{"id":476,"date":"2015-07-17T18:33:18","date_gmt":"2015-07-17T18:33:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.candelalearning.com\/masteryusgovernment1x6xmaster\/?post_type=chapter&p=476"},"modified":"2015-07-17T18:56:49","modified_gmt":"2015-07-17T18:56:49","slug":"reading-the-courts-in-the-information-age","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/spokanecc-americangovernment\/chapter\/reading-the-courts-in-the-information-age\/","title":{"raw":"Reading: The Courts in the Information Age","rendered":"Reading: The Courts in the Information Age"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n

Learning Objectives<\/h2>\r\n

After reading this section, you should be able to answer the following questions:<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n\t
  1. How do Supreme Court justices interact with the media?<\/li>\r\n\t
  2. How do reporters go about covering the Supreme Court?<\/li>\r\n\t
  3. How are the Supreme Court and its decisions depicted in the information age?<\/li>\r\n\t
  4. What are the consequences of these depictions?<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
    \r\n

    Media Interactions<\/h2>\r\n

    Occasionally, Supreme Court justices give speeches about broad constitutional issues, talk off the record with a journalist, or rarely, engage in an on-the-record interview.\u00a0An exception was Justice William J. Brennan Jr., who, in 1986, engaged in sixty hours of candid interviews with reporter Stephen Wermiel and allowed him to go through his papers. The agreement was that, after Brennan retired, the reporter would write his biography. Brennan retired in 1990. The book finally appeared in 2010: Sol Stern and Stephen Wermiel, Justice Brennan: Liberal Champion<\/em> (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010).<\/span> They may write a book setting forth their judicial philosophies and go on television to publicize it.[footnote]Antonin Scalia, with replies by scholars, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law<\/em> (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998); also Stephen G. Breyer, Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution<\/em> (New York: Knopf, 2005).[\/footnote]<\/span> Justice Stephen Breyer appeared on Larry King Live<\/em> to promote his latest book. He was circumspect, carefully avoiding discussing cases in any detail or revealing the Court\u2019s deliberations.[footnote]Stephen G. Breyer, Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge\u2019s View<\/em> (New York: Knopf, 2010); the interview was on September 15, 2010.[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

    The more flamboyant Justice Antonin Scalia has appeared on 60 Minutes<\/em> to promote a book he coauthored on how to persuade judges. During the interview, he did discuss some of his views.[footnote]April 27, 2008; the book is Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner, Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges<\/em> (Eagan, MN: Thomson West, 2008).[\/footnote]<\/span> Also, he does not shy away from voicing controversial opinions in statements and speeches, saying, for example, \u201cyou would have to be an idiot\u201d to believe that the Constitution is a living document.\u00a0Justice Scalia appeared on the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) panel on the state of civil liberties televised by C-SPAN (October 15, 2006), explaining and defending some of his decisions.<\/span> (Watch the Scalia interview online<\/a>.) Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, in a speech that could be seen as a response and that was posted on the Court\u2019s website, expressed her preference for \u201cdynamic\u201d over \u201cstatic, frozen-in-time constitutional interpretation.\u201d[footnote]Adam Liptak, \u201cPublic Comments by Justices Veer Toward the Political,\u201d New York Times<\/em>, March 19, 2006, 22.[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

    Withal, most judges shun the media. They rarely hold press conferences or discuss current cases.[footnote]Our discussion of interactions draws from Richard Davis, Decisions and Images: The Supreme Court and the Press<\/em> (New York: Prentice Hall, 1994); also Robert E. Drechsel, News Making in the Trial Courts<\/em>(New York: Longman, 1983).[\/footnote]<\/span> Toni House, who served as the Supreme Court\u2019s public information officer for many years, described her job as \u201cpeculiar in Washington because this office doesn\u2019t spin, it doesn\u2019t flap, it doesn\u2019t interpret . . . When an opinion comes down, we put it in the hands of a reporter.\u201d<\/span>[footnote]Quoted in Elliot E. Slotnick and Jennifer A. Segal, Television News and the Supreme Court<\/em>(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 33\u201334.<\/span>[\/footnote]\u00a0Nowadays, the court does frequently release audio of the oral arguments.<\/p>\r\n

