PressEthic

I came across an interesting article in Slate.com today that reported and commented on two Supreme Court judges' recent criticism of the media, or more specifically, court reporters. Apparently, Justices Anthony Scalia and Samuel Alito made the sweeping generalization at a judicial independence discussion that journalists will never be able to cover Supreme Court decisions accurately.

A bold statement, indeed. Slate.com's columnist rightfully takes offense at these offhand media attacks (see quote below), as many reporters make their living trying to report judicial opinions in the most clear and straightforward way possible so that the public will be able to understand them.

"And although, if anything, the Supreme Court press corps is hypercautious in its attention to legal detail at the expense of sensationalism, Scalia dismisses them, and their readers, because, in his view, 'nobody would read it if you went into the details of the law that the court has to resolve.'"

"Justice Samuel Alito, in his comments at the same event, went on to complain about the role of the Internet in legal reporting. His view is that people understand the courts through news media that oversimplify and sensationalize. Moreover, and again according to the AP, people's ability to amplify their comments worldwide online about judges and their opinions hurts the judiciary."

I share the author's confusion as to why increased public access to information on legal proceedings "hurts the judiciary." Maybe some court opinions are oversimplified, but at least people are reading about them! As well, if they are really interested, there are plenty of Supreme Court reporters who go into detail about the details of a judicial decision and the dissenting and majority opinions. Are blogs and online editorials that frequently criticize Supreme Court judges and their decisions starting to rub the judges the wrong way? Because unfortunately, their comments seem to stem from wounded pride or something equally petty. Suddenly the defenders of the Constitution aren't big fans of free speech when that speech is focused on their domain and decisions?

Legal journalists are crucial in helping the public understand court proceedings, legislation, cases, and rulings. Maybe sometimes the judicial opinions are oversimplified, but the same argument can be made about the Internet in general. Does the presence of information on the Internet that is misinformed or easily misinterpreted mean that the Internet as a whole is bad? That argument completely overlooks the huge amount of valid information that is now easily accessible to people via the Internet.

Slate touched on another interesting issue between the court and court reporters -- cameras in the courtroom. Should we be allowed to see what is going on inside the Supreme Courts? An easy argument to make would be that video footage would give viewers increased knowledge of the judicial system and court rulings, and would eliminate claims of "bad reporting" negatively affecting the public's understanding and opinion of the Supreme Court.

The columnist makes a good point about the hypocrisy of the judge's criticism of the media while being against cameras in the courtroom:

"Certainly Roberts is right to say that 'justices don't sit to help educate people about how the court functions.' But that doesn't mean the public has no right to be educated. And since the justices have systematically made public education more difficult—by denying video and almost wholly limiting same-day audio coverage of the court's proceedings, as well as limiting access for bloggers—it is hypocritical in the extreme to criticize the constrained reporting that results. To be sure, the court now releases same-day transcripts of oral arguments, and my guess is that legal reporting will now improve across the board as a consequence. But that merely proves the point: Less secrecy makes for more accurate coverage. Whereas secret Supreme Court criticism of journalists themselves limited by Supreme Court secrecy makes for an Escher staircase."

If the question is whether more access to information is worth the risk of it making the Supreme Court "look bad" or journalists "sensationalizing" judicial opinions. I think any coverage of the courts, both good and bad, has got to be better than no coverage. The same can be said for all news - or "All the news that's fit to print."