SU Home  |   Newhouse Home  |   Events  |   Research links  |   Contact Us  |   Home
Header Header
» MORE EVENTS
Recently on Lawbeat
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.
•  About the program
•  Legal studies minor
•  Careers in legal journalism
•  Research links
•  Contact us
•  Legal reporting fellowships
•  Blog
blog
RSS-Subscribe RSS Feed   |   › Most Recent Postings
Reporting by the Simon method
Washington Post
Mon, March 02, 2009
David Simon cemented his hero status with me by writing this lesson in honest reporting. It's also a lament about what has happened to journalism, one that all veterans feel about their calling.
Posted at 09:19 PM
View Comments (0)
Behind the Post's Guandique interviews
Ticklethewire.com
Thu, March 05, 2009
Sylvia Moreno is the only journalist to have interviewed Ingmar Guandique, who's now charged with Chandra Levy's murder. In The Washington Post's remarkable series last year, "Who Killed Chandra Levy?", Moreno and two other writers -- Sari Horwitz and Scott Higham -- documented the D.C. police investigation's misfires and focused suspicion publicly for the first time on Guandique. Now Moreno has told some of the backstory of her Guandique interviews -- and the crime-news site Ticklethewire.com gets the scoop.

Moreno writes that she had to interview Guandique by phone -- in two hour-long sessions -- after prison officials and Guandique's lawyer objected to a face-to-face. The more interesting insight is how long Moreno had worked to get the interview:

. . .  my involvement in the story began in summer, 2002 when Guandique’s name first surfaced as a potential suspect. I found and interviewed his family in El Salvador and his friends and relatives in D.C. I wrote to Guandique in federal prison, where he was already being held in September, 2002 for attacking two female joggers in Rock Creek Park, and we corresponded in Spanish for several months. When I resumed the correspondence in 2007, he replied immediately, and after a couple of letters, he consented to a visit, as he had in 2002.

Why didn't Moreno write this in the Post? Because the series was Moreno's last assignment. The veteran reporter took a buyout last year. (Via McClatchy's Michael Doyle)
Posted at 08:03 AM
View Comments (1)
Blogger flyspecks Ledbetter coverage
OpenMarket.org
Thu, March 05, 2009
Lawyer-blogger Hans Bader has published this analysis of news coverage of the Ledbetter v. Goodyear employment-discrimination case from two Supreme Court terms ago. He's critical of what he calls a pattern of distortion and inaccuracies. Back in January, when I noted that National Journal's Stuart Taylor had made similar claims about coverage of Congress' post-Ledbetter legislative fix, Bader posted a comment that he's now expanded into a link-filled post at OpenMarket.org. He accuses The New York Times in particular of mischaracterizing the facts of Lilly Ledbetter's case, and of the Supreme Court's findings, and of shrugging off the alleged errors with a lame "everyone else wrote the same stuff" excuse.

It's intriguing, and deserves careful study. As I said before, the notion that journalists fundamentally misinterpreted a case that became such a critical political and business issue is deeply troubling, and needs to be analyzed and understood. But I have a few nits to pick. First, Bader quotes me as saying the coverage of the Ledbetter decision "stank." I never wrote that. I have not studied it. I simply paraphrased Taylor's verdict on the media's coverage of the Congressional debate (and not even of the court decision). Second, Bader weakens his analysis by treating as equivalents an alleged factual error and an alleged error of interpretation or analysis (he spends time berating the Times' Linda Greenhouse for her speculation that Ledbetter might have turned out differently if the Alito vote hadn't replaced the O'Connor vote). Whether the Times makes logical inferences is not at all the same as whether the Times accurately summarized Ledbetter's facts and holding. Both are worthy subjects for argument and inquiry, but they shouldn't be intertwined without distinction. Same goes, in my mind at least, for Bader's blending of complaints about reported stories and editorials. The latter is advocacy, and usually is derived from others' reporting. Yes, it matters if editorial writers distort the factual bases for their opinions, but I'd much rather know whether reporters failed in their primary role as fact-gatherers.