    The main way in which justices communicate with the media is through the legal language of their written opinions. Even when a case is controversial and the Supreme Court is divided 5\u20134, the justices use such language in their opinions to justify their decisions. No matter how impassioned, this legal language makes it difficult for reporters to raise the subjects of partisanship or politics when writing stories about the Court\u2019s actions.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Majesty and Secrecy<\/h3>\r\n
    \r\n
    \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_479\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"200\"]\"Photo<\/a> The Supreme Court building: so magisterial and redolent of justice achieved away from the hurly-burly of politics.[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    The justices have two powerful weapons that help them present to the public an image of themselves as above politics and partisanship: majesty and secrecy.<\/p>\r\n

    Majesty begins with the Supreme Court building, which commands awe and respect. It continues with what reporters see inside the courtroom\u2014all that they see\u2014which is designed to elevate the justices and the judicial process to a magisterial and impersonal status: the ornate setting, the ritual, the ceremony, the justices presiding in their robes, seated on high-backed chairs, physically and metaphorically raised up. This effect is conveyed most visibly in the official photograph of the nine justices.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Enduring Image:\u00a0Photos of the Supreme Court Justices<\/h3>\r\n

    The traditional group photograph that the members of the Supreme Court allow to be taken shows them arrayed and authoritative in their impressive institutional setting. This enduring image enhances the justices\u2019 standing and contributes to people\u2019s acceptance of their rulings.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"450\"]\"Official Official Photo of the Supreme Court Justices[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    But what if they were shown discussing cases as bargainers? Or engaged in a nonjudicial activity? Or caught in an embarrassing moment in the way that celebrities are trapped by the tabloids? Such photographs would detract from the justices\u2019 authority and the Court\u2019s legitimacy.<\/p>\r\n

    Note the furor provoked by America (The Book)<\/em>[footnote]Jon Stewart, America (The Book)<\/em> (New York: Warner Brothers, 2004).[\/footnote]<\/span> by Jon Stewart and the writers of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart<\/em>. Wal-Mart refused to stock it. The reason: one page of this parody of a civics textbook shows the faces of the Supreme Court justices superimposed over naked elderly bodies. The facing page has cutouts of the justices\u2019 robes and a caption asking readers to \u201crestore their dignity by matching each justice with his or her respective robe.\u201d<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    The second way in which judges obtain favorable media coverage is through secrecy. Denied to reporters\u2014and therefore absent from the news\u2014are the justices\u2019 discussions on granting review, conference proceedings, and the process of creating a majority through opinion writing. The press is not privy to the decision-making processes, the informal contacts among the justices, the appeals and persuasion, the negotiation and bargaining, and the sometimes pragmatic compromises.\u00a0When he retired in 1994, Justice Harry Blackman gave his papers to the Library of Congress on the condition that they remained closed for five years.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Cameras in the Courtroom<\/h3>\r\n

    Cameras are prohibited in the Supreme Court during public sessions. The stated reasons for the ban are that it prevents lawyers and justices from playing to the cameras and avoids any physical disruption of the chamber. There is also concern that news coverage would emphasize the brief oral arguments, which can be misleading\u2014since the essence of appellate advocacy before the Court is in the written briefs. The unstated reasons are that cameras might not only cause the justices to lose their cherished anonymity and privacy but also undermine the Court\u2019s mystique by allowing people to see and judge the justices\u2019 behavior.<\/p>\r\n

    Television cameras are excluded from most other federal courts for many of the same reasons. They are allowed in all state courts under conditions and restrictions, for example, consent of the judge, agreement of the attorneys for both sides, fixed placement, and a prohibition against showing jurors.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Reporters<\/h3>\r\n

    Reporters covering the Supreme Court tend to be protective of the institution and the justices. In part, this is because they see law and politics as separate and different. Also, they do not have access to the kind of behavior and information that might lead them to think of and frame the Court in terms of policy and, particularly, politics.<\/p>\r\n

