Are legal blogs inferior to newspapers?
This is slightly off-topic for this blog, but a news story I noticed prompted the question above. George Erb of the Puget Sound Business Journal has a report on Friday’s annual meeting of the Bench-Bar-Press Committee of Washington. The topic of a panel discussion: “Where have all the reporters gone?”
The answers are disturbing. I know that here in Olympia the political/government press corps has dwindled from 30+ reporters to just seven people in a few short years. Veteran reporters have “chosen” early retirement, government positions, or private-sector employment. David Ammons (Associated Press), David Postman (Seattle Times), and Joe Turner (The News Tribune)—just to name three—had decades of experience between them, and their insight and institutional memory is now gone. There are very good reporters left behind, but they’re the first to admit they’re stretched too thin.
The discussion on Friday covered these issues, with U.S. District Court Judge Robert Lasnik and Washington Chief Justice Gerry Alexander voicing concerns about the state of journalism .
But one comment caught my attention:
Peter Shaplen, a producer, consultant and educator, said the courts are seeing more bloggers. Unfortunately, blogs are less likely to provide the in-depth reporting that lays out the facts and arguments behind court opinions and verdicts, he said.
I’m not especially interested in the “blogs vs. newspapers” debate. But when it comes to legal reporting, Mr. Shaplen is wrong. I’m equally concerned about the erosion of the press, but blogs can and do provide in-depth reporting on legal issues and cases.
Consider this blog, for example. By the time the Washington State Supreme Court issues a ruling, we’ve written about that case numerous times: we announce the case when the petition for review is accepted, we provide previews and recaps of oral argument, we link to party briefs, we discuss the case’s procedural history, and we preview the case the night before the ruling is issued. We then unpack the Court’s opinions—covering both the story and the significant legal issues for the benefit of legal practitioners and laypersons alike. We’re also able to observe trends, comment on the nuances of developing case law, and translate particularly complex legal issues. The political reporters in town do a fine job. I’m not saying they don’t. But the lawyers writing for our blog offer an expertise and depth of analysis that a general assignment reporter can’t match.
The ease of online publishing allows subject-matter experts to offer their views to the public without the barriers they would face if trying to get quoted in the New York Times or on 60 Minutes. Take any area of law, and there’s probably a legal professional blogging on that topic. Attorney Bill Marler is a leading expert on food poisoning outbreaks and litigation and writes about the topic on his blog. Want to know about equestrian law? You’d better be reading Alison Rowe’s Equine Law Blog.
Legal professionals are filling the void created by the death of print journalism, and the public is well-served because of it.
I compeletely agree, Michael. I was at the event George Erb wrote about and thought the same thing when Peter Shaplen said that.
Blogs vary widely and so should the reader's opinion on their authenticity. For example, a blog like AliensAreLandingTomorrowToEatOurBrains.com might be viewed differently than your WaSupremeCourtBlog.com. Wasn't it an "inferior" blog that proved a 60 Minutes story about former President Bush's military service was an obvious fraud?
Sometimes non-lawyer journalists don't fully understand the cases they cover, and their articles can create false impressions. They tend to cover the criminal cases pretty well, but on arcane civil cases they can get lost. The journalistic coverage of the Skagit Surveyors GMA case in 2000 was a mess.
Please put my quote in the full context. I also said that in two cases - Scott Peterson and Michael Jackson - the types of blogs we saw were not pure journalism in the sense of straight reportage but rather they were advocacy blogs - for instance Scott is innocent dot com and the Jackson fan base sites. The other point mentioned Friday is that those individuals from the public who write blogs but also have full time jobs (or other commitments) do not have the time, access or ability to replace old fashioned reporters assigned to court stories. They may care deeply; they may be particularly focused, but they cannot be present in lieu of other professionals who are in court day after day, hour after hour.
By the way, I did not draw a distinction or become critical of advocacy blogs; I think they have value in providing a spectrum of coverage. Scott is innocent.com did some very interesting pieces and shaped their coverage through their particular prism. It augmented what was available. It still, however, is not a substitute for the Associated Press or a local daily.
Law blogs are different than general circulation newspapers, which in turn are different than legal magazines. I'm not sure where to put "advocacy" blogs on the spectrum. Do they go somewhere near newspaper op-ed pages?
Different audiences demand a different angle.
I write a blog that covers the Texas appellate courts, focusing on the Texas Supreme Court. My audience is practicing lawyers, with a few particularly interested citizens also following along. And I get along perfectly well with the more traditional media journalists that also cover these courts. I use some of their stories as a launching pad for blog posts, and I link to them. Some of them have told me that they read my blog.
It's true that law blogs are rising and print journalism is struggling. But I don't think law blogs are "replacing" print journalism. Law blogs can offer a breadth and depth of coverage of legal questions that simply never existed before. Although they (usually) don't do it with a newspaper journalist's point of view, the good bloggers do it as part of an open market of ideas with links to the very articles and blog posts with which they disagree, letting the readers see both sides of the conversation.
To have a conversation, you need at least two sides. To me, that's where traditional media has fallen down. Journalists are taught to give you "both sides" packaged into the give-and-forth of a feature article, rather than linking out to other stories and blog posts that would expand the discussion. I'm sure there are financial reasons for this -- the perception that viewers who follow outbound links represent lost ad dollars. But they are missing the chance to stoke public interest in legal issues by expanding the conversation. If the media outlets did that, they might well find the advertising revenues that fund legal journalism picking up.