Despite those complaints, I consider it healthy to have Bader and other experts monitoring journalists over their coverage of important cases. The question now is whether someone (hey, don't look at me!) will take this question another several steps into a careful scholarly analysis, and figure out who's right.
Posted at 09:29 AM
View Comments (0)
How to add spice to Ginsburg story
USA Today
Fri, March 06, 2009
USA Today's Joan Biskupic gets Justice Ruth Ginsburg's first post-surgery interview, which the paper played out front. The short, one-source story is a feel-good piece -- not that there's anything wrong with that. Ginsburg undoubtedly agreed to talk to signal that she is not near death or about to vacate her seat. And the strategy worked, as Biskupic writes:

She spoke Thursday in her chambers, a temporary, smaller office than usual because of the court's ongoing renovation. Ginsburg appeared in fine form, getting up often to retrieve books to show a visitor. She has resumed her usual schedule of conferences, dinners and travel.

I would have done more with the story to avoid feeling used as a Court PR device. I think the medical angle has been hashed over as thoroughly as can be expected. But there's a broader context that would lend perspective to Ginsburg's image of normalcy: How has Ginsburg's speedy recovery affected nomination preparations or partisan maneuvering? Do nomination-battle warriors on either side believe that Ginsburg won't step down soon? How might William Rehnquist's attempts to project a similar image undercut Ginsburg's case? Would Ginsburg's remaining on the Court affect plans by other justices -- John Paul Stevens, for instance -- who now might see the way clear to retire at the end of this term? Of course, some of these themes are bound to be more speculative than sourced, or they've been hashed over in other forums. A story serving a simple purpose -- especially in the tight confines of a USA Today front-pager -- can't do it all. But it could have done more.
Posted at 10:04 AM
View Comments (0)
Another trial-Twitter roundup
Associated Press
Fri, March 06, 2009
Roxana Hegeman filed this AP report giving an overview of federal court access issues pegged to Ron Sylvester's trial-tweeting experiment in Wichita. It's a thorough but not groundbreaking story. Because it's AP, it's bound to raise the profile of such advances -- and maybe convince a few more trial judges to take the plunge.
Posted at 10:11 AM
View Comments (2)
Wrongful-conviction documentary screening
Sat, March 07, 2009
The Carnegie Legal Reporting Program is proud to be a co-sponsor of this April 7 screening of the documentary “Blanchard Road: A Murder in the Finger Lakes,” on the wrongful murder conviction of Auburn, N.Y.'s Roy Brown. After the 6 p.m. film screening, Brown and filmmaker Alex Dunbar, a Newhouse School graduate, will discuss the case and the film in an audience Q&A.
Posted at 06:49 AM
View Comments (0)
Making sense of the Wyeth ruling
Sun, March 08, 2009
Does the Supreme Court favor businesses, or the people who sue businesses? Rather than rely on lazy, oversimplified, ideological labeling -- the "conservative" and "pro-business" Roberts Court took a surprising detour into pro-plaintiff, liberal territory in last week's decision in Wyeth v. Levine -- two Supreme Court beat reporters today offer lessons in nuance and legal substance by going beyond the strict confines of the decision's outcome.

David Savage of the LA Times and Robert Barnes of The Washington Post take separate routes to the same basic point: how and why the Court, or a particular justice, reached the liberal-pleasing result that it did.

Savage looks at the question through Justice Clarence Thomas' reasoning and record (Thomas concurred in the decision's result, but his approach would have gone further than the holding). Barnes takes square aim at the meaning of the case by showing how different decisions wrestled with distinct questions of statutory or regulatory interpretation. Seemingly contradictory outcomes -- one favoring business, one favoring plaintiffs -- emerge in more understandable form when shown in their real form: not as results-driven policymaking but as legal reasoning.

Neither story is bound to win plaudits from experts in these areas of law, because the stories are themselves simplifications of much more complicated principles and details. And partisans will no doubt bash or praise the justices for giving their side a defeat or a victory. But Savage and Barnes served their readers, the general public -- albeit a smart and curious segment of it -- by striking a reasonable balance between overwhelming detail and dumbed-down caricature.
Posted at 10:52 AM
View Comments (0)
Another Weingarten masterpiece
The Washington Post Magazine
Sun, March 08, 2009
Readers of The Washington Post Magazine probably know Gene Weingarten as the humor writer in the back of the book, a wisecracking funny man. People in the business may know him also as the former editor to humorist Dave Barry. I knew all that, but I also knew him as the writer of a memorable, Pulitzer-winning feature that I've recommended often to others. That 2007 story, "Pearls Before Breakfast," centered on an ingenuous prank -- recording the lack of reaction of commuters in a D.C. Metro station to a street performer who was actually a virtuoso -- but in fact was a deeper story about human nature. And it was masterfully written. When I saw today's Post Magazine cover story's hed and dek, I expected a well-told legal tale by Weingarten. The heds read:

Fatal Distraction
Forgetting a child in the back seat of a hot, parked car is a horrifying, inexcusable mistake. But is it a crime?

We don't get an answer to that question -- not in the traditional legal-reporting sense, anyway, with a careful look at the elements of the crime and what it takes to prove it. What we get, instead, is something much more profound. And something consistent with Weingarten's abilities as a storyteller and interpreter of people. Weingarten doesn't ignore the legal story. Early on, he sets the context -- "There may be no act of human failing that more fundamentally challenges our society's views about crime, punishment, justice and mercy" -- and points out that what separates one case from another aren't just the facts, but prosecutorial discretion, or jurors' mercy. He includes some basic facts about such cases: how common they are, and what types of parents do this.

But his deep reporting on this context is compressed into short form, leaving the rest of the long-form story to wrestle with the mysteries of our memories and attention span; about grief and forgiveness; and about our inability to comprehend making this horrible mistake, until we do. Weingarten does not hide the horrors inflicted on the little victims or on their negligent parents, starting with a lede that defies you to stop once you've started:

The defendant was an immense man, well over 300 pounds, but in the gravity of his sorrow and shame he seemed larger still. He hunched forward in the sturdy wooden armchair that barely contained him, sobbing softly into tissue after tissue, a leg bouncing nervously under the table. In the first pew of spectators sat his wife, looking stricken, absently twisting her wedding band. The room was a sepulcher. Witnesses spoke softly of events so painful that many lost their composure. When a hospital emergency room nurse described how the defendant had behaved after the police first brought him in, she wept. He was virtually catatonic, she remembered, his eyes shut tight, rocking back and forth, locked away in some unfathomable private torment. He would not speak at all for the longest time, not until the nurse sank down beside him and held his hand. It was only then that the patient began to open up, and what he said was that he didn't want any sedation, that he didn't deserve a respite from pain, that he wanted to feel it all, and then to die.

That man eventually talks to Weingarten, as do other parents, with stories that will surprise you and force you to think harder about the next horrible incident. A story like this is a massive undertaking, the sort of reporting and writing challenge that most journalists can only dream of handling. Fewer still could handle them so well.
Posted at 12:10 PM
View Comments (1)
Grace trial coverage showcases law-press collaboration
Mon, March 09, 2009
Thanks to Bob Ambrogi at Legal Blog Watch, I learned of the Grace Case Project: a collaboration of the University of Montana's schools of journalism and law to cover a lengthy criminal trial of W.R. Grace & Co. and its top officials. The site offers legal and factual backgrounders alongside daily coverage by blog and Twitter posts. This is great experience for students -- and an admirable example of what Web-based legal journalism can and should look like.
Posted at 11:48 AM
View Comments (0)
A child is railroaded, and only barely saved
The American Lawyer
Mon, March 09, 2009
In this month's American Lawyer, Susan Beck documents the heroic and monumental legal struggle required to undo the wrongful conviction of a boy coerced into confessing to the murder of another child. Beck's spare, just-the-facts language makes the details all the more shocking. Beck's billboard graf -- which she more than justifies in the body of the story -- challenges the smug assurance that the system is proven to work when it ultimately, and belatedly, corrects an injustice. She writes:

When a person's future is at stake, what kind of a system depends on the chance rescue efforts of volunteer lawyers? And does it really have to be so hard to hold public officials accountable for their misconduct--or to get them to say they're sorry?
Posted at 08:04 PM
View Comments (0)
Club's judicial freebie gets full airing
ABA Journal
Wed, March 11, 2009
The ABA Journal's Terry Carter broke a juicy judicial-ethics story on the magazine's Web site. It's a two-fer: a questionable price break for judges at an exclusive D.C. club, and dodgy loophole-threading to avoid newly legislated restrictions on gifts to judges. Carter explains the details thoroughly -- leaving little wiggle room to claim this game is something other than what it appears to be. (Via How Appealing)
Posted at 09:35 AM
View Comments (0)
P-I plays watchdog ... for now
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Wed, March 11, 2009
I wonder if Tracy Johnson is among the chosen few reporters who will remain with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in its rumored slimmed-down online-only rebirth -- and whether Washington state citizens could hope to stay as well informed of such stories as this one by Johnson on a state Supreme Court justice's questionable conduct. (Via How Appealing)
Posted at 09:44 AM
View Comments (0)
"Crumbled lives and shredded families"
Philadelphia Inquirer
Fri, March 13, 2009
The Philadelphia Inquirer's John Sullivan last Sunday had this powerful followup to the Pennsylvania judicial scandal, where two judges were convicted of taking millions in kickbacks from privately run juvenile jails that the judges stocked with undeserving kids. Sullivan puts a face on the shocking reality of the scandal, showing how a bogus ruling by one of the corrupt judges set Charlie Salasavage on a three-year odyssey through the state's juvenile justice system. Charlie and his parents, plaintiffs in the civil suit brought by the judges' victims, talked to Sullivan. He confirmed details in court records and tells the story in as straightforward a way as you can -- considering how the facts will make any decent person seethe with rage. State officials are now trying to assess the cases of approximately 30 kids, including Charlie, still locked up out of the 2,500 estimated by the plaintiffs to have been run through this perverted system. 
Posted at 05:14 PM
View Comments (3)
Torture debate gets injection of new details
The New York Review of Books
Sun, March 15, 2009
Author and journalism professor Mark Danner points out in his newly published New York Review of Books article that American journalists have written often of the existence of "black sites" -- secret overseas prisons -- and of associated controversies over "extraordinary rendition" of terror suspects and the use of torture, by U.S. officials or their foreign proxies. Endless tales of waterboarding have informed Americans of some of what the debate is about.

But what Danner now brings to those debates is testimony -- detailed allegations -- about a broad range of harsh treatment of detainees. The details come from a Red Cross report that Danner obtained, and writes about in the April 9 issue of the Review of Books. The Red Cross interviewed 14 "high-value detainees" about their stories of torture in the underground CIA prisons. Danner, in the Review piece and an adaptation of it in today's New York Times, assesses the credibility of the testimony, based on the Red Cross' methods and the details related by the detainees. Otherwise, he is essentially piggybacking on the Red Cross' original fact-gathering.

This is no piece of straight reporting. Danner, author of the book Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib and the War on Terror, seethes with rage in his account of officially sanctioned torture, especially in the longer and more personal Review of Books version. The act of scoring a copy of the report, and extensively mining it for shocking detail, is what will give Danner's reporting lasting impact.
Posted at 11:34 AM
View Comments (0)
Shotgun wedding for NLJ and Legal Times
Mon, March 16, 2009
No matter how Incisive Media spins it, its announcement today that it is "merging" Legal Times and the National Law Journal under one banner is the shutdown of Legal Times -- a best-case-scenario shutdown, perhaps, but still a shutdown. And that makes me angry, or sad, or maybe just my persistent state of angry/sad as I watch what's happening to journalism and to the people I've spent my career with (I'm speaking broadly, not just about Incisive Media, but now would be an apt time to link to my conflicts disclosure).

This anger of mine is purely editorial, and not personal (as my countrymen might say). I don't pretend to know the business realities that drove this. I know the people who made this decision and who are quoted in the announcement, and they are decent, thoughtful people who would support Legal Times if they could find a way. But to spin it as an enhanced product for D.C. lawyers is disingenuous by half. In a blog post that at least struck a more candid tone than the press release, Bill Pollak remarks on the enmity that existed between the Brill and Finkelstein companies, when they merged more than 11 years ago. He's right about that. He's also right that it faded. But among some of us warhorses, it's still there -- and now has been revived. Let me explain it:

Legal Times, editorially, made sense because it was a well defined product for an audience of narrowly defined shared interests. The NLJ has long been a general-interest newspaper for lawyers, which is a prescription for blandness. Its latest definition, as articulated by Pollak, is for midsized law firms and litigators, but that's probably just a product of happenstance -- which lawyers seemed to buy it -- rather than logic. In fact, and in spite of its impressive journalistic past (I've been a reader since 1982), in the last decade-plus it has lurched from strategy to strategy, and aimed itself at any lawyer who would have it.

