Fourth Estate Whining on SCOTUS

What a wonderful article. With articles like this, there is little wonder why people see these journalists as pushing their opinions into journalism. There is also no wonder why I go to blawgs for information on cases instead of the press. At least you get truthful commentary with perspective and context on blawgs.

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.

Sadly, the details are exceptionally important in SCOTUS cases. The press pretty much always oversimplifies or just plain leaves out important facts. Sometime go to the Volokh Conspiracy and look at a reported SCOTUS case and compare it to the details discussed in that blawg.

Like his colleagues, the chief justice is confusing the message with the messenger. 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.

This is interesting, because it truly seems that she is conflating Roberts statement that the Supremes aren't there to educate the populace with an idea that the Supremes are being secretive. What a steaming pile is that. The Supremes have no liking for the circus that most courts with cameras have become, and frankly don't care to have the SCOTUS follow that lead. Of course, having the transcripts come out after a day could only be postured as secrecy by the MSM.

As for the "constrained" reporting, I suppose by only reporting the sensational results without bothering with the logic could be seen as distortion. But, the MSM is completely free of bias or partisanship, so god knows they couldn't do that.

Either the justices want Americans to understand and care about what they do in that big old white building, or they don't. It's too late to hope that citizens might just choose to tune out. And if the justices want Americans to be educated about the court, they should encourage the fullest reporting possible, recognizing that some of it will be good and some will be bad, but that more information is always better than less. The justices can keep taking swipes at the Internet, imaginary editorialists, and phantom tabloid reporters for making them look bad. Or they can recognize what makes them look even worse: themselves.

Sorry, I disagree. How the MSM postures most of the SCOTUS cases are so brief or vague that the public doesn't understand and begins twitching about out of control judiciary. As for the Supremes making themselves look bad, I think the press may want to work in the beam in their own eye.