Order in the Court - Freedom in the Newsroom - Ending the Fair Trial/Free Press Controversy

• NCJ Number: 76952
• Journal: Judges Journal Volume: 20 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1981) Pages: 14-17,47-48
• Author(s): F W Friendly
• Date Published: 1981
• Length: 6 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Article adapted from a speech delivered by the author to the 1980 Eighth Circuit Judicial Conference in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Annotation

Because the media can explain to the public controversial judicial decisions, and because the justice system protects freedom of the press, this article argues that a dialog between the judiciary and the media is needed.

Abstract

The controversy between the judiciary and the press over the interpretation of the first and the sixth amendments, which often are in conflict, is damaging to both parties. Judges and journalists seem in many ways to be mirror images of each other. Both seek independence and fight all concepts of external accountability. However, in a political environment where abdication and malfeasance by the executive and legislative branches of government have caused both the press and the judiciary to grow so powerful, there is a great need for some kind of accountability for both institutions. Between the unacceptable extremes of political responsibility and absolute independence is the middle ground of moral or ethical accountability. The press and the judiciary both need to reveal how things occur and why they happen the way they do. For example, according to a 1978 survey, 43 percent of the respondents blame the courts for not reducing violent crime. Similarly, some people cannot understand how a reporter, having access to 'confidential sources,' can refuse to testify about a serious crime. However, most judges are unwilling to speak to the media or write articles about courtroom controversy. It is just as difficult to arrange an interview with the editor-in-chief of a major newspaper. The court needs the medium of the press to explain decisions that have been thrust on courts. One hopeful sign is the developing practice of televising appellate arguments. This innovation already has begun to educate the public about how the courts function. Courts could also help ease media deadline pressures by providing 1-week alerts on forthcoming decisions so that reporters can be prepared; newspapers and television stations can then allow space and time for indepth analysis. Supreme Court Associate Justice William Brennan's 1979 address at a university is quoted and discussed, and limited statistical data are included.