It's probably just serendipity, but there seems to be quite a lot of recent writing on the future of journalism in a Web 2.0 world. Christie Blatchford's August 21 Globe article was the first in a series of "whence journalism"-ish reading I've stumbled upon lately.
Sarah Kellogg writes in the September issue of DC Bar that the mainstream media is reducing its coverage of court proceedings, seemingly surrendering the field to non-professionals. The article, Legal Journalism at a Crossroads is thought-provoking, and I encourage you to have a look. I don't agree with her that blawgers are less qualified to comment upon the actions of courts and governments. Most of my career has been spent monitoring the media for stories about the various courts and tribunals for whom I've worked. It's not unusual to see stories misreported in some way or another – from simple errors like misidentifying the parties to more glaring problems in interpreting the decision.
I think that Blatchford has identified the real challenge – it's not the professional qualifications of the writer, it's the speed at which the blogosphere operates. Learned Hand himself would be challenged to produce a thoughtful, reasoned analysis if asked to do so 20 minutes after the release of a decision from the Supreme Court.
All this to return to one of my favourite rants – information literacy is an increasingly important skill to have. Librarians, mentors, instructors must all reinforce the need to consider the source.
Wow, that was a long road to travel (5,800 words) to get to a familiar destination. I'm surprised that anyone could be surprised that the average American (or Canadian) isn't interested in substantive legal news. The media doesn't report the law because its readers don't care about it, or don't know enough to realize that they need to care. Joe Public's interest in the law extends to John Walsh, Nancy Grace, and the cementheads who populate talk radio. The media expends its resources meeting that demand, not on its longstanding obligation to duly inform the citizenry.
If the legal system and profession weren't reporting on themselves, the actual workings of the massive machinery of the law and its huge impact on society would go unremarked altogether. The more law bloggers, the better.
I think that Blatchford has identified the real challenge – it’s not the professional qualifications of the writer, it’s the speed at which the blogosphere operates. Learned Hand himself would be challenged to produce a thoughtful, reasoned analysis if asked to do so 20 minutes after the release of a decision from the Supreme Court.