The new issue of the D.C. Bar’s Washington Lawyer magazine arrived this afternoon, so I flipped through it to see if there was anything in it that might get me out of the post-summer energy funk mentioned in my post this morning. The most likely item seemed to be the cover story, “Legal Journalism at a Crossroads” (by Sarah Kellog, September 2008). So, I rolled off my virtual hammock and, armed with a grande-sized mug of iced coffee, actually read through the 6000-word article.
The mag’s editors tease us by saying:
In–depth court coverage by mainstream media has given way to law–related Web sites, publications, podcasts, and blogs. Sarah Kellogg explores these mediums that are redefining what constitutes legal news.
And asking:
Should legal institutions, aided by the Web, fill that gap and tell the story themselves?
The article starts with the interesting question “Who will tell the public the story of the American legal system?” And the author’s concluding paragraph tells us:
“What Web 2.0 and the proliferation of legal publishers’ sites may be telling us is that it is time to redefine legal journalism. It is no longer about newsgathering in a vacuum or from an ivory tower. It is evolving into a system where the role of news arbiter can be taken up by any individual or group with the passion, time, or money to do it.”
In between, there were quotes from interesting folk like the always-insightful journalism professor Mark Obbie (who “watches the journalists who watch the law, at his LawBeat weblog); Tim Mighell of Inter Alia; Amy Howe of the SCOTUSblog; and Jerry Goldman, who founded and oversees Oyez.org.
Unfortunately, as happens virtually every time I read an article in a bar association magazine, I came away feeling like I learned nothing new and gained no helpful new perspectives. I’m no closer to knowing what “legal journalism” actually is or could/should be (including what subjects it covers), what the public might actually want from news reportage about the legal system or the courts, or what can be done about a loss of objectivity and accuracy that might be endemic on the web.
I’m glad I read it, however, because it lets me warn you not to waste your time on it. Instead, head for those last-minute “back to school” sales. Watch the Republican Convention (or bone up on “age of consent” in Alaska). Better yet, get out to see the sunset or grab an ice cream cone with someone you love.
sunset–
the town is buzzing
with dragonflies
eye-catching 
over the sunset mountain…
a kite
the woodpecker works
one spot…
all through sunset
.. by Kobayashi Issa, translated by David G. Lanoue
interesting. perhaps this type of thing will be left up to the historians. as well as book writers years from now.
Comment by kouji — September 3, 2008 @ 1:26 am
And guess what, none of those is about the courts, they’re about the cases or the justices or the law firms.
So we still have a general public who has no idea how courts work, legislatures who don’t get courts (funding? Why do courts need funding?), and…reporters who don’t know a tennis court from a court of common pleas.
Comment by Anne — September 4, 2008 @ 7:27 am
Hi, Anne. You make a very good point, as usual. Our “legal system” is much more than its courts, of course, so I’m still wondering just what the subject matter of “legal journalism” should be. Also, in a nation where the average person on the street — despite greater media coverage of the other branches — has no accurate or sophisticated idea how the legislature or the executive branch works, just what do hand-wringers and critics expect “legal journalism” to do in order to improve the situation considering the Third Branch?
There is a general lack of basic understanding of disciplines necessary for a well-functioning citizenship within a democracy — from political science and social studies to economics, logic and ethics, and more. I don’t think we have ever had “legal journalism” — or any journalism subset — that adequately compensates for that lack. And, a cynic might say, many so-called journalists seem to share in the ignorance of the other disciplines.
Comment by David Giacalone — September 4, 2008 @ 7:55 am