clinton opened her eyes to narrow slits, like knife cuts, peering intently at her former friend and campaign manager.
I'm not sure where the reporter was seated but to see Clinton's face indicates he was up near the front. Normally, in courts, people sit towards the back of the courtroom.
Jim Haas said:
I know they said there wouild be analog video recordings of the Tribunals, so there would be an unimpeachable record. If that is true, I would think there might be an independent stenographer allowed, or some member NOT from the Fake News, allowed...... just my gut feeling...
These articles are written like the reporter was in the courtroom, observing the proceedings. Are journalists allowed into military tribunal proceedings?