ADVERTISEMENTS

Q. With regard to reporting important legal issues, as well as with any subject matter, I am curious why getting both sides of an argument is always necessary, aside from being a matter of form and style? If side X says the sky is green, and side Y says the sky is yellow, we are no closer to knowing that the sky is blue. You feel me?— Casey M. Conley, Conway, N.H.A. Excellent question, Casey, and a fundamental one. Let me separate it into two parts.First, facts. Reporters should nail down facts for themselves, from first-hand observation, orginal documents, eye-witnesses, the accounts of participants and so on. If there is a dispute about the facts, reporters should report all of the available evidence and help the reader assess it. There is no reason in the world to quote people who are simply wrong on the facts or to suggest there are two versions of the facts when there is support for only one.Second, analysis. Having laid out the facts as best we can, reporters should help the reader make sense of them. That does not mean dumping a collection of quotations from supposed experts into the paper and leaving the reader to sort them out. At a minimum, beat reporters in a specialized area like the law should be able to provide context and set out the competing arguments authoritatively in their own voice. If an argument is internally inconsistent or has been rejected by the courts, they should say that. If a development tests the conventional understanding of, say, the separation of powers, they should say that, too.

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.