|
|
|
 |
|
|
 RSS Feed
| › Most Recent Postings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Post:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| My how-not-to list for legal reporters |
|
| Thu, March 29, 2007 |
|
How can legal reporters fail the public? Let me count the ways (in a Lettermanesque reverse-order list I've prepared for the last class of this new course):
10. Assume you know anything
Law is tricky. Lawyers are trickier. What you think is clear and obvious probably isn't. Reporters don't make themselves immune to stupid mistakes by studying the law, reading a lot or covering many legal stories. Always ask questions. Check your assumptions. Learn all you can about the context for every story. And always start your research assuming you know nothing.
9. Have fun with numbers
Here's the easiest way to hype a story: Quote numbers that might have a superficial, literal truth, but are fundamentally false. What's the maximum sentence a defendant faces if convicted on all counts? It's the max of all the counts run consecutively (except that will never happen). What's the plaintiff really seeking in the lawsuit? Hint: It's nothing like the inflated numbers cited as damages in a complaint. What's the settlement costing the defendant, and potentially worth to the plaintiff? You'll miss the target by a mile if you ignore the role insurance plays, you value an annuity by its theoretical long-term payout rather than its present-day cost, you write about gargantuan class-action payouts without noting what each "plaintiff" receives, and you only give the gross amount due a plaintiff (ignoring that fees and expenses will be deducted first).
8. Indulge your criminal state of mind
I'm not sure which is worse: devoting disproportionate amounts of news coverage to crime over all the other ways that law affects our lives, or using criminal terminology ("guilty," "convicted") when describing what just happened to a defendant in a civil suit.
7. Live off handouts
Want to be a pawn in the legal-news game? Then just rush from trial to press conference, quoting lawyers about what just happened, never peeking backstage to discover what facts and strategies are behind the curtain. Real enterprise reporting means reading every document before you hear what's said in court and on the courthouse steps. It means pulling back from spot news to report on whether the system works, and where it's headed. It means using documents and sources to reveal why a deal really got cut, why a jury really bought one side's story, how advocates strategize to shape the law.
6. Talk down to readers and viewers
I started this blog last October lamenting one smart reporter's decision to dumb down his storytelling so far that all the meaning was boiled out of the piece before it was served to viewers. This happens every day, in much cruder ways, in all media, when producers and editors and reporters decide their audience can't handle the "technicalities" (otherwise known as "what just happened"). Good legal reporters work hard enough to understand a story that they can then translate the true substance into clear language. Hacks treat law as infotainment, and visit legal news only when freak shows like the Anna Nicole circus come to town.
5. Throw gang signs
Here's the problem at the opposite extreme of No. 6: writing cliquish copy that excludes all but the experts. The quickest way to scare away the average, casual consumer of news is to make her feel like she doesn't speak the language in your private conversation.
4. Followup failure
Let's admit it: Investigations, charges and freshly filed lawsuits get all the attention. We ignore or dramatically downplay exoneration, acquittal and defense victories. It's been said many times before, but evidently shaming journalists into playing fair isn't working.
3. Genuflect to the black robes
Just as we don't want journalists to stir unfair public wrath against judges (see No. 2 below), we don't need journalists to flack for the bench either. The public interest requires that we serve as a check on judicial power and misbehavior. Be skeptical. Assume that in any large collection of humans, you'll find islands of laziness, corruption and incompetence amid a sea of hard work, integrity and intelligence. One other suggestion: Don't assume that judges cannot or will not speak to the public through you if you ask the right questions, or discreetly seek background briefings.
2. Play scorekeeper
If all you want to do is keep track of who wins and loses, and what the outcome of the game is, then go get a job typing in the scores on the ticker crawling across the bottom of the TV screen. The legal process isn't just about spitting out a result. It's about the rule of law. Why did a court rule as it did? What legal authority did it follow and interpret? Ignoring the reasoning behind decisions -- not just whether that reasoning is solid or flaky, explained well or sketchy, but just plain ignoring its existence -- leads the public to believe the worst about its courts: that they're just a bunch of black-robed policymakers. That's bad for democracy. Really bad.
1. Join the true believers
Originally I was going to make No. 2 the No. 1 sin. Then I listened as Syracuse University colleagues serving as the Carnegie Legal Reporting Program's first teaching fellows -- the College of Law's William Banks and Sanjay Chhablani, and Maxwell's Keith Bybee -- discussed with my class some of the most critical legal stories of our times: debates about due process in wartime vs. national security; the disputed constitutional underpinnings of privacy and reproductive rights; and public safety vs. wrongful convictions, most notably in a flawed system of capital punishment. Emotions run strong on all of these topics. Our job is to examine these and other debates about fundamental rights, shedding as much light as possible based on facts, not on what we wish to be true. Too many now mistake shouting for journalism, and assume that someone else will do the hard work of original reporting so that the rest of us have something to shout about. Let's be that someone else.
I banged out this list based on my experience, the critiques I've written since starting this blog last fall, and two other sources: this list from the American Board of Trial Advocates and on a paper by Lyle Denniston that he delivered last fall at the Judiciary Training Center in Annapolis and then shared with me. I hope readers will share links to similar lists, as well as their own pet peeves and best-practices tips, in the comments to this post.
|
|
Posted at 03:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are 6 comments to this post:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| John_Ch commented: |
|
|
Generally, i agree with your writing, but i just want to say that sometimes it would be very difficult to talk down with readers and viewers. Because it depend on their willing to make any feedback to us. Isn't it? ..........
|
|
|
Posted Tue, June 16, 2009 at 04:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| commented: |
|
| legal reporters |
|
|
Nothing i can say, unless i completely agree with you. Very nice review.
|
|
|
Posted Sun, June 14, 2009 at 10:08 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| commented: |
|
| legal reporters |
|
|
Nothing i can say, unless i completely agree with you. Very nice review.
|
|
|
Posted Sun, June 14, 2009 at 10:07 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| emil300 commented: |
|
|
In general, don't over simplify so much as to make what should be news a non-story. For example, a recent New York Times headline reads, "Justices Say Law Bars Retaliation Over Bias Claims." That meant nothing to me. acnee
|
|
|
Posted Mon, April 20, 2009 at 04:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| mayquene commented: |
|
| Don't over-simplifiy either! |
|
|
I think undermining your own intelligence is nearly as bad as talking down to your readers (or audience); doing so deprives your readers of the knowledge they seek by reading your work in the first place. When California's Supreme Court declared gay marriage a legal right, CNN reporters harped on and on about how complicated the decision was and how many pages long it was. I was mad that CNN, with all its resources, couldn't manage to say something substantive.
In general, don't over simplify so much as to make what should be news a non-story. For example, a recent New York Times headline reads, "Justices Say Law Bars Retaliation Over Bias Claims." That meant nothing to me. What law? Several laws have long proscribed retaliation for making complaints of discrimination. The story didn't mention what kind of claims (age and race) were involved until paragraphs 5 and 6. Certainly, the Times's readers aren't so simple as to require such dumbing down of news. Rather, the Times resorted to its usual discussion of the Supreme Court's ideological divide. There are only so many ways you can split a court of 9 justices.
|
|
|
Posted Fri, June 06, 2008 at 10:45 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pbrownstein commented: |
|
| How-No-To List for Legal Reporters |
|
|
Mark,
That's a terrific list.
As basic as it sounds, I would add to No. 10 that reporters should be
especially prepared before calling lawyers, who often are rushed during
interviews as they watch the billable minutes fly by. I am reminded of
the interviewing success of New Jersey Law Journal senior writer Tim
O'Brien (who died in 2005). He was able to pry information from people
because he was so well informed and could sprinkle a few of his
findings into the conversation. The interview then became a valuable use
of the subject's time.
Pamela Brownstein
Executive Editor
New Jersey Law Journal
238 Mulberry St.
Newark, NJ 07101
973.854.2902 (v) / 973.642.0920 (f)
pbrownstein@alm.com
www.njlj.com
|
|
|
Posted Sun, April 08, 2007 at 01:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