The legal business is not a monolith. The Des Moines commercial litigator has little in common with the Newark criminal defense lawyer or Austin divorce lawyer or Boston patent lawyer, unless they happen to work for the 100 -- OK, maybe 200 -- largest law firms. So why would the NLJ lay claim to the business of midsized law? To keep it out of the way of The American Lawyer, which is about Big Law. That's a function of corporate peacemaking, not market-driven editorial sense.

So after we cut the crap, we can acknowledge that the company made a hard cost-cutting decision that is probably sensible on some level, but fundamentally guts what Legal Times was to its readers. A quality magazine or newspaper is one that understands its readers and is tailored specifically to their interests (and then does its job with intelligence and quality). Legal Times -- and its dazzling alumni club -- got that. It will be missed.
Posted at 09:54 PM
View Comments (1)
Why the Casey Anthony case is so heavily exposed
Orlando Sentinel
Wed, March 18, 2009
Amy Edwards' story last weekend in the Orlando Sentinel about public access to court records in the Casey Anthony case probably will evoke two reactions: the envy of police and courthouse reporters outside Florida, and the enmity of anyone who hates the tabloid frenzy that Anthony's case has become.

Edwards examines the unusually open Florida system concerning discovery materials in a pending criminal case. Unusual is an understatement. The access would be considered luxurious in most states even after a case is closed. Although Edwards provides few examples, her main point seems plausible: that it's the access that we can credit, or blame, for the degree of scrutiny the case has gotten from at least some quarters.
Posted at 03:29 PM
View Comments (0)
Google, Twitter and mistrials
Student post
Thu, March 19, 2009
[Editor’s note: This is the first of a series of guest posts by students in the Law, Politics, and Media course.]

Imagine you’re the plaintiff in a civil suit that’s been ongoing for the past six weeks. The judge is about to announce the verdict and you picture yourself walking out of the courtroom wearing a big toothy grin, holding $10,000 in compensatory and special damages in hand. Just as the judge walks in, you and your lawyer glance at each other with a sly smile. But, wait -- the judge looks rather puzzled.

“I declare this a mistrial,” she says. “One of the jurors Googled the defendant’s name.  Another was sending something called ‘Tweets’ to the entire World Wide Web last week. It’s back to the drawing board.”

Courts are beginning to face the problem of jurors using new technology such as Twitter, Wikipedia, and Google to do outside research or comment on cases they are sitting in. And the media are paying attention. A Google search for the term “Google mistrial” yielded nearly 150,000 pages linking to blogs and news articles about the issue.

According to this blog, just last week a building products company asked a court in Arkansas to overturn a $12.6 million judgment, claiming that a juror had used Twitter to send updates during the trial.

John Schwartz's New York Times article said last week a juror on a big federal drug trial in Florida also confessed to using the Internet to do outside research on the case. Apparently, after the judge found out, he asked the other jurors sitting on the trial and discovered that they too just couldn’t keep their hands off Facebook for a few weeks.

Remedies such as sequestering juries can aid in keeping an impartial jury, especially on a high-profile case. But, now with more advance technologies such as the iPhone, jurors can have access to information with just a slight touch of a screen while taking a bathroom break, without anyone ever knowing.

So, how do the courts reform to accommodate the ever-changing advances in the flow of information? As more media coverage surfaces, it perhaps will prompt statutes that address changes in technology that will be incorporated into jury instruction in the future.

Jurors also have to take responsibility. Jurors need to realize they are serving a higher purpose for society in deciding a case that could potentially be used to decide similar cases in the future. They need to avoid the temptation of Googling and Tweeting, as hard as that may be in this day and age. Also, jurors need to check and balance one another. If they see the juror next to them discreetly browsing the Internet on their phone and “just happen” to Google a defendant’s name, they need to speak up.  

The media can also serve the same purpose. I doubt any juror wants to see his name in the paper as, say, the “guy who Tweeted and left a $12 million judgment to rot” in the headlines.

-- Allison Tong
Posted at 12:04 PM
View Comments (0)
Did Greenhouse overstep an imaginary line?
Fri, March 20, 2009
Does a retired journalist hurt the reputation of her successors by taking a partisan policy role in the field that she previously covered? That's the question that troubles me when I hear that former New York Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse has joined the board of the American Constitution Society, the liberal legal think tank. It's easy to dismiss my question. But I'm not wondering if she has the right to do this, or whether it comes as no surprise to her critics. Instead, I worry that by allowing herself to stake out a position on matters that she covered for the Times not long ago -- and that her immediate successor must cover in a hateful environment where critics see partisan bias in everything that the Times does -- Greenhouse diminishes the newspaper's ability to defend itself against such claims.

It's not an easy issue (and I'm not being coy by expressing it as a question -- I truly am undecided). There are many factors and questions:
  • I respect Greenhouse's intellect and skills as an analyst, and her freedom to express herself freely in her new life as a scholar and teacher.
  • I don't know if board membership equates to personal expression of opinion on each and every issue.
  • I see the impracticality of expecting journalists to continue a monkish existence even after they're off the payroll.
  • I recognize that I'm at the extreme end of the spectrum on questions of journalistic neutrality (during last fall's presidential campaign, I chastised my wife for letting slip in conversation with friends how I intended to vote, and I've never bought the notions that reporters must be able to take policy and political stands as private citizens, or that everyone's a political animal and hiding it is disingenuous).
  • I also acknowledge that practically no other retired reporter is as closely identified with her former beat, or is as much a lightning rod, as Greenhouse. So perhaps this is not a grand policy question but instead a peculiar circumstance.
But still ... I think it's an occasion for journalists to give thought to the issue, rather than simply shrug today's headline off as meaningless or predictable.

Update: Greenhouse e-mailed the following thoughts:

I appreciate your thoughtful discussion of issues raised by my joining the board of the American Constitution Society. I considered these issues carefully before accepting the invitation to join the board. Since leaving the Times in July 2008, I have turned down opportunities for overt political involvement because I thought that would be too abrupt a change of course for me. However, the ACS is not a political organization; it does not endorse candidates or nominees or litigate in court; it really is an open forum for the discussion of ideas -- yes, from a progressive point of view, a description that applies to a very broad spectrum of thought on legal issues.

People are of course free to say or think, "See, we told you so," but the notion that I am somehow hurting the Times is, I think, just wrong, and even dangerous; your suggestion that "Greenhouse diminishes the newspaper's ability to defend itself against such claims" grants a heckler's veto to those who look for-- and will always find -- any excuse to beat up on the Times. If that's the way we calibrate the decisions we make in our lives, then the schoolyard bullies will always win, as I warned my editors some years ago when they failed to defend me against unjustified right-wing attacks.

The only way to defeat the bullies is to stand tall and do what you think is right under the circumstances, and I'm proud to make the ACS part of my second act after 40 years of daily journalism.
Posted at 06:27 PM
View Comments (0)
Gillibrand and Big Tobacco: big score with a big flaw
The New York Times
Fri, March 27, 2009
The Times' Raymond Hernandez and David Kocieniewski have an ambitious and heavily reported front-pager today proving that Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., had a far more influential legal role defending The Philip Morris Company than she is willing to concede now. Using documents and sources, Hernandez and Kocieniewski convincingly show that even though Gillibrand was an associate at Davis Polk & Wardwell, she played an unusually prominent role for an associate. It's a solid and relevant story, holding a public official accountable by explaining her history with facts rather than with her PR.

But it's also unfair to Gillibrand -- not because it zealously debunks the myth she would like people to believe, but because it virtually ignores important context by dumping it into two throwaway grafs:

Mr. Canter said the senator should be assessed based on her record in Congress, where she has voted against the industry’s interests on several occasions, including supporting cigarette tax increases to help expand children’s health care.

And Todd Henderson, an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School, argued that it would be unfair to assess lawyers by whom they represent. “Nobody would want to live in a world in which lawyers are judged by the clients they take,” he said.

Why call them throwaways? Because they appear just before the first subhead-break in the story. When writing a long story, if you are faced with material that interrupts your narrative flow, you can toss it into a little pile at the end of one section, because you're about to resume the main thread of the story after the break. It's a throat-clearing exercise -- well, there's this other evidence, or there are these other themes, that some probably consider relevant but we aren't going to go there, really. And they don't. These are the only mentions in the story of those themes.

Which is a shame, because Matt Canter, Gillibrand's spokesman, makes a pretty relevant point. Assuming what he says is true -- and it would need lots of checking and explanation -- that is a powerful counterweight to the underlying message of the rest of the story, about Gillibrand being a tool of Big Tobacco. And, while it's a cliche of legal writing, it still needs to be said that it's bad policy on a number of grounds to tar lawyers with the sins of their clients. Putting those words in the mouth of a relatively obscure authority, without elaboration, and just before zooming off in a new direction in the story, gives the back of the hand to the material.

The Times undercut an otherwise important and valid story by appearing to have an agenda other than the full truth.

(And yes, I know posting has been unusually slow here. Too much real work right now. I'll try to pop in now and then to show I'm not asleep.)
Posted at 06:49 AM
View Comments (0)
What to do with Gitmo: a new chapter
Washington Post
Sun, March 29, 2009
The Post's Peter Finn and Joby Warrick provide new glimpses of the mess that U.S. officials find themselves in as they wrestle with what to do with particular Guantanamo detainees. Their focus in today's front-pager is seven-year detainee Abu Zubaida, an early and seemingly valuable intelligence source whose interrogations -- both traditional and tortured -- yielded a mountain of material that set off manhunts and warnings worldwide. The trouble, say Finn's and Warrick's sources -- "former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations" -- is that Zubaida's status in al-Qaida was overestimated and every concrete tip he gave his interrogators "ultimately dissolved into smoke and shadow." The reporters clearly believe those sources' take on it, and not another anonymous official who, later in the story, chimes in to say that Zubaida's information was valuable. The anonymity makes it impossible for us readers to judge who may be right. But regardless, the details and controversy show how difficult it's proving to be to decide what to do with the 241 detainees.
Posted at 07:21 AM
View Comments (2)
Inside the workers comp hellhole
The New York Times
Tue, March 31, 2009
God bless The New York Times. This, boys and girls, is what you get when you invest in real reporting by professionals: a wondrous piece of muckraking, with human tragedy, vivid scenes, masses of data and background boiled down to digestible portions, and a passionate howl at the wasteful, cruel bureaucracy that New York calls a workers compensation system. In a package labeled "A World of Hurt," N.R. Kleinfield and Steve Greenhouse, and their headline writer, don't skimp on colorful putdowns of the dysfunctional, multibillion-dollar mess: "legal swamp," "a subbasement of the legal world," and my favorite, "meatball justice." Leavening the data and findings are scenes like this, taken from what the writers say was "18 months attending hearings, reviewing cases and interviewing participants":

George Vasilescu’s reaction was immediate. He tossed his head back, thumped his feet.

“No more,” Mr. Vasilescu, who is deaf and mute, signed. “I beg you. No more.”

Mr. Vasilescu, 64, a hotel steward who hurt his back, neck and wrist, had just been told by his lawyer that the judge wanted him back for another medical exam, another hearing, another delay, after four years churning through the system.

It is a good day at the Queens hearing office when there is only one such outburst.

I'll even forgive Kleinfield and Greenhouse for the predictable description of the system as "something out of Kafka" because they follow that with this delicious detail -- that Kafka "was himself once a compensation claims examiner." Perfect.
Posted at 07:13 AM
View Comments (0)
Morning News turns up heat in Keller showdown
Dallas Morning News
Tue, March 31, 2009
Veteran legal and investigative reporter Steve McGonigle of the Dallas Morning News expertly used property records to drop a bomb into the already-volatile case against Texas' chief criminal court judge, Sharon Keller. His story is a gutsy and meticulous (and carefully contained) takedown, showing that Keller -- while complaining that she needs discounted legal fees or a publicly paid lawyer in the ethics case pending against her -- owns nearly $2 million (and maybe more) in real estate holdings that she neglected to disclose as required by law.
Posted at 08:53 PM
View Comments (0)
RSS-Subscribe RSS Feed   |   › Most Recent Postings
SU Home  |   Newhouse Home  |   Events  |   Research links  |   Contact Us  |   Home
© 2009 S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, Syracuse University
This site was made possible in part by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York.
The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the author.
Web site design and programming by ThreeOneFive Design