ILNews

Indiana Judges Association: Do media measure up in court coverage?

David J. Dreyer
December 5, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IJA-Dreyer-DavidOne fine spring day, I awoke to find my morning newspaper published an editorial about me – and what I had done. It complained about a temporary restraining order in a high-profile case. I soon visited the editor hoping a “teachable moment” might occur. It was a cordial and pleasant conversation. I was assured there is never any intention of influencing independent court decisions on the editorial page. (Alas, the moment for teaching had indeed presented itself.) I politely explained that the editorial effectively accomplished what the paper did not intend – telling a judge what to do with a pending case. The editor, an experienced newspaper professional, had no idea whatsoever that a “temporary restraining order” was not a final order, and that the case would continue for quite some time before final judgment. In fact, I explained, the editorial told everyone what I should do before the very first hearing. The newspaper had exposed a bias on the merits of the case without realizing it because it did not understand the legal or procedural posture.

Besides mistaken legal reporting, some readers and viewers are left without knowing anything about courts, let alone how the legal system works. Although judicial canons preclude cameras in Indiana courtrooms, no regular reporters are found there either. In 1992, there were three full-time reporters in my county building mostly covering courts. Today, reporters only come to watch public figures, sensational crime stories or a large criminal sentence announced. Consequently, the public knows more about Casey Anthony and Amanda Knox than the crimes and lawsuits that shape their community.

As we judges and lawyers know, public confidence in courts is a vital cornerstone, and that is no platitude. As a 2003 American Bar Association study noted:

“A government of the people, by the people and for the people rises or falls with the will and consent of the governed. The public will not support institutions in which they have no confidence. The need for public support and confidence is all the more critical for the judicial branch, which by virtue of its independence is less directly accountable to the electorate and, thus, perhaps more vulnerable to public suspicion.”

We judges are obligated to actually ignore popular opinion or preference and apply the law, but we are further constrained to not discuss our decisions on talk shows or interviews. Yet, public confidence in courts is more important than any other branch of government because people need to believe in us or they will not believe or obey our rulings. As we all know, that alternative allows no protection for the rights of anyone or any access to a system of real justice. We all need a public that is “legal literate.” Since most people are not law graduates, we all depend on the media to inform and explain, or public confidence is eroded. Court expert I.U. Maurer Law School professor Charles Geyh has written, “Insofar as the news is communicated in short, image-oriented segments, the public’s understanding of judges and the judiciary will, of necessity, be impressionistic; and to the extent that public opinion influences how policymakers regulate the judiciary, the public’s impressions of judges become very important.”

There is a lot riding on media performance in legal reporting. Do the media miss the mark or even try? The Marion Superior Court media relations officer, Beverly Phillips, is disturbed by reporters who aggressively “stalk” victims of crimes to be first to report something, especially online, but regularly ignore more substantive stories. Famous U.S. Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse has generally worried that reporting fails when it only presents perfunctory information without informative analysis, especially in legal stories. She notes that, “Inside the profession of journalism, there has been a lively debate going on for years over whether the ‘he said, she said’ format, designed to avoid taking sides on contentious issues, impedes rather than enhances the goal of informing the reader. . . . When a . . . judge issues a decision, there is no ‘other side’ to the story. . . . The ‘other side’ is contained in the briefs. . . . But digging up the briefs . . . takes more work than accepting an ad hominem sound bite from someone . . . .”

Yet Kathryn Dolan, our Indiana Supreme Court public information officer, finds the media to be working hard in tough circumstances. She receives 500 to 600 media inquiries each year from Indiana and around the nation. “Every day,” she says, “I speak to Indiana reporters who are excited about covering the judicial branch and who are working hard to explain a complicated legal issue to their audience. I think Indiana media do an excellent job covering the courts.” As a former reporter, Dolan reminds that court coverage “is not an easy assignment.” When cases are so complicated that the parties cannot agree, she argues, reporters are hard-pressed to do the required heavy lifting – but “reporters devote substantial time to figuring out just how to explain the issue.”

Overall, the best way we judges can assure public confidence is to do a good job – and tell the media how we do it. For example, since the 1960s, the state of Washington’s judiciary has formally involved media in educational efforts. Eventually, they formed so–called “fire brigades” to quickly address problems between courts and reporters, which have spread all around the country, including Indiana. In addition, there have been several “Law School for Journalists” sessions over recent years sponsored by Indiana courts, news organizations and others. The more judges talk to the media, the more media will be better able to understand and report the law. As we look ahead in this digital age, there may be no better alternative to preserve badly needed public confidence in the courts.•

__________

Judge David J. Dreyer has been a judge for the Marion Superior Court since 1997. He is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame and Notre Dame Law School. He is a former board member of the Indiana Judges Association. The opinions expressed are those of the author.
 

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT