'The Puppet's Court'

January 20, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

No cameras in court? No problem! One news station has decided to cover a federal corruption trial using puppets.

I can’t believe a legitimate news organization has resorted to using puppets to reenact the happenings of bribery and racketeering trial in Cleveland. The news station says it’s lampooning the trial which is frequently “absurd” and sometimes “comical.”  But you know what? It’s hilarious and I think more people would be interested in court coverage if acted out by Sesame-Street-like puppets.

See for yourself: http://www.woio.com/category/211979/video-landing-page?clipId=6656785&autostart=true

If anything, the use of the puppets is a great way to draw attention to your news coverage and generate traffic to your website. If not for “The Puppet’s Court,” I would have no reason to visit Channel 19 Action News’ website.

Our Indiana Supreme Court is still considering the pilot project of allowing cameras in state trial courts. Until they are allowed – if ever – I’d be OK with news stations using puppets to tell viewers about a trial, within reason of course. You don’t want to lampoon serious issues like a murder, molestation or rape trial, but when there are Rolex watches, prostitutes, sexually transmitted diseases, gambling and fake invoices for refrigerators involved, puppets seem kind of appropriate.

Apparently, the puppets even look like the parties involved in the case, although I’m not sure why a squirrel puppet is playing the role of the news reporter.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT