« Property As/And Constitutional Settlement | Main | Practical Implications of Legal Scholarship »

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Ah, Sweet Mystery of Journalism

The New York Times has an entertaining story about Justice Kennedy's recent appearance at the New York private school Dalton (think Gossip Girl with, hopefully, better music).  The story reports that Justice Kennedy insisted on approving, in advance, any article in the school paper about his talk.  There are the usual quotes from journalism experts complaining that this is no way to teach the students journalism, and from the Court's information officer and others defending the Justice's request as simply being intended to ensure that he was accurately quoted.

I tend to agree with one person in the story that this was "a request that shouldn't have been made," although I mean that with less heat behind it than the person quoted.  On the one hand, sources are free to try to negotiate terms with reporters before speaking -- just as journalists are free to push back on those terms as hard as they want to.  On the other, it seems unlikely to me that a story in the Dalton school paper that accidentally switched Justice Kennedy's use of "which" to "that" would cause any serious damage to the public image of the Court.  

But what really captivates me about the story is the idea of Justice Kennedy as newspaper editor.  Can you imagine his flowery buried ledes?  ("Schools are a repository and font of knowledge, a place for the youth of our Nation to gather in all their diversity to learn the undying lessons of democracy, and -- in certain health classes -- a forum in which they can learn about the sweet mystery of life.  Last night, the Poughkeepsie school board, enacting a democratic ritual hallowed by time and following in the footsteps of Jefferson and Madison, voted to support a bond issue for construction of a new boys' bathroom.")  His many Rubicon-crossing moments of private contemplation before publishing, say, a story about city council debates over whether to build new speed bumps?  Would the poor paper ever get published on deadline?  The mind reels with possibilities.    

Posted by Paul Horwitz on November 11, 2009 at 11:40 AM in Paul Horwitz | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef0120a6792649970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ah, Sweet Mystery of Journalism:

Comments

Two responses. 1) On my reading, it's betwen Dan and Jennifer. The stated purpose was simply to check for accuracy, but Arberg also says Kennedy's office "tidied up" quotations to better reflect the meaning the justice intended to convey. The latter sounds more like altering quotes than confirming their accuracy. 2) I think journalists would certainly not alter a quote that purports to report on statements made at a public event because the source says the new version better conveys her intended meaning. More of them would be willing to go along with Dan's desire to see his quotes before publication, both to check for accuracy and because, if he clarifies the quote, it's really a continuation of the interview. Some might be less comfortable with this. But the general practice would involve giving only the quotes, not the whole story, to the source to review beforehand. Again, I don't think the story is a big deal, and I understand Dan's views, although the conduct does strike me being on the heavy-handed side.

Posted by: Paul Horwitz | Nov 11, 2009 2:16:48 PM


from the article:
Kathleen Arberg, the court’s public information officer, said Justice Kennedy’s office had made the request to make sure the quotations attributed to him were accurate.

The justice’s office received a draft of the proposed article on Monday and returned it to the newspaper the same day with “a couple of minor tweaks,” Ms. Arberg said. Quotations were “tidied up” to better reflect the meaning the justice had intended to convey, she said.

Ms. Arberg indicated that what had happened at Dalton was unusual. “Justice Kennedy does not have a general policy for making such requests,” she said. “The request was most likely made by a member of his staff in an effort to be helpful.” Justice Kennedy declined a request for an interview.

Posted by: Dan Markel | Nov 11, 2009 1:54:52 PM

Asking for the chance to _review_ your _quotes_ is not the same as asking to _approve_ the _article_. It sounds like what Justice Kennedy demanded was the latter, so that the paper couldn't even cover the speech in its next issue because it was waiting on his approval.

Posted by: Jennifer Hendricks | Nov 11, 2009 1:45:28 PM

Here's the article btw:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/us/11dalton.html?_r=1

I thought about this piece this morning and thought it not so super-newsworthy. (Sorry Adam!)

I can see why people would want to be sure they are quoted accurately. When I am interviewed by journalists, I always ask them to send me whichever quotes they want to use prior to publication to make sure they are relatively clean and coherent. I can see that this is a tougher standard to invoke for speeches especially where the body of the text is circulated, and where the person is a public figure. But I think the situation here is more difficult because one is legitimately more wary about how teen-agers are going to report things. If we want to encourage public leaders/figures to give speeches, acquiescing to reasonable demands for accuracy is not so crazy; otherwise, they just won't bother to go and do them if it's not required of them. Given the prevalence of video/audio recorders, it's probably not likely that the public figure will abuse the opportunity to clarify remarks since the evidence of patent discrepancies is likely to emerge. Instead, the best practice would be for the Dalton paper to include a post-script to the effect that the quotations have been verified for accuracy and meaning by the Justice