    Even when reporters at the Court are familiar with the facts and the oral arguments and have read the briefs of cases, they have more than enough to do just summarizing the justices\u2019 decisions. These decisions can be complex, containing fifty to a hundred or more pages of dense text, often with detailed concurring and dissenting opinions. At its busiest time of the year, the Court releases several opinions at once; over 40 percent are issued during the last three weeks of the Court\u2019s term. Reporters have little time to check over the cases and opinions, decide which ones are important, and prepare a report in layperson\u2019s language.<\/p>\r\n

    On controversial cases, reporters are bombarded by reactions and analyses from the parties to the case, their attorneys, legal experts, and interest groups. Most of these people are usually available on the plaza in front of the Supreme Court, where microphones are set up for them.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"200\"]\"Front-facing The Supreme Court plaza. After a controversial Supreme Court decision, reporters can interview the attorneys, their clients, and interest-group spokespersons.[\/caption]\r\n

    After a controversial Supreme Court decision, reporters can interview the attorneys, their clients, and interest-group spokespersons.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    Reporters may include some of these views in their stories and show that the justice\u2019s decisions have effects on people\u2019s lives. But they usually lack the time and space to explain the decisions in explicitly political terms.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Media Depictions of the Supreme Court<\/h2>\r\n

    After the acrimony of Bush v. Gore<\/em>, the four dissenting justices returned to collegiality. Media and public discussion of the decision as partisan politics died down. The authority and legitimacy of the Court and the justices were reaffirmed.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Apolitical Coverage<\/h3>\r\n

    Contributing to the return to normalcy, the media usually depict the Supreme Court as apolitical<\/a><\/span>, that is, above and beyond politics and partisanship.<\/p>\r\n

    Only infrequently do stories about individual cases decided by the Supreme Court mention their political implications and the justices\u2019 partisan positions.[footnote]A study of all decisions handed down by the Court during its 1998 term corroborates our findings: see Rorie L. Spill and Zoe M. Oxley, \u201cPhilosopher Kings or Political Actors? How the Media Portray the Supreme Court,\u201d Judicature<\/em> 87, no. 1 (July\u2013August 2003): 22\u201329.[\/footnote]<\/span> Our analysis of all Associated Press (AP) wire-service reports of the Supreme Court\u2019s significant rulings during a typical term (2002\u20133) for cases decided by a majority of 5\u20134 through 7\u20132 revealed that the terms \u201cpartisan\u201d or \u201cpartisanship\u201d were rare and the words \u201cDemocrat,\u201d \u201cRepublican,\u201d \u201cpolitical,\u201d and \u201cpolitics\u201d never appeared. Editorial writers in newspapers across the country infrequently \u201cuse ideological labels to identify voting coalitions on the Court and to characterize individual justices\u00a0. . .\u00a0The Court and its members are set apart.\u201d[footnote]Jan P. Vermeer, The View from the States: National Politics in Local Newspaper Editorials<\/em> (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), 110.[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

    Journalists do refer to ideology when covering Supreme Court confirmation battles, that is, in the time before the nominees become members of the Court. And when the Court is obviously ideologically divided, the media characterize the blocs as conservative and liberal: for example, the 2006\u20137 term, when a third of all the cases (twenty-four) were decided by a 5\u20134 vote, with Chief Justice Roberts leading the identical five-man conservative majority on nineteen of them. A fresh reporter at the Court can see it politically. Thus the New York Times<\/em>\u2019s Adam Liptak, summarizing the 2010 term, cited studies by and data from political scientists to identify the Court as \u201cthe most conservative one in living memory.\u201d[footnote]Adam Liptak, \u201cCourt Under Roberts Is Most Conservative in Decades,\u201d New York Times<\/em>, July 24, 2010, A1.[\/footnote]<\/span> He subsequently wrote an article documenting that the justices usually selected law clerks who shared their ideological views.[footnote]Adam Liptak, \u201cChoice of Clerks Highlights Court\u2019s Polarization,\u201d New York Times<\/em>, September 7, 2010, A1, 14, and 15.[\/footnote]<\/span> But such a perspective is exceptional.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Limited Coverage<\/h3>\r\n

