|
|
|
"Nothing But the Truth"
October 30, 2008, 6:45 p.m.
Hergenhan Auditorium, Newhouse III
Filmmaker Rod Lurie screens his 2009 release, which focuses on reporters' confidential sources.
|
|
|
|
Free Press/Fair Trial and National Security
November 13, 2008, 7:30 p.m.
Joyce Hergenhan Auditorium, Newhouse III
An expert panel debates scenarios pitting First Amendment against Fourth Amendment rights in cases involving terrorism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
LawBeat watches the journalists who watch the law. It is meant to start a conversation — here and in the classroom — about the quality of journalism focusing on the justice system, lawyers and the law. All posts are by Mark Obbie unless otherwise noted. Go to this archive to read more about LawBeat's focus. Go here for the 10 Deadliest Sins of Legal Reporting post. And go here for blanket disclosure of Obbie's conflicts of interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 RSS Feed
| › Blog Archives (717 Archived Posts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ChiTrib domestic violence probe, in brief |
|
| Chicago Tribune |
|
| Sat, October 11, 2008 |
|
When I saw the words "lengthy article" used by the ABA Journal to describe a Chicago Tribune story, and then saw the story itself emblazoned with the telltale term "Tribune Investigation" and touting a "Tribune analysis" of court records, I braced myself. Newspaper tradition (very much including the Trib) means that this will be a monster story, perhaps spanning a week of monster stories. And, even if that's a prescription for a tiny readership, the subject certainly deserves probing treatment: low conviction rates in domestic violence cases.
But this story, by Liam Ford, shows that probing doesn't demand tens of thousands of words. The story (even with a sidebar) weighs in at fewer than 1,200 words. It's a solid, interesting 1,200 words -- with a page of links to past stories (though not evidently a series) -- but the brevity is remarkable. So is the in-your-face headline, "Courts are failing battered women," which sounds more like the traditional accompanying editorial that is carefully kept at a distance from the reporting.
Even though some of these touches cause me to lose my bearings, and even though I can think of many ways to examine the issue more closely and colorfully, I admire this example of accountability journalism. It does what journalism should do to evaluate the poor record of a system designed to improve women's chances of putting their abusers in jail.
|
|
Posted at 05:30 AM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Current Comments (0)
|
|
|
> Post a Comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mob gossip on the Times site |
|
| The New York Times |
|
| Fri, October 10, 2008 |
|
Famed mob reporter Jerry Capeci is holding court this week on The New York Times' site to answer questions from readers. There's been no shortage of such questions, and Capeci has tackled a number of them in two takes (so far). Capeci, whose Gang Land News site adopted a paid-subscription model about four months ago, is getting some promotional mileage, and sharing some of his voluminous knowledge of New York's mafia families.
Two thoughts: First, I'm in awe of Capeci's recall or research skills. As with his columns, he taps a vast database of names and dates to dish about who's allied with whom, who likely killed whom, and so on. It's a testament to decades of dedicated beat reporting and source development. But that leads to my second point. Capeci's sourcing sometimes is transparent, such as where he cites court records to lay blame for this murder or that drug deal. But just saying "court records" hardly seems enough. Are we talking about unsupported allegations by unnamed FBI sources that happened to make it into an affidavit? Or evidence-rich proof? Even worse, he will sometimes rattle off names and conclusions about criminal activity with no sources at all. Mob reporting -- of which I'm a longtime reader and fan, and occasional practitioner -- is infamous for such opaque sourcing. Even in the hands of such an experienced reporter as Capeci, the tactic is inherently untrustworthy.
Final point: I don't see an explanation on the Times page for the Capeci-Times collaboration. But it strikes me as an interesting model: an entrepreneurial, independent, Web-based reporter drops by a high-traffic news site to share some content, and pull in new readers.
|
|
Posted at 08:05 AM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Current Comments (0)
|
|
|
> Post a Comment
|
|
|
|
|
| When they say it's not about the money. . . |
|
| National Public Radio |
|
| Tue, October 07, 2008 |
|
We're hearing a lot these days about evil, biased "mainstream media" who are best bypassed so that newsmakers can speak directly to the public. That's a crock in politics, and likewise in business. Case in point: today's Q&A on NPR between host Melisssa Block and Daphne Hereford, owner of the descendants of Rin Tin Tin. Hereford has sued the studio that made the film Finding Rin Tin Tin for alleged trademark infringement. The studio wouldn't talk to NPR, but that didn't stop All Things Considered from airing an interview with Hereford on the suit. Here's an excerpt from the Q&A between Block and Hereford:
Q. Well, Ms. Hereford, what are you asking for from the the studios here?
A. We would like the product to be destroyed. And then the normal process of law that's due to us.
Q. Financial, in other words?
A. This lawsuit is not about money.
It is, she goes on to say, about upholding the integrity of the trademark system. Block, who asked natural and clear questions up to this point in the interview, goes mute. She lets Hereford spin without challenge. Why? Because, in a Q&A, we're somewhat hamstrung. We can't narrate the story and provide other voices to put self-interested puffery and lies in perspective. I'm not saying that Q&As always are bad, or are constantly manipulated. But this story is a good example of how it isn't necessarily journalism, when a source decides to blow smoke, knowing that she won't likely be contradicted.
