 |
|
|
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 and to this page about what motivated its creation, and how it evolved. 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
| › Most Recent Postings
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Inside the post-Abu Ghraib security machine |
|
| The New York Times |
|
| Mon, June 02, 2008 |
|
Alissa Rubin's on-the-ground reporting succeeds at elevating this story on the American system of detention and trial of Iraqi terror suspects from generalities to specifics. Loaded with numbers and animated with examples, from her observations of hearings held to decide whether to hold or release prisoners, the story is a clear example of why such reporting done from afar cannot hope to provide a clear enough picture. Even though it's long it leaves me wanting more, particularly as it starts out by saying the Americans plan to experiment in shifting control of the prisons to Iraqi control. But Rubin doesn't explain enough how that might change the conditions that she describes.
|
|
Posted at 06:19 AM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Post yawns over Times regulatory scoop |
|
| Washington Post |
|
| Wed, June 04, 2008 |
|
|
How lame. This is the Washington Post's folo to the Times' scoop last Saturday on the Bush administration's regulatory strategy: a Bloomberg column on page D3, published three days later. If the Post believes the Times blew the story, or blew it out of proportion, it should report and write that. Instead, it's lazily duplicated the story, without giving credit, rather than aggressively reporting with its own staff on a seemingly major rule-making change. This smacks of face-saving or sour grapes rather than thinking about readers.
|
|
Posted at 08:51 AM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Toobin on Stone and Spitzer: No there there |
|
| The New Yorker |
|
| Thu, June 05, 2008 |
|
Jeff Toobin's recent piece on Roger Stone drew a sideswipe from Kathleen Parker, at National Review Online's "The Corner." She couldn't come right out and accuse Toobin of plagiarism, but she crows about noticing similarities between his New Yorker profile of the Republican prankster/hitman and this piece last November in The Weekly Standard by Matt Labash. Parker writes:
The similarities are striking, the most egregious of which is a device Labash uses throughout his piece. He repeatedly breaks up anecdotes with “Stone’s Rules” — things like “Admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack,” as well as “White shirt + tan face = confidence.” Toobin does the exact same thing throughout his profile, even including the same mathematical equation and, like Labash, basing his conclusion on yet another rule.
Read the articles side by side, and you'll come away shaking your head at the notion that Toobin, whose reporting work in his piece is evident, even found inspiration, much less literary devices to steal, in Labash's (not that Labash's piece is garbage -- it's actually quite good; it's just different). As Gawker's Hamilton Nolan put it, Parker has a point only "if you consider it plagiarism to quote the well-rehearsed quotes of a veteran quote whore."
The more interesting question is whether Toobin hung his story on too flimsy a news hook. He draws us in with the revelation that Stone will explain "the role he may have played in the fall of Eliot Spitzer." Did he in fact play a role? Only late in the article do we learn that the early rumor that Stone picked up about Spitzer's ways with the ladies was eventually passed along to the FBI, which won't comment. But, as Toobin himself concedes (all too briefly), there's ample proof that the FBI didn't need Stone's tip to follow a money trail straight to the prostitution scandal. So even if it happened as Stone says, it didn't matter. I finished the piece wondering why I'd let myself get suckered in (but partly glad, because it's a predictably colorful and tawdry read).
|
|
Posted at 04:42 PM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| O'Connor's legacy: a slow-moving target |
|
| USA Today |
|
| Tue, June 10, 2008 |
|
Joan Biskupic has a thoughtful, high-altitude view of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's legacy on the front of today's USA Today. The only thing that's curious about it is its timing. What's the hook? The story seems to say, in essence, that while O'Connor's carefully crafted compromise rulings took some hits last term, they've fared a little better this term -- so far. How those trends continue to develop will determine how lasting her jurisprudence is. Or something like that. So the more dramatic story line -- the one emphasized in the heds and the lede -- is a year old. The latest is downplayed, coming into focus not until the end of the long (by USAT standards) story. It ends up feeling like a story that would have had a clearer hook at the conclusion of this term, once this and previous terms could be compared in full. (Via How Appealing)
One of Biskupic's sources, meanwhile, surfaces with a post at Slate's Convictions blog helpfully filling in some details that the USAT story leaves out.
|
|
Posted at 09:15 AM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "Locked in Limbo" series keeps readers in limbo |
|
| Minneapolis Star-Tribune |
|
| Tue, June 10, 2008 |
|
Larry Oakes takes a skeptical look at a newsworthy topic: the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, an unusually extensive and long-running system of civil commitments of sex offenders to prison-like treatment centers. The three-part Star-Tribune series ends today after casting light on the problem but with more he said/she said than clear insight into the problems and potential solutions. The stories raise important questions of efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness about a costly system that has yet to release anyone. The questions -- including, do the rules establish a logical system of selecting detainees? what will it take for offenders to get released? how can we tell if the program protects the public and reforms the inmates? -- cut more broadly than deeply, achieving a sense of balance but no real understanding about whether the problems demand solutions, and what those solutions might be. (Via Crime and Justice News)
|
|
Posted at 12:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pro Publica's legal chops? The jury's out |
|
| Propublica.org |
|
| Tue, June 10, 2008 |
|
Now that Pro Publica has gone live, what kind of legal-reporting leg is it showing so far? Some, not a lot. But it's a good sign that one of its six main news categories is "justice and law," and that there are at least a couple of experienced legal-reporting types -- not to mention a number of hard-core investigative reporters, all of whom presumably know their way around a docket sheet. The main legal stories so far don't seem to feature original reporting. But that's bound to change. The law-flavored bylines I see include Paul Kiel, who worked on the George Polk Award-winning coverage of the U.S. attorneys scandal by TPMmuckraker, and former Sacramento Bee criminal justice reporter Christina Jewett. Also racking up some bylines on the fledgling law page is Eric Umansky, formerly of Slate and Brill's Content. I'd rate my anticipation over Pro Publica's legal potential as slightly less than what I expect generally from the new news operation. But, given the stellar and growing resources at its disposal, Pro Publica is capable of moving the needle quite a bit.
|
|
Posted at 05:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Law held hostage in essay on presidential politics |
|
| Columbia Journalism Review |
|
| Wed, June 11, 2008 |
|
The CJR series "Turning Point" on press coverage of the presidential election turns to coverage -- or lack of it -- of likely Supreme Court appointments. Writer Zachary Roth, former media editor at the New York Observer and writer at Washington Monthly, has the politics and media smarts to weigh in on this. But I question his perspective on the law. Roth's argument goes like this: The next president will get some SCOTUS appointments. Activists make sure we know where a candidate, and thus (supposedly) his appointees, stand on abortion rights. But there are many more legal issues that don't get aired. Roth writes:
Americans may go to the polls with no clear sense of how the likely decisions made by the candidates’ judicial appointees can be expected to affect their lives. It’s the press’s job to ensure that we reach a level of clarity on these other issues equal to the one we currently enjoy on abortion.
And where might that clarity come from? To Roth, it's simple: Once you know where the candidate's policy preferences lie, it's a short hop to his appointees' rulings. It's a neat syllogism that supposes a judge's only job is to reach the "right" outcome based on his party's policy positions. Thus, all notion of an independent judiciary and the rule of law goes out the window. Roth, whose beliefs are all too common in political science and advocacy-group circles, is unapologetic about making the argument, writing in his conclusion:
the press should accept that judicial appointments are just as political as any other issue in the campaign, and should pull no punches in spelling out the real-world consequences of the likely rulings to be made by the candidates’ appointees.
Call me naive, but that sounds likely only to ratchet up the pressure on an already overheated and mindless nomination and confirmation process. Here's a different idea: Buy the first part of Roth's argument (we need more coverage of candidates' legal-policy positions, likely SCOTUS appointees, and issues bearing down on the courts) while rejecting the surrender to the judges-as-politicians-in-robes religion. Instead, political writers or their legal-journalism colleagues could report on the real legal struggles that face us if McCain or Obama win: competing interpretations of statutes or the Constitution on a host of important issues, and new schools of legal thought based on arguably legitimate interpretations of black-letter law. They also could explore where most of the struggles take place: in the lower courts, not to mention state courts. (Via How Appealing)
|
|
Posted at 10:32 AM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| News judgments about Kozinski's porn |
|
| Los Angeles Times |
|
| Thu, June 12, 2008 |
|
Did the LA Times practice good journalism by outing 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski's porn stash in this blockbuster story by Scott Glover? That's a question asked in a number of ways by various bloggers, most extensively so far by How Appealing's Howard Bashman. The key question is whether it would have been a story if Kozinski weren't presiding over an obscenity trial at the time -- and whether it matters that the images and videos were on a private, not government, server and were not demonstrably obscene by legal standards. According to Patterico's Pontifications, a California lawyer with a long-running grievance against the 9th Circuit has claimed responsibility for tipping the Times. That lawyer, Cyrus Sanai, claims that he has been pitching the story since January, without success, to California's competing legal newspapers, The Recorder and Daily Journal, and to The Wall Street Journal. The Times itself, he says, sat on the story for months, possibly as a result of a personnel change (the original reporter he claims to have pitched, Henry Weinstein, took a buyout in the meantime).
What I haven't read is precisely when Kozinski's role in the obscenity trial became known. Once those papers knew of his role in that trial -- and surely that was before yesterday, when the trial began and the Times published -- they made a mistake by not revisiting their earlier decisions not to publish.
But back to the harder question: whether it's news without the obscenity trial factor. I say yes. Kozinski is a high-ranking judge whose court hears more obscenity cases than the current one. Controversy over the line between erotica and obscenity is legal news, and Kozinski's misfortune provides a teaching moment to explore the current state of the law. Kozinski has a track record as a critic of government intrusion into personal use of the Internet. Publishing a story without the trial as a news hook would be extremely uncomfortable, but I would have green-lighted it and placed the revelations in the context of Kozinski's disputes with Sanai and over Internet use. As for the Times, there should be no question that it did the right thing under the circumstances.
|
|
Posted at 10:34 AM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Comments (2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Greenhouse (almost) has left the building |
|
| Legal Times |
|
| Thu, June 12, 2008 |
|
Linda Greenhouse got a classy, if premature, sendoff today at the beat she's covered with distinction for three decades. Here's a report by Tony Mauro (now No. 2 in seniority on the beat, if memory serves me) quoting, among others, the longest-serving SCOTUS reporter, Lyle Denniston. They chose a busy day to celebrate -- with more end-of-term crunches to come.
|
|
Posted at 01:06 PM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Second thoughts on Kozinski |
|
| Mon, June 16, 2008 |
|
Patterico's Pontifications runs a letter from Alex Kozinski's wife, lawyer Marcy Tiffany, that puts the LA Times' revelations in a very different light. I still think that it's fair to question Kozinski's judgment, and his ethics in hearing an obscenity case (and I wonder when critics will ever stop accusing journalists of merely trying to "sell newspapers," considering that hardly anyone buys newspapers any more). When you're the chief judge of a U.S. circuit court, being "into funny" on a publicly accessible computer -- call it a Web site, call it a server, it was not strictly private -- makes your humor a political and legal issue when it's as risque as Kozinski's files were. But Tiffany makes a convincing case that Scott Glover's descriptions of Kozinski's material and behavior lacked a complete and fair context. As a reader, I would have appreciated more description of the specifics (assuming Tiffany's description is fair and complete). Did Glover spin the story negatively? Did Kozinski fail to explain adequately his material when confronted? I can't tell. But I now think that I was too glib to refer to the material as Kozinski's "porn stash" and to assume that the Times' competitors erred by passing on the story. Perhaps they saw that complete context and deemed it less relevant to Kozinski's public life than others might. Or maybe they were just creeped out by the tipster's motives.
|
|
Posted at 10:16 AM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Correction: Giving Totenberg her due for tenure |
|
| Mon, June 16, 2008 |
|
In keeping with today's mea culpa theme, I now believe I erred when I assumed (and at least confessed that I was winging it) that Linda Greenhouse's departure puts Tony Mauro in second place for SCOTUS beat seniority, behind only Lyle Denniston. That skips Mauro over NPR's Nina Totenberg, whose tenure at NPR predates Mauro's on the Supreme Court beat (originally for Gannett News Service, then USA Today) by four years (1975 vs. 1979). What I don't know for sure because NPR hasn't responded is whether Totenberg has covered the beat that entire 33 years -- or at least since before 1979. I believe she has, and so the beat's seniority roster is Denniston, Totenberg, Mauro after Greenhouse's departure. I'll continue to break into regular programming with these breathless tenure alerts as events warrant.
|
|
Posted at 01:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Holes in story on grand jury by petition |
|
| The New York Times |
|
| Tue, June 17, 2008 |
|
Monica Davey provides an interesting look, on the front of today's New York Times, at the use of citizen-petitioned grand juries, particularly those instigated by anti-abortion activists in Kansas. The case has received periodic national attention, but this story goes beyond earlier ones I've seen on the history and politics of the state laws that allow citizens to launch a grand jury investigation by petition. What's missing, though, is the perspective of the public officials who are the subject of this end run: prosecutors. Why don't they see the potential of criminal charges in these cases? What happens when prosecutors take over cases that independent grand juries hand to them? The story should have delved more deeply into those legal and political issues.
|
|
Posted at 06:45 AM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Comments (3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Salon scoop finally gets some bounce |
|
| Salon |
|
| Wed, June 18, 2008 |
|
Freelance criminal justice journalist Alan Berlow (pictured here) and Salon magazine deserve a victory lap for exposing an injustice that spared, at least temporarily, a Texas convict from execution last night. The bizarre twist is that Berlow's article exposing the issue was published three years ago -- prior to an the convict's previously set execution date.
Charles Alan Hood came within 90 minutes of being executed yesterday for a 1989 double murder. After a flurry of more than a dozen appeals in state and federal courts, the state called off the execution because it ran out of time before the death warrant expired. Just last week, Hood's lawyers filed papers challenging the fairness of Hood's 1990 trial, based on a reported affair at the time between Hood's prosecutor and the judge in the case.
Journalists covering yesterday's events had mixed success in explaining why the controversy is only now getting a hearing -- after rumors of the affair throughout Hood's 18 years on death row, and three years after Berlow aired the evidence in his June 2005 Salon story (which he followed with this last week). Veteran AP Texas death row reporter Michael Graczyk, whose story gets the most mileage nationwide (and even in major Texas papers such as the Houston Chronicle and Fort Worth Star-Telegram), doesn't touch on this basic question. The New York Times' Adam Ellick and Austin American-Statesman's Steven Kraytak barely do. The Dallas Morning News' news story, by Diane Jennings, goes into more detail about it. But the most complete chronology comes from a Chron columnist, Rick Casey, who offers the lawyers' explanation for turning such old news into a new dispute -- because they only recently got enough on-the-record evidence that they could take it to court. That doesn't completely explain what's been happening for the past three, or 18, years. But at least it satisfies smart readers' curiosity.
|
|
Posted at 01:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How "Beyond the Law" series overreaches |
|
| McClatchy Newspapers |
|
| Wed, June 18, 2008 |
|
I've been waiting for the McClatchy series "Guantanamo: Beyond the Law" to conclude before commenting on it. But tomorrow I won't be able to blog, so here's my critique after four of the five parts have run.
McClatchy explains the genesis of the series:
Early in 2007, as the Bush administration indicated that it intended to release most of the detainees at the prison at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba, McClatchy set out to track down as many of the freed prisoners as possible to help determine who they were, what had happened to them in the prisons the Bush administration set up in Afghanistan and Cuba and what had become of them.
For eight months, reporters Tom Lasseter and Matthew Schofield traveled to 11 countries — from England to Pakistan — and interviewed 66 former detainees. They also interviewed political and military officials in those countries to try to establish the detainees' backgrounds and check their stories.
Lasseter and Schofield also combed through unclassified transcripts of the men's tribunal hearings at Guantanamo, when available, and Lasseter interviewed former White House and Department of Defense officials, former guards and lawyers for prisoners who had them.
Was it worth it? Yes, if you look at the results from a distance: tons of words, huge amounts of original reporting worldwide, a vast Web site, valiant attempts at corroboration, transparency about methods, publication of useful backup documents, videos, and photos. Each of the interviewed detainees is profiled in a database that is part narrative journalism and part catalog comparing the detainees' stories. It's a marvelously rich trove, but I'm not convinced that it proves its sweeping and damning conclusions. Here's the nut of the series:
Of the 66 detainees whom McClatchy interviewed, the evidence indicates that 34 of them, about 52 percent, had connections with militant groups or activities. At least 23 of those 34, however, were Taliban foot soldiers, conscripts, low-level volunteers or adventure-seekers who knew nothing about global terrorism.
Only seven of the 66 were in positions to have had any ties to al Qaida's leadership, and it isn't clear that any of them knew any terrorists of consequence.
If the former detainees whom McClatchy interviewed are any indication — and several former high-ranking U.S. administration and defense officials said in interviews that they are — most of the prisoners at Guantanamo weren't terrorist masterminds but men who were of no intelligence value in the war on terrorism.
So we have anonymous sources vouching for this as a representative sample; we only learn later how large the total population of released detainees is (about 500); and we have a set of assumptions about why this is a story that doesn't completely hold up to scrutiny. First assumption: that lack of intelligence value equals lack of justification for detention. What about preventing future attacks? Next, we're shown the profiles of detainees whom the U.S. released as no longer a threat, and we're supposed to be surprised that they are, indeed, not a threat. Aren't the real questions whether there was a clear reason to capture them at all, and whether the U.S. dawdled in picking the detainees who shouldn't be held? The stories touch on those questions, but not nearly enough.
And what proof do the stories offer that the interviewees are telling the truth? I sampled nine of the profiles -- 13 percent of those interviewed, just as the 66 interviewees were about 13 percent of all those released -- and found none with convincing, independently verified proof. The closest one came was where the U.S. determined he was no longer a threat. The others? Believable because he was released early. Lack of proof that he's lying. Local officials weren't aware of him as a known terrorist. And so on. It's admirable, in one sense, because the reporters tried hard to dig into the facts and to humanize their findings. But the stories overreach, in my opinion, rather than sticking to what's known: that the released detainees tell similar stories of innocence and mistreatment, most of which cannot be verified (beyond the reality that the U.S. evidently didn't identify them as a serious threat). Which would then bring us back to what I consider the more defensible and interesting question that's posed but not answered by the stories: If the men were innocent and worthy of release, what can we learn about using smarter arrest criteria and shortening detention times?
The stories include other useful, provocative discoveries -- for example, showing the boomerang effect of turning common folk into jihadists by locking them up with real bad guys and then making them hate Americans -- but I don't count today's installment in that category. It's the most legal-oriented part of the series, but mostly is a rehash of what's been written before.
Bottom line: A for effort, A-minus for presentation (it took some hunting to understand all the details of the study), C-plus for nailing the story that you say you have.
|
|
Posted at 05:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| FISA bill a victory for watchdog journalism |
|
| The New York Times |
|
| Fri, June 20, 2008 |
|
In his story today on the deal struck in Congress to change the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Times' Eric Lichtblau calls it "the most significant revision of surveillance law in 30 years" and "a major victory for the White House after months of dispute." I'd call it a major victory for open government and watchdog journalism, with stories by Lichtblau and James Risen -- highly criticized by the administration and its supporters -- dragging the debate into public view. Apart from columns and editorials, Lichtblau reported and wrote most of the news stories in The Times' archive of its coverage of FISA, dating back to his and Risen's original story in December 2005. Regardless of the outcome -- regardless of how Congress chose to use its lawmaking power in setting policy -- Lichtblau should take pride in having used his skills as a reporter and weathered significant threats and criticism to fulfill the basic functions of a checks-and-balances government.
|
|
Posted at 06:54 AM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Detainee post mortem: all politics, no law |
|
| Washington Post |
|
| Sat, June 21, 2008 |
|
Michael Abramowitz's front pager today in the Post provides useful historical perspective on last week's 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush. It has the requisite back and forth between opposing experts (with some excellent, pithy quotes). And it seems to do an adequate job of explaining the politics of the Bush administration's strategies concerning Congress and the courts. But the story falls far short on the law. Every time any question of substance comes up -- what constitutional or statutory language was at stake, how competing sides interpreted it -- Abramowiz falls back on citing only "the law," as though it's in a black box and we simply must trust that someone says "the law" dictates this or that. Given that the crux of the story was that critics inside the administration warned for years that the detainee policies would go down in flames in the courts, it would be nice to know the basis on which the Court did exactly that -- and what the dissenters argue is wrong with that interpretation. I guess readers of even elite newspapers can't be trusted to have the necessary attention span or intellect to absorb just a few more grafs of actual substance.
|
|
Posted at 11:49 AM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Explaining a new twist on community standards |
|
| The New York Times |
|
| Tue, June 24, 2008 |
|
After growing frustrated yesterday by confusion in some news stories over the distinction between obscenity and broadcast indecency (George Carlin, RIP), it was a pleasure to read Matt Richtel's front-pager in the Times today about an inventive defense in a Florida obscenity prosecution. He explains the Miller v. California standard in clear, vivid language, weaving through complicated questions of law and fact with ease -- and without getting all wonky for his general-interest readers. Plus, the strategy that he spotlights -- and what it says about hypocrisy in matters of private vs. public sex -- is just plain interesting.
|
|
Posted at 05:29 AM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Tyler "swingers" case reveals reporter-DA relationship |
|
| Tyler (Texas) Telegraph |
|
| Wed, June 25, 2008 |
|
Ah, life in a small-town courthouse. This Tyler Telegraph story by Kenneth Dean attempts to prove one thing, but actually proves the opposite. The story -- reporting that the judge hearing a child sex-abuse case has allowed reporters back in to cover the proceedings, even though they are subpoenaed to testify in a change-of-venue hearing -- quotes the paper's executive editor, Jim Giametta, in a First Amendment-flag-waving statement. A story yesterday, also by Dean, similarly quoted the paper's M.E., Dave Berry, on how fair and righteous the paper is in its coverage of the case, in which the defendant is charged with heinous crimes that have already sent co-defendants to prison for life.
And why would reporters, as opposed to a circulation executive, have to testify? Dean doesn't get that from the defense attorney, or from his own colleague, but from the AP, whose Paul Weber had this tidbit on Monday: because Knaupp and the TV reporter previously dated the DA. Dean's first-day story barely mentions that aspect. Today's story gives Knaupp an open mic to put her spin on the messy details:
Responding to Davidson’s allegations, Ms. Knaupp said, “I am in the business of reporting the news, not making the news. I keep my personal and professional lives separate.”
Ms. Knaupp and Murphy, two single adults, dated, but the relationship ended more than five months ago, long before the trials in the Mineola Swinger’s Club case began.
“The allegations by Thad Davidson that my coverage of this case is biased are wholly unfounded,” Ms. Knaupp said. “I believe anyone who reads my articles will see that.”
Five months is "long before" the trials began? Was she the courts reporter then? Why is she now? We don't find that out in the stories, but are treated to a terrifically one-sided account of the change-of-venue battle and of the underlying charges, which sometimes are stated as fact rather than as allegation. The defense may be desperately over-reaching, and Knaupp may be a heck of a reporter. But she and the paper cover themselves in shame for their handling of blatant conflict-of-interest revelations. (Via Criminal Justice Journalists)
|
|
Posted at 03:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bob Barnes, call your agent |
|
| Thu, June 26, 2008 |
|
If I were the Washington Post's Supreme Court beat reporter, Robert Barnes, I'd be jealous of some of my competitors today. Yesterday's decisions included two highly newsworthy ones, on the death penalty for child rape and the Exxon Valdez punitive damages case. The Post carried AP reports on the decisions until just before noon -- less than two hours after the decisions' release -- when a pair of staff stories appeared on the Post's Web site: Barnes writing about the death penalty decision and William Branigin about Exxon. This morning's Post tops its front page with Barnes stories on both decisions. Lotsa work for Barnes, who last year had an assist from outgoing beat reporter Chuck Lane.
Over at the Times, recent buyouts notwithstanding, the back bench was stronger. On Wednesday, David Stout pitched in on the death penalty case while the Times used AP's report on Exxon, leaving the outgoing (Linda Greenhouse) and incoming (Adam Liptak) beat reporters to work on the pair of stories that top this morning's front page.
Jess Bravin at The Wall Street Journal had similar help on the day of, and the day after.
Bob, it's not too late to call for reinforcements to cover today's remaining blockbusters.
