Welcome to LawBeat, the blog about legal journalism. We cover reporting on law, lawyers and the courts — who’s doing notable work, and why we sometimes fail to cover this beat well.

LawBeat is not a survey of the day’s legal news. It’s not for or about lawyers and the courts (though we won’t kick you out if you visit). It’s not about media law. Many journalists and bloggers cover those topics ably and voluminously. Some of my favorites can be found on the blogroll.

LawBeat, instead, will be mostly anecdotes that teach lessons. The lessons are critically important. Ask a lawyer or judge about the quality of legal reporting, and you’re likely to hear all about superficial, hyped or ignorant coverage. Those kinds of mistakes undermine the rule of law and hurt our democracy. We’ll be on the lookout for examples, and hope that you’ll supply us with tips. We'll also be skeptical of the bench's and bar's criticisms, since some are rooted in a desire for public relations rather than journalism -- and ignore the difficulties of turning legal and factual complexities into stories with mass appeal.

When we generalize about The Media, we ignore specifics that complicate the picture and that distinguish quality from schlock, enterprise from laziness. A great deal of ambitious reporting on the justice system happens regularly, in print and online and on air. We want to spotlight that work, to inspire and teach — and deflate a few myths.

Go here to read how this blog serves a larger agenda to recruit and educate fresh talent to report on the law. The Carnegie Legal Reporting Program is supported by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and by resources at the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University. Neither institution is responsible for LawBeat’s content, but we’re grateful for their support.

Now, let the anecdotes begin.

Mark Obbie

Syracuse University

Does TV make smart people dumber? Jeffrey Toobin, this is your life.

Toobin, the engaging legal writer for The New Yorker, moonlights as a “senior legal analyst” at CNN, which often means he’s a regular among talking-head instant-analysts. He’s thoughtful, within the sound-bite constraints of the art form.

So what happens when Toobin grabs a bigger bloc of time? The answer: one part magic, one part clip job, and a tragically missed opportunity.

Toobin had an hour on CNN Saturday night as part of the network’s “Broken Government” series. Toobin tackled judicial independence controversies: backlash against unpopular decisions, and the old “judicial activism” debate. Toobin’s take was thorough, if a bit of a rehash. He told the story through three obvious windows: Terri Schiavo’s right-to-die case; school integration and busing in Louisville; and the Kelo v. New London eminent domain case. Remarkably, he got Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on camera, chatting fairly candidly -- a great chance for more Americans to hear and see their government at work. Toobin’s other on-camera experts were in the same league: Ted Olson, Ken Starr, Kathleen Sullivan, legal heavy-hitters all.

But here’s the thing: In all this exploration of such incendiary cases with such key thinkers (including Toobin), not one mention of why judges decided the cases as they did. Sure, once or twice we heard about the proper role of judges (to interpret the law, not legislate their policy preferences). But what were the legal bases — the constitutional or statutory interpretations — that led judges to decide as they did, right or wrong? Zip. Nada.

Is it any wonder that the public, unschooled in the law, assumes that judges simply dictate policy on a whim? Toobin squandered a great and rare resource by dumbing the substance down so far that it missed the point entirely.

Other than that, it was pretty good TV!