The legal system and media

July 29, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
From Indiana Lawyer reporter Michael Hoskins, who is in Reno attending a conference at the National Judicial College:

Courts and media can sometimes collide, but there’s a plethora of reasons for both to get along. This is the topic of a two-day conference Monday and Tuesday at the National Judicial College in Reno, Nev. Indiana Lawyer is there, one of about 30 newspapers and television stations from across the nation invited to improve how we work together and complement each other’s roles.

The first day was mostly a court structure and legal system 101. The conference offered an array of intriguing thoughts such as how the First and Sixth Amendments are priorities but can often pose conflicting objectives for both judges and reporters who must balance free press and fair trials. These constitutional concerns can be convoluted by court and state legislative rules, and made more difficult by ethical considerations. Ultimately this all impacts how the public perceives what is happening in the legal system.

Today’s topics included: legal sources galore – separating information from spin and what ethical issues are involved; handling high-profile trials from both the legal and media perspectives; and the notion of pre-publication review by counsel.

We’ll have more about this in our Aug. 6 issue of Indiana Lawyer, but we’d love to hear your thoughts about how you work with media and what issues arise.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT