f writing is how it comes off as if the trial has been getting absolutely no media or TV coverage when it has received the most attention out of any other news in the country or even the world. 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. ...
