|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The same-sex marriage trial in San Francisco last month broke ground not only as the first federal trial of its kind, but also in generating a new level of Internet media coverage.
The 12-day trial on the constitutionality of California’s same-sex marriage ban was reported on in dozens of live blogs and Twitter feeds and on Facebook as well as in conventional radio, television and newspapers.
Most recently, two Los Angeles filmmakers have begun creating a full re-enactment of the trial on video that is now being posted on YouTube.
Producers John Ireland and John Ainsworth said Tuesday they don’t know of any other example of a full trial of that length being recreated on video and then broadcast.
The two men are using official transcripts of the trial and a cast of more than 40 volunteer professional actors to replicate the entire proceeding.
A first installment is now posted on their Web site, Marriagetrial.com, and on YouTube, and they expect new episodes to follow every two or three days.
The producers said they thought of the project after the U.S. Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote blocked a plan by U.S. District Vaughn Walker to allow videotaping and delayed posting on YouTube of the actual trial.
Ainsworth said, “I wanted to know what was going on in the courtroom. When the Supreme Court blocked that, it frustrated me.”
The two men support gay marriage, but said they are seeking to portray witnesses on both sides accurately and follow all details of the trial, including sometimes-tedious entering of documents into evidence.
The trial was on a lawsuit in which a lesbian couple from Berkeley and a gay couple from Burbank claim California’s marriage ban violates their federal constitutional rights to due process and equal treatment.
What is the point of all this other to expose these people as spoiled children. They didn’t get what they wanted (TV coverage of the circus atmosphere they are trying to create for this trial), so they make it up by creating a YouTube docu-drama?!
Talk about having your head where the sun don’t shine…….but, why should that be surprising.
Welcome to the Cyberworld in full force.
I have a box of cracker jacks so I’ll tune in…should be lots ‘n lots of fun…tee hee hee, tee hee hee…
I wonder why steva is so angry? hmmmmmmmmm…
Justice is best served by freedom of information. Because this is such an emotional and easily misrepresented issue, knowing exactly what is being said in the trial is valuable.
The biased reporting and advocacy on the part of Pleasanton Weekly has greatly diminished what useful function it might serve to our community. The overall quality of reporting has degraded over the years, and as if that were not enough, the paper has become just one more Left-wing advocacy rag for causes that are not eveb Pleasanton-specific in the first place.
Bias reporting should definitely be called out and Identified for what it is! So, what is the example of bias here? And what is the Weekly advocating? If StopBiasedReporting could mention what exactly he/she is talking about, we could discuss it.
The article above reads like straight up factual reporting. It’s up to you to decide what you think about the coverage of the trial; this article just tells you what is happening and why the people involved are doing it.
If the issue is mentioning a state trial in a local paper, I guess the Weekly thinks people might want to comment on it…..