Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> Lawbeat

Legal News

: Lawbeat

A Heller post-mortem, finally

By Mark Obbie

In the nearly five months since the Supreme Court's Second Amendment opinion in D.C. v. Heller -- heralded or denounced at the time as a civil liberties landmark -- mainstream journalists have done little to document the making of this major case. Perhaps I missed all of the tick-tock narratives, the personality-driven profiles on the people struggling behind the scenes, the policy-heavy analyses on where we go from here. I'm sure there've been a few, but only a few. In the days after the decision, there was no lack of op-ed fallout. But the reporting on Heller has not, it is safe to say, dominated our major newspapers, magazines, and long-form TV news programs. I was reminded of this general news blackout when I read this excerpt from a new book on the case by Brian Doherty. He's a senior editor at the libertarian Reason magazine, which excerpted the book -- Gun Control on Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle Over the Second Amendment -- on its Web site. It's a solid piece of reporting and writing. Doherty's done the work and has the writing chops to make sense of it all. But the story is burdened by its niche publisher and its true-believer tone, especially at the start and the end. That makes me wish that mainstream writers had seen this for what it is: a big story, with the usual drama just waiting to be revealed about strategies, rivalries, luck, and risks. It's hard not to conclude that the story faded quickly from view because a generally liberal and urban corps of journalists didn't have the stomach for a story about a major libertarian-conservative victory that mattered most to rural gun owners. And I say that not as the usual media-hating ditto-head or gun nut, but as someone frequently called upon to defend the professionalism and good faith of fact-finding journalists -- of reporting without an agenda. I believe in it. But I fear for it, when its practitioners don't rush to scoop each other or out-write each other, simply because they dislike or have no personal passion for the outcome. (Via How Appealing)

Full post as published by Lawbeat on November 18, 2008 (boomark / email).