|
|
Posted at 09:07 PM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Current Comments (0)
|
|
|
> Post a Comment
|
|
|
|
|
| The Docket: 10/06 |
|
| Mon, October 06, 2008 |
|
If you have come across any examples of compelling legal journalism lately, please send them to rsmascarenhas [at] gmail [dot] com. Not that this week's edition is wanting: we have soured financial deals, immigration snafus, and mackerel dollars.
Over at The American Lawyer, Andrew Longstreth has compiled a good summary of the Citibank-Wachovia dispute, with obsessive linkage to court documents and story updates. Keep an eye on this case; more than one observer has noted that it could end up being the new Pennzoil vs. Texaco (as if we haven't had enough bankruptcies).
The Washington Post exposes some of the failings of Virgina's illegal immigrant detention program, as a "broken system" -- to use one judge's words -- struggles to keep up with the numbers. The story performs a great public service, but it's also a dramatic read, stitched together by interviews with lawyers, judges, and immigrants.
And finally, every economist knows that bad money chases out good money, but what would mackerels do? The Wall Street Journal reports that the fish has become the currency of choice in prisons, ever since cigarette packets were banned in 2004. Hilarious, but unexpectedly thought-provoking as well.
-- Rohan Mascarenhas
|
|
Posted at 11:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Current Comments (0)
|
|
|
> Post a Comment
|
|
|
|
|
| Stohr catches Breyer's switch |
|
| Bloomberg News |
|
| Mon, October 06, 2008 |
|
I'm just now coming up for air from the workday, so I'm not up on what everyone else might be reporting from the first Monday in October at the Supreme Court. This Greg Stohr story strikes me, though, as smart and enterprising. Using Stephen Breyer's latest financial disclosure form, context on Breyer's history of finance-related recusals, a good eye for cases Breyer is participating in (despite his past holdings), and good questions that got direct answers from the Supreme Court press office (on Breyer's recent stock sales), Stohr gives his business readers important intelligence. So good on him. Of course, I'll retract my gushing praise if it turns out that everyone caught this story today. But Stohr certainly wrote this in a way that suggests it wasn't a handout. And, I'm reassured by a last-minute check at Legal Times -- home of Tony Mauro, the next most likely reporter to have zeroed in on this -- where Bloomberg gets the credit for this scoop. (Via How Appealing.)
Update: Lyle Denniston also gives Stohr the nod for this.
|
|
Posted at 05:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Current Comments (0)
|
|
|
> Post a Comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Totenberg and the runaway lede |
|
| National Public Radio |
|
| Mon, October 06, 2008 |
|
Who can blame Nina Totenberg for trying to entice listeners to pay attention to her Supreme Court preview by looking for a device to make the very unsexy theme of this term so far -- pre-emption -- a little sexier? But her attempt at perspective on today's Morning Edition ran into some troubling facts. Here's Totenberg's lede (which differs very slightly from the text version on NPR's Web site):
While abortion and gay rights may ring people's chimes and fuel political campaigns, the fact is that Supreme Court decisions determining whether individuals have the right to sue at all, and on what grounds -- those decisions actually affect the lives of far more people, and shape the conduct of business in America.
First, I'm totally with her in spirit: that consumer and commercial cases, while less attention-getting, can have more far-ranging effects than social issues. But the facts get in the way of her making the point. The cases she alludes to, and goes on in her report to explain, won't determine comprehensively the right to sue and the conduct of business. They obviously pose much narrower questions. And what about cases (hypothetical at the moment) governing abortion or gay rights? Those, too, would almost certainly carve out pieces of those debates rather than tackling them head on. But, since we're in hypothetical territory anyway, we can assume it's possible that the Court could rule in ways that affect all women seeking an abortion, or all homosexuals. I'll bet that's a lot more people than might sue in state court over "light" cigarettes.
So what is Totenberg saying here? That all people affected by the right to sue outnumber all people concerned with abortion rights and gay rights? Not likely true, and clearly not the case this term. Or is she saying that this term's pre-emption cases eclipse any abortion or gay-rights cases that might come along? Or just that they overshadow those issues on this term's docket thus far? In any case, the logic falls apart with barely a nudge.
She would have been better off framing her story in simpler terms: While the presidential campaigns fret about the Court's role in social issues like abortion and gay rights, the Court's main agenda so far is on a topic far less volatile -- but critically important to many people and businesses.
|
|
Posted at 08:24 AM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Current Comments (0)
|
|
|
> Post a Comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RSS Feed
| › Blog Archives (717 Archived Posts)
|
|
|
|
|
