Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The Star Tribune news story detailing charges in the recent Fulton County, Ga., racketeering indictment ("The charges," Aug. 16) states, "And unlike in federal court, Georgia state trials can be televised, so Americans will be able to watch the proceedings and decide for themselves."

The suggestion that TV viewers of court proceedings can assume a role analogous to the jurors present in a courtroom is highly misleading and should not be presented as an assumed fact in a news report.

Ever since Lang and Lang's pioneering study of the televised coverage of the 1951 MacArthur Day Parade, published in 1953 as "The Unique Perspective of Television and Its Effect," which showed that the perceptions of live spectators at the event differed widely from those viewing the event on television, media scholars have found inherent distortions and biases in every type of mediated representation. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the camera does not simply mirror real experience.

For this, and many, many other reasons involving the particularities of legal proceedings, the special role of the judge, the unique role and instructions given to juries, the jurors' unique perspectives with regard to attorney arguments and the presentation of evidence, etc., it is misleading to suggest any equivalence between direct participation in a trial and watching a televised version of the proceedings. News reporters need to be more careful not to repeat specious or highly questionable claims such as this, especially when they feed into already widespread misconceptions concerning the relationship between television and reality.

I know that many media outlets have been campaigning for decades to get cameras into courtrooms, and the idea that a sensational trial like the one in Georgia may, in fact, become a television event must be an exciting prospect for many in the media, but the promotion of televised trials should not seep in to news reports of the particulars of legal charges.

The writer is a professor of media and cultural studies at Macalester College.

•••

A letter writer asks, "Regarding Donald Trump's fourth indictment, if he eventually gets voted into office then pardons himself, will all of this be for naught?"

As Susan Glasser points out in the New Yorker, "Georgia is outside the president's jurisdiction. These are charges that Trump can't kill."

Hal Davis, Minneapolis

Students who are agitated, physically large and strong may need to be restrained by methods contrary to this law. Students, like anyone else, can kick, punch, bite and head butt. This doesn't imply a chokehold should be used, but sufficient force may be needed to control the situation. Getting someone to the ground gives the officer a better opportunity to apply handcuffs. Handcuffs are an effective restraint that removes some of the physical threat. It is the start of controlling the situation.

School resource officers (SROs) typically work alone and may face more than one aggressor. By imposing new limits, the legislation makes the assignment more dangerous. It was irresponsible that legislators did not apparently ask for any law enforcement input. They simply strung together limitations to physical tactics that they considered too harsh. Unless there are significant changes, no one can fault SROs from shying away from these voluntary assignments.

Gov. Tim Walz displayed a lack of leadership by not questioning the bill, its intent and real-world outcome. The trifecta remains strong.

Joe Polunc, Waconia

The writer is a retired deputy sheriff.

It's both enlightening and frustrating reading opinions like the Friday letter to the editor "Should force be the first response?" about how police should use only the force prescribed by politicians when lawmakers have no idea what it's like responding to a fight and finding that the combatants are very serious about hurting one another and are not interested in stopping regardless of police warnings and orders to stop. The combatants may also be bigger and stronger than the first responding officers — yes, even in high school. They may also have some kind of weapon that is not readily seen. Fights are extremely fluid and dynamic and can be very dangerous for all involved. Remember, there is a gun present in every fight a police officer intervenes in. When combatants are rolling around on the floor, it is easier to restrain them then and there rather than inviting them or assisting them to stand and then attempting to restrain them. This should be obvious to anyone.

Jeff Potts is correct in his opposition to this ridiculous proposition. That the governor or the City Council or the mayor is going to tell the police which restraints they can use to break up a fight and hopefully save the combatants from serious injury is ludicrous. When are we going to stop using the example of one very misguided officer as a litmus test for every police intervention?

Richard Greelis, Bloomington

The writer is a retired police officer.

The writer of "Please don't kill print" (Aug. 17) and I have much in common. We've both been reading the Star Tribune for most of our 75-plus years. We both like to start the morning in our easy chairs catching up on the latest news page-by-page and sharpening our minds with the daily puzzles.

It is unreasonable to expect newspapers to continue providing expensive printing and delivery for a dwindling number of readers when it is no longer profitable. We have been able to adapt to incredible changes over the past 75 years. In 10 years few will even think about the olden days when news had to be printed out and delivered to our homes.

Sally Thomas, Edina

I may be missing something, but what prevents some savvy entrepreneur from starting a local ride-share company without the top-heavy, costly management of the "big" guys? ("Pay hike OK'd for ride-share drivers," Aug. 18.) The Twin Cities market seems ripe for a company that would treat drivers fairly and keep costs reasonable for riders. If Lyft and Uber don't want to pay a living wage and threaten to pull out of the market, would that be a great loss if there was a quality replacement? Why not use innovation rather than government intervention to solve this ongoing problem?