    Media coverage of the Supreme Court is limited. Many of the Court\u2019s decisions are not reported by the news media or are recounted only briefly. The television networks give less than 4 percent of their coverage of the three branches of government to the Supreme Court. The leading news magazines focus on only 10 percent of the cases. Even a reader relying on the New York Times<\/em> would not know about many of the Court\u2019s decisions.<\/p>\r\n

    A few cases, unrepresentative of the Court\u2019s docket, usually those involving the First Amendment or other rights, receive extensive coverage, as do cases arousing intense interest-group involvement. Typical is the widespread coverage given to the Court\u2019s 5\u20134 decision upholding a voucher system that partially pays tuition at religious schools.[footnote]Zelman v. Simmons-Harris<\/em>, US Lexis 4885 (June 27, 2002).[\/footnote]\u00a0<\/span>Missing are decisions about contracts and taxes, criminal law and procedure, and federal statutes and regulations, except for cases involving big-name litigants.[footnote]Susan Michelich, \u201cMedia Coverage of the Supreme Court, 1999\u20132000 Term in USA Today<\/em> and ABC News<\/em>\u201d (paper for \u201cPolitics and the Media,\u201d Duke University, November 2000), 7\u20138.[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Oversimplified Coverage<\/h3>\r\n

    Coverage of the Court is often oversimplified. For example, in news accounts, the Court\u2019s refusal to grant certiorari is said to endorse the lower court\u2019s decision, when all it means is that the Court has refused to review the case. In a typical example, an NBC news anchor misleadingly announced that \u201cthe Court upheld<\/em> a ban on dances in the public school of Purdy, Missouri, where many people are Southern Baptists who believe that dancing is sinful and satanic.\u201d[footnote]NBC News, April 15, 1990, cited in Elliot E. Slotnick and Jennifer A. Segal, Television News and the Supreme Court<\/em> (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 205 (their emphasis).[\/footnote]<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    New Media<\/h3>\r\n

    The new media can breach the bulwark of majesty and secrecy protecting the Supreme Court. They can provide political and critical perspectives and cover more cases in more detail.<\/p>\r\n

    Reluctantly and cautiously, the Supreme Court has entered the information age. The Court\u2019s official website<\/a> now contains transcripts of oral arguments on the same day they are made. It also provides the complete opinions of each case on the docket since the 2003 term and instructions on how to obtain opinions for earlier cases. In 2009, former Justice O\u2019Connor launched a website called \u201cOur Courts,\u201d which explains courts in relation to the Constitution. Much of the other information now available, however\u2014such as on Scotusblog.com, the go-to site for Supreme Court coverage\u2014is intended for the legal community.<\/p>\r\n

    The Internet does contain commentary on the Court\u2019s decisions. Blogs range from the lighthearted and gossipy \u201cUnderneath Their Robes,\u201d<\/a> which breaks with judges\u2019 aloofness and inaccessibility, to the academic \u201cBecker-Posner\u201d blog<\/a> with essays by the two authors and a comment forum for reader response. There is now even an \u201cAnti-Becker-Posner-Blog.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\r\n

    In an example of new-media innovation in covering a politically significant trial, six bloggers joined together to create Firedoglake<\/a>. The site offered, from a liberal perspective, intensive, real-time coverage of the perjury trial of Lewis Libby Jr., former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. The coverage went beyond anything provided by the mainstream media.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Media Consequences<\/h2>\r\n

    The news media\u2019s coverage makes it hard for people to see the political orientation of judges engaged in making and changing public policies. This is likely to reinforce the legitimacy of the courts and confidence in judges.<\/p>\r\n

    Indeed, 80 percent of the people in a survey conducted for the American Bar Association strongly agreed or agreed that \u201cin spite of its problems, the American justice system is still the best in the world.\u201d[footnote]The American Bar Association, \u201cPerceptions of the U.S. Justice System<\/a>.\"[\/footnote]<\/span> Fifty-four percent strongly agreed that \u201cmost judges are extremely well qualified for their jobs.\u201d Most faith was expressed in the Supreme Court, with 50 percent having strong confidence in it and only 15 percent having slight or no confidence.<\/p>\r\n

