By By now, we’ve heard enough about Judge Neil Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing.
The Senate has confirmed his Supreme Court nominee, and the hearings will begin on January 21st.
But for many of us, we’re left wondering how much we’ll actually see of the hearings, and what kind of coverage it will receive.
To make sense of the media coverage surrounding Kavanaugh, we turned to a handful of media outlets.
First, we asked two media experts to explain the various types of coverage that’s likely to take place on the Senate floor.
Then, we reviewed some of the most common complaints that have been made about the hearings: They’re too short, they’re too crowded, and they’re not informative.
We’ll explore each complaint and offer recommendations on how to improve the coverage.
First: The Shortest Section of the Senate Hearings Before the Senate is the longest of all the Senate hearings, lasting about two hours.
And that’s the part that matters.
The hearings are usually open to the public, but in the event that they’re closed, the public can attend a live feed of the proceedings online.
The length of the live stream of the hearing is also important: It allows for viewers to compare notes, compare their own impressions, and get feedback from other viewers.
While the length of these live streams varies widely, the most-used length for Senate hearings is about five minutes.
The most-common length for a live session is about 10 minutes, according to the Media Research Center.
That’s less than half the length the Senate will have for its confirmation hearings, which typically last up to an hour and a half.
While there are exceptions to these rules, they tend to occur at hearings that have already passed and are generally scheduled to resume later that day.
(For example, the Senate was scheduled to begin its confirmation hearing on February 12th, so it was already close to a week old.)
In addition to the length, many of the topics that have come up during the hearings are not the subject of any formal proceedings.
As a result, it’s difficult to know what the senators are going to be able to say.
For example, in the hearing on January 6, a Democratic senator from New Jersey raised concerns about a proposed amendment to the federal tax code that would allow corporations to deduct up to 20 percent of their expenses in foreign countries.
The proposed amendment would have exempted many of Trump’s business dealings from taxation.
While some Democrats were quick to dismiss it, many others have raised concerns over its fairness and called for the amendment to be stricken.
In the case of Trump, there are a number of reasons why the issue might be an issue for him: He has not disclosed any financial interests in companies that are currently under audit, he’s taken advantage of loopholes in the tax code to avoid paying taxes on those investments, and he has not declared any of the foreign entities in which he holds shares.
However, these issues aren’t unique to Trump: He’s been caught making false statements about his financial holdings.
Trump has also used other tax loopholes to avoid taxes.
For instance, the president and his family have reportedly paid less than $25,000 in federal income taxes since 2001, according the Tax Policy Center.
While these issues might not be directly related to Trump, the lack of transparency around these matters has prompted many people to take issue with the way the hearings have been conducted.
“It’s not really transparent what the questions are,” said Ryan Loveless, a professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Reno.
“And when you’re not getting a full accounting of what the people are going through, it really makes it difficult to have an informed debate.”
For example: On March 7, the Judiciary Committee held its first hearing of the confirmation process.
Members of the public were invited to attend, but it was closed to the press.
The committee then scheduled a closed-door session on March 15, which was open to all who wished to attend.
Members of the press were allowed to ask questions of witnesses and witnesses, and there was some open-door seating.
But that closed-doors session didn’t include any questions of the senators who were scheduled to appear.
After that closed session, a reporter from the Associated Press was able to question some of these witnesses, but the senators were not allowed to address the press, and all the questions were answered by the Senate.
This was a particularly troubling decision for the senators, who were in no position to respond to the questions of reporters.
The committee then held its second closed-shop session on April 6.
The closed-shops on April 7 are typically closed to members of the general public, and open to senators only.
The senators and witnesses are then allowed to appear before the committee at a closed session on a specific date.
While it’s not clear what exactly happened in that session, it was the second closed session of