I'll have more thoughts about staffing these end-of-term decision days, and the role of SCOTUSblog, after today's fireworks.
|
|
Posted at 07:57 AM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| A glimpse at covering the FBI |
|
| NPR |
|
| Thu, June 26, 2008 |
|
"Talk of the Nation" host Neal Conan and his two guests, FBI assistant director of public affairs John Miller and NPR's FBI reporter Dina Temple-Raston, did a good job in this 30-minute Q&A of educating the general public about reporter-source relationships, specifically on law enforcement stories. Despite the occasional and predictable self-serving spin that both guests put on the jobs that they do, their discussion of how journalists and the FBI interact, and who's using whom, illuminates the issues for the layman.
|
|
Posted at 09:35 PM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All hail SCOTUSblog. Now, attack it. |
|
| SCOTUSblog |
|
| Thu, June 26, 2008 |
|
I've been pondering since yesterday what to say about SCOTUSblog and its impact on legal reporting. Comment is called for because of the great service that the site provides on crunch days like the past two days, when multiple newsworthy decisions came down. SCOTUSblog's "live-blogging" of the decisions' announcements -- the start each day of a flood of journalism by the great Lyle Denniston and analysis by Akin Gump lawyers (at the blog's home base) or other experts -- was simply astonishing. Not that it's rocket science -- it's merely news of what's been decided, who wrote the majority and dissenting opinions, and links to those opinions and background material -- but because it's so blindingly fast. Take a look at the time stamps on the posts from yesterday's and today's live blogs. That makes the fastest wire service reporter on the beat look like a slug.
But here's the thing. In touting the site's heavy traffic today, at around 100,000 unique visitors, the site's head honcho, Supreme Court advocate and master analyst Tom Goldstein, made me focus on what a niche product this is. The writing is crisp and plain, but it's for a legal audience, and isn't storytelling so much as wonky analytical insider stuff. That's a good thing, but a narrow thing. And for a relatively small audience, even on its best day. Broadly focused journalism, from the everyman's AP to the elite reader's New York Times and Wall Street Journal, serves far more readers, in a far more accessible way. Better? Not always. But different in a most meaningful way, for those who care about informing the great unwashed.
That said, why do the major newspapers consider their Web coverage of major decision days to be adequate? They simply run a wire story that's spit out in 30-40 minutes -- a previously written bottom, topped with the news, and progressively updated with react throughout the day, plus a link to the decision -- with the only real innovation in the form of staff produced stories rather than the wires. True, the WSJ Law Blog goes a step or two further, putting an interesting spin on what the paper's reporters (and other papers' reporters) are finding out. But why shouldn't the major papers own an event like the Court's climactic decision days? Why is the Drudge Report linking to little old SCOTUSblog rather than to a brand name news organization? Until there are cameras in the room, we need real-time Internet reporting by journalists at such organizations, putting facts and links into the hands of news-hungry readers.
|
|
Posted at 09:58 PM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Biskupic scooplet on Scalia's public persona |
|
| USA Today |
|
| Fri, June 27, 2008 |
|
After yesterday's Second Amendment decision penned by Antonin Scalia, Joan Biskupic rightly decided to focus on the justice. It's a quickie, but it has this original gem:
"I have decided to try to do more writing, apart from just writing court opinions," he told USA TODAY. "And I have decided to be less stingy with my public appearances, not just for (promoting) the book but generally to get the message out, about the interpretive principles that I believe very strongly in."
That's news of import to journalists, and a good get by Biskupic. Elsewhere in the article (which is separate from her main report on yesterday's decision and her wrapup on this term) Biskupic calls District of Columbia v. Heller "one of the most significant rulings ever," which seems a tad overheated -- or at least not proven by the rest of what she's written in an otherwise impressive package of stories.
|
|
Posted at 10:36 AM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Comments (2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Locy may be off the hook, but Congress isn't |
|
| Sat, June 28, 2008 |
|
Assuming now that the Toni Locy contempt case is over -- and let's hope that the judge doesn't try to punish Locy for her principled refusal to betray her sources in the Steven Hatfill privacy case, now that the government has coughed up millions to settle Hatfill's claims -- we can breathe a sigh of relief and move on. Or we can redouble efforts to get a decent federal shield law. In a way, it's almost a shame that Locy's case didn't progress a bit further. She made for such a sympathetic figure and set of facts, her case might have made some better case law. But it's pathetic that journalists would have to bank on that type of scenario -- threatening to ruin a dedicated professional -- because the policymaking body of this country can't get off the dime and pass the bill.
|
|
Posted at 07:01 AM
|
|
|
|
|
> View Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RSS Feed
| › Most Recent Postings
|
|
|
|
|