    However, reports of dramatic and sensational cases and their depictions in popular culture do make people quite critical of the way the legal system appears to operate.[footnote]These data come from Richard L. Fox and Robert W. Van Sickel, Tabloid Justice: Criminal Justice in an Age of Media Frenzy<\/em> (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001), chap. 4 and the second edition, coauthored with Thomas L. Steiger (2007), chap. 4.[\/footnote]<\/span> Fifty-one percent of those surveyed agreed that it \u201cneeds a complete overhaul.\u201d Close to 80 percent agreed that \u201cit takes too long for courts to do their job\u201d and \u201cit costs too much to go to court.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

    Tabloid trials can increase people\u2019s knowledge of some aspects of the legal system. In a survey conducted in the wake of the overwhelmingly publicized criminal and civil cases involving O. J. Simpson, almost everyone knew that anyone accused of a crime has the right to be represented in court by a lawyer and that a defendant found not guilty in a criminal trial can be sued in a civil trial. Two-thirds knew that a criminal defendant is innocent until proven guilty, although one-third mistakenly believed the reverse.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Key Takeaways<\/h2>\r\n

    The justices of the Supreme Court interact with reporters mainly through the legal language of their written decisions. They accentuate the Court\u2019s majesty while concealing its inner workings and excluding cameras. Reporters perceive the Supreme Court primarily as a legal institution. They lack the time and space to report in detail on its activities. News media coverage of the Supreme Court is incomplete and oversimplified, usually depicting the justices as apolitical. These depictions reinforce the legitimacy of courts and people\u2019s confidence in judges. Americans believe that the legal system is the best in the world, but are critical of how it operates.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"

    \n

    Learning Objectives<\/h2>\n

    After reading this section, you should be able to answer the following questions:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. How do Supreme Court justices interact with the media?<\/li>\n
    2. How do reporters go about covering the Supreme Court?<\/li>\n
    3. How are the Supreme Court and its decisions depicted in the information age?<\/li>\n
    4. What are the consequences of these depictions?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n
      \n

      Media Interactions<\/h2>\n

      Occasionally, Supreme Court justices give speeches about broad constitutional issues, talk off the record with a journalist, or rarely, engage in an on-the-record interview.\u00a0An exception was Justice William J. Brennan Jr., who, in 1986, engaged in sixty hours of candid interviews with reporter Stephen Wermiel and allowed him to go through his papers. The agreement was that, after Brennan retired, the reporter would write his biography. Brennan retired in 1990. The book finally appeared in 2010: Sol Stern and Stephen Wermiel, Justice Brennan: Liberal Champion<\/em> (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010).<\/span> They may write a book setting forth their judicial philosophies and go on television to publicize it.[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Justice Stephen Breyer appeared on Larry King Live<\/em> to promote his latest book. He was circumspect, carefully avoiding discussing cases in any detail or revealing the Court\u2019s deliberations.[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      The more flamboyant Justice Antonin Scalia has appeared on 60 Minutes<\/em> to promote a book he coauthored on how to persuade judges. During the interview, he did discuss some of his views.[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Also, he does not shy away from voicing controversial opinions in statements and speeches, saying, for example, \u201cyou would have to be an idiot\u201d to believe that the Constitution is a living document.\u00a0Justice Scalia appeared on the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) panel on the state of civil liberties televised by C-SPAN (October 15, 2006), explaining and defending some of his decisions.<\/span> (Watch the Scalia interview online<\/a>.) Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, in a speech that could be seen as a response and that was posted on the Court\u2019s website, expressed her preference for \u201cdynamic\u201d over \u201cstatic, frozen-in-time constitutional interpretation.\u201d[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      Withal, most judges shun the media. They rarely hold press conferences or discuss current cases.[5]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Toni House, who served as the Supreme Court\u2019s public information officer for many years, described her job as \u201cpeculiar in Washington because this office doesn\u2019t spin, it doesn\u2019t flap, it doesn\u2019t interpret . . . When an opinion comes down, we put it in the hands of a reporter.\u201d<\/span>[6]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Nowadays, the court does frequently release audio of the oral arguments.<\/p>\n

      The main way in which justices communicate with the media is through the legal language of their written opinions. Even when a case is controversial and the Supreme Court is divided 5\u20134, the justices use such language in their opinions to justify their decisions. No matter how impassioned, this legal language makes it difficult for reporters to raise the subjects of partisanship or politics when writing stories about the Court\u2019s actions.<\/p>\n

      \n

      Majesty and Secrecy<\/h3>\n
      \n
      \n
      \"Photo<\/a><\/p>\n

      The Supreme Court building: so magisterial and redolent of justice achieved away from the hurly-burly of politics.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

      The justices have two powerful weapons that help them present to the public an image of themselves as above politics and partisanship: majesty and secrecy.<\/p>\n

      Majesty begins with the Supreme Court building, which commands awe and respect. It continues with what reporters see inside the courtroom\u2014all that they see\u2014which is designed to elevate the justices and the judicial process to a magisterial and impersonal status: the ornate setting, the ritual, the ceremony, the justices presiding in their robes, seated on high-backed chairs, physically and metaphorically raised up. This effect is conveyed most visibly in the official photograph of the nine justices.<\/p>\n

      \n

      Enduring Image:\u00a0Photos of the Supreme Court Justices<\/h3>\n

      The traditional group photograph that the members of the Supreme Court allow to be taken shows them arrayed and authoritative in their impressive institutional setting. This enduring image enhances the justices\u2019 standing and contributes to people\u2019s acceptance of their rulings.<\/p>\n

      \n
      \"Official<\/p>\n

      Official Photo of the Supreme Court Justices<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

      But what if they were shown discussing cases as bargainers? Or engaged in a nonjudicial activity? Or caught in an embarrassing moment in the way that celebrities are trapped by the tabloids? Such photographs would detract from the justices\u2019 authority and the Court\u2019s legitimacy.<\/p>\n

      Note the furor provoked by America (The Book)<\/em>[7]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> by Jon Stewart and the writers of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart<\/em>. Wal-Mart refused to stock it. The reason: one page of this parody of a civics textbook shows the faces of the Supreme Court justices superimposed over naked elderly bodies. The facing page has cutouts of the justices\u2019 robes and a caption asking readers to \u201crestore their dignity by matching each justice with his or her respective robe.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      The second way in which judges obtain favorable media coverage is through secrecy. Denied to reporters\u2014and therefore absent from the news\u2014are the justices\u2019 discussions on granting review, conference proceedings, and the process of creating a majority through opinion writing. The press is not privy to the decision-making processes, the informal contacts among the justices, the appeals and persuasion, the negotiation and bargaining, and the sometimes pragmatic compromises.\u00a0When he retired in 1994, Justice Harry Blackman gave his papers to the Library of Congress on the condition that they remained closed for five years.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      Cameras in the Courtroom<\/h3>\n

      Cameras are prohibited in the Supreme Court during public sessions. The stated reasons for the ban are that it prevents lawyers and justices from playing to the cameras and avoids any physical disruption of the chamber. There is also concern that news coverage would emphasize the brief oral arguments, which can be misleading\u2014since the essence of appellate advocacy before the Court is in the written briefs. The unstated reasons are that cameras might not only cause the justices to lose their cherished anonymity and privacy but also undermine the Court\u2019s mystique by allowing people to see and judge the justices\u2019 behavior.<\/p>\n

      Television cameras are excluded from most other federal courts for many of the same reasons. They are allowed in all state courts under conditions and restrictions, for example, consent of the judge, agreement of the attorneys for both sides, fixed placement, and a prohibition against showing jurors.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      Reporters<\/h3>\n

      Reporters covering the Supreme Court tend to be protective of the institution and the justices. In part, this is because they see law and politics as separate and different. Also, they do not have access to the kind of behavior and information that might lead them to think of and frame the Court in terms of policy and, particularly, politics.<\/p>\n

      Even when reporters at the Court are familiar with the facts and the oral arguments and have read the briefs of cases, they have more than enough to do just summarizing the justices\u2019 decisions. These decisions can be complex, containing fifty to a hundred or more pages of dense text, often with detailed concurring and dissenting opinions. At its busiest time of the year, the Court releases several opinions at once; over 40 percent are issued during the last three weeks of the Court\u2019s term. Reporters have little time to check over the cases and opinions, decide which ones are important, and prepare a report in layperson\u2019s language.<\/p>\n

      On controversial cases, reporters are bombarded by reactions and analyses from the parties to the case, their attorneys, legal experts, and interest groups. Most of these people are usually available on the plaza in front of the Supreme Court, where microphones are set up for them.<\/p>\n

      \n
      \"Front-facing<\/p>\n

      The Supreme Court plaza. After a controversial Supreme Court decision, reporters can interview the attorneys, their clients, and interest-group spokespersons.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      After a controversial Supreme Court decision, reporters can interview the attorneys, their clients, and interest-group spokespersons.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      Reporters may include some of these views in their stories and show that the justice\u2019s decisions have effects on people\u2019s lives. But they usually lack the time and space to explain the decisions in explicitly political terms.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      Media Depictions of the Supreme Court<\/h2>\n

      After the acrimony of Bush v. Gore<\/em>, the four dissenting justices returned to collegiality. Media and public discussion of the decision as partisan politics died down. The authority and legitimacy of the Court and the justices were reaffirmed.<\/p>\n

      \n

      Apolitical Coverage<\/h3>\n

      Contributing to the return to normalcy, the media usually depict the Supreme Court as apolitical<\/a><\/span>, that is, above and beyond politics and partisanship.<\/p>\n

      Only infrequently do stories about individual cases decided by the Supreme Court mention their political implications and the justices\u2019 partisan positions.[8]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Our analysis of all Associated Press (AP) wire-service reports of the Supreme Court\u2019s significant rulings during a typical term (2002\u20133) for cases decided by a majority of 5\u20134 through 7\u20132 revealed that the terms \u201cpartisan\u201d or \u201cpartisanship\u201d were rare and the words \u201cDemocrat,\u201d \u201cRepublican,\u201d \u201cpolitical,\u201d and \u201cpolitics\u201d never appeared. Editorial writers in newspapers across the country infrequently \u201cuse ideological labels to identify voting coalitions on the Court and to characterize individual justices\u00a0. . .\u00a0The Court and its members are set apart.\u201d[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

      Journalists do refer to ideology when covering Supreme Court confirmation battles, that is, in the time before the nominees become members of the Court. And when the Court is obviously ideologically divided, the media characterize the blocs as conservative and liberal: for example, the 2006\u20137 term, when a third of all the cases (twenty-four) were decided by a 5\u20134 vote, with Chief Justice Roberts leading the identical five-man conservative majority on nineteen of them. A fresh reporter at the Court can see it politically. Thus the New York Times<\/em>\u2019s Adam Liptak, summarizing the 2010 term, cited studies by and data from political scientists to identify the Court as \u201cthe most conservative one in living memory.\u201d[10]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> He subsequently wrote an article documenting that the justices usually selected law clerks who shared their ideological views.[11]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> But such a perspective is exceptional.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      Limited Coverage<\/h3>\n

      Media coverage of the Supreme Court is limited. Many of the Court\u2019s decisions are not reported by the news media or are recounted only briefly. The television networks give less than 4 percent of their coverage of the three branches of government to the Supreme Court. The leading news magazines focus on only 10 percent of the cases. Even a reader relying on the New York Times<\/em> would not know about many of the Court\u2019s decisions.<\/p>\n

      A few cases, unrepresentative of the Court\u2019s docket, usually those involving the First Amendment or other rights, receive extensive coverage, as do cases arousing intense interest-group involvement. Typical is the widespread coverage given to the Court\u2019s 5\u20134 decision upholding a voucher system that partially pays tuition at religious schools.[12]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0<\/span>Missing are decisions about contracts and taxes, criminal law and procedure, and federal statutes and regulations, except for cases involving big-name litigants.[13]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      Oversimplified Coverage<\/h3>\n

      Coverage of the Court is often oversimplified. For example, in news accounts, the Court\u2019s refusal to grant certiorari is said to endorse the lower court\u2019s decision, when all it means is that the Court has refused to review the case. In a typical example, an NBC news anchor misleadingly announced that \u201cthe Court upheld<\/em> a ban on dances in the public school of Purdy, Missouri, where many people are Southern Baptists who believe that dancing is sinful and satanic.\u201d[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      New Media<\/h3>\n

      The new media can breach the bulwark of majesty and secrecy protecting the Supreme Court. They can provide political and critical perspectives and cover more cases in more detail.<\/p>\n

      Reluctantly and cautiously, the Supreme Court has entered the information age. The Court\u2019s official website<\/a> now contains transcripts of oral arguments on the same day they are made. It also provides the complete opinions of each case on the docket since the 2003 term and instructions on how to obtain opinions for earlier cases. In 2009, former Justice O\u2019Connor launched a website called \u201cOur Courts,\u201d which explains courts in relation to the Constitution. Much of the other information now available, however\u2014such as on Scotusblog.com, the go-to site for Supreme Court coverage\u2014is intended for the legal community.<\/p>\n

      The Internet does contain commentary on the Court\u2019s decisions. Blogs range from the lighthearted and gossipy \u201cUnderneath Their Robes,\u201d<\/a> which breaks with judges\u2019 aloofness and inaccessibility, to the academic \u201cBecker-Posner\u201d blog<\/a> with essays by the two authors and a comment forum for reader response. There is now even an \u201cAnti-Becker-Posner-Blog.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

      In an example of new-media innovation in covering a politically significant trial, six bloggers joined together to create Firedoglake<\/a>. The site offered, from a liberal perspective, intensive, real-time coverage of the perjury trial of Lewis Libby Jr., former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. The coverage went beyond anything provided by the mainstream media.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      Media Consequences<\/h2>\n

      The news media\u2019s coverage makes it hard for people to see the political orientation of judges engaged in making and changing public policies. This is likely to reinforce the legitimacy of the courts and confidence in judges.<\/p>\n

      Indeed, 80 percent of the people in a survey conducted for the American Bar Association strongly agreed or agreed that \u201cin spite of its problems, the American justice system is still the best in the world.\u201d[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Fifty-four percent strongly agreed that \u201cmost judges are extremely well qualified for their jobs.\u201d Most faith was expressed in the Supreme Court, with 50 percent having strong confidence in it and only 15 percent having slight or no confidence.<\/p>\n

      However, reports of dramatic and sensational cases and their depictions in popular culture do make people quite critical of the way the legal system appears to operate.[16]<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Fifty-one percent of those surveyed agreed that it \u201cneeds a complete overhaul.\u201d Close to 80 percent agreed that \u201cit takes too long for courts to do their job\u201d and \u201cit costs too much to go to court.\u201d<\/p>\n

      Tabloid trials can increase people\u2019s knowledge of some aspects of the legal system. In a survey conducted in the wake of the overwhelmingly publicized criminal and civil cases involving O. J. Simpson, almost everyone knew that anyone accused of a crime has the right to be represented in court by a lawyer and that a defendant found not guilty in a criminal trial can be sued in a civil trial. Two-thirds knew that a criminal defendant is innocent until proven guilty, although one-third mistakenly believed the reverse.<\/p>\n

      \n

      Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n

      The justices of the Supreme Court interact with reporters mainly through the legal language of their written decisions. They accentuate the Court\u2019s majesty while concealing its inner workings and excluding cameras. Reporters perceive the Supreme Court primarily as a legal institution. They lack the time and space to report in detail on its activities. News media coverage of the Supreme Court is incomplete and oversimplified, usually depicting the justices as apolitical. These depictions reinforce the legitimacy of courts and people\u2019s confidence in judges. Americans believe that the legal system is the best in the world, but are critical of how it operates.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t

      \n\t\t\t

      Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
      CC licensed content, Shared previously<\/div>