Covering the Courts

PERSPECTIVE OF A FORMER REPORTER (Sonya Elkins):

            In a generation that is exposed to an information overload of news, opinions, talking heads and blogs covering everything from politics and world events to celebrities the American public still has a general lack of knowledge about the Supreme Court and the nine players shaping significant aspects of our country's legal landscape. According to a 2010 findlaw.com survey, a mere 1 percent of Americans surveyed could name all 9 justices on the Supreme Court and only 35 percent could name a single member. How does the media make a venerable institution matter in our current world of sound bites, spin and pop culture news? How do the media educate the public in a way that will also engage? And finally is it even the media’s responsibility to educate its readers and viewers?

            There is not much reason to discuss how the media should better educate the American public on its Supreme Court without first answering whether it is the media’s responsibility to educate the public about its government and related issues. In a word – yes. Admittedly journalism is a business, and there is certainly no question in today’s world of mergers of huge media conglomerates and fading of the small hometown newspaper that it is big, big business. So the publishers, editors and owners may argue that journalism is about successful business – and of course making money is what makes journalism an industry, a successful business model and keeps magazines, news shows and newspapers churning out with available content for their reader and viewership. However, as a former journalist who has sat through the classes that instill at least the ethical ideals in young writers-to-be, I do believe that the media has a responsibility to inform the public that goes far beyond entertaining or selling advertisements. The idea of that role goes back to our country’s origins and the original ‘tea party’ activists - not to be confused with those reading the Constitution for the media to hear today. As the only profession enjoying a specific constitutional protection, the media should at least strive to educate the public on its government in a real and meaningful way. So if it is the media’s responsibility to educate the public on the courts and specifically to this discussion the Supreme Court how do they make it relevant to the average reader, listener or viewer?

            This topic intersects with many of the others that I have covered in my entries. Part of the challenge I think in covering the Supreme Court is the justices apparent resistance to media coverage. When many of the players are press shy and coverage in the courtroom is camera-free and reporter-picky, the stage is not set for an open forum in which the media and the public are easily engaged. However, the media’s job as an impartial observer cannot be to ‘fix’ the eccentricities of the court itself, but must be to make it more accessible despite the obstacles in the way. Part of the issue of decoding what goes on in the courtroom is putting reporters with the correct training and understanding on the courtroom beat – while we can’t expect every reporter to have a JD, at least a little courtroom 101 would help newer reporters come in with a better understanding of the process they are covering and more informer reporters would also put judges more at ease and willing to work with these reporters rather than viewing them as a potentially inept source of errors. But even once reporters have an understanding of the coverage, part of the tension between educating the public and news reporting comes in the disparity between what sells and ‘real’ news. Some of the most informative Narrative B reporting would never get past many editors, nor would it entice many readers. There is a balance between engaging without pandering and informing without either losing or talking down to readers. Part of it involves weaving in Narrative A and drawing in reader interest, I believe. It also involves taking the bigger issues and finding a way to connect it to reader’s daily lives and the direct effects it will have on them – the 'so what' factor – in a way that allows them to understand why something as far away and academic as a Supreme Court opinion should matter in their lives. While there may be something academically distasteful about picking the ‘big stories’ from the Supreme Court based on the players and more dramatic or amusing fact patterns – ie. ‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ – perhaps it is important that these are the human elements that draw in readers and interest. And instead of being concerned about pandering, these should be teachable moments about the process and institution itself.

            I believe it is the media’s responsibility to do its best to better inform a relatively ill-informed public about their court system including the highest court in the US. Since our founding fathers we have recognized that the press plays a central part in our system of government to keep it accountable to the people and honest. It is an accountability that no branch should be free of. By finding the human element in stories, whether through the players or the justices, and knowledgeable reporters weaving a background of information and Narrative B into a story with humanity and Narrative A elements the hope is that we will achieve a more informed electorate and public. That is at least the ideal and a goal to strive for.


PERSPECTIVE OF A FORMER TEACHER (Karli Swift):

If you just watch one minute of the Tonight Show’s Jaywalking segment, it’s easy to see how little the American public knows about the Supreme Court. Most American’s cannot name one person on the Supreme Court or a major decision that has been handed down in the past decade. It should be no surprise that this lack of knowledge makes it difficult for those whose job it is to cover the courts. The daunting task of informing the public about the Court and its decisions while not over simplifying, over explaining, or inserting bias, is left to the media.

There are those who cover the Court using Narrative B. Narrative B is generally more respectful of the Court and steers clear of reporting on the drama and personality of the Jurists on the Court. Those who cover the Court using Narrative A, on the other hand, give what, I imagine, they consider in-depth coverage that alludes or explicitly states a position about the Court and its members. While both of these approaches are somewhat flawed, the question remains, what is the responsibility of those who cover the Supreme Court?

The truth is that the members of the Supreme Court are human. I know that is a shocking revelation. They had lives before they entered the Court. Many have written articles about decisions made before they came on the court,  have made political contributions (likely not the case for those that have previously served as federal judges), and may even have taken a stance on an issue. Yet when they don the robes and sit on the Supreme Court their past lives disappear. This is what makes covering the courts so difficult. Should journalists report solely on the Judge’s opinion found within the four corners or their opinion? Or should journalists use all information available to them to fully cover the Supreme Court?

In a sense, this brings me back to the Narrative A and Narrative B dichotomy that undercuts the discussion of media and the courts. But it also raises another important question – Is it the responsibility of those who cover the Supreme Court to educate the public?

I think that it is. Those who cover the Supreme Court have a first hand perspective of the Court and how it works. They are members of an elite group that get to interact with the Justices. Yet, under Narrative B we never get a sense of the personality of the Justices and under Narrative A we only get a critical perspective. I think that journalists should make an effort to inform the public while respecting the Court. To do this, I think that the public needs get a better sense of the Justices and their quirks. Instead of highlighting divides on the court, illustrate their camaraderie. While showing that the Justice’s get along and genuinely like each other won’t change how they rule, it might reduce what the public assumes about the Court. It might also enhance public debate and foster a sense that even those who frequently disagree can sit at the table together.

No one said that covering the Court was simple. In fact, I think it’s a hard job. But as the adages goes, someone has to do it. Supreme Court journalists have a duty to help the public get to know the Justices in a way that makes them more accessible and allows the public and not the media or politicians to come up with their own conclusions about the Justices. I have spent the majority of my posts deriding journalist and arguing that they put too much emphasis on Narrative A, however, I think that Supreme Court journalist can do a better job by opening the Court up to every day citizens.

Like I said before, “it’s a hard job, but someone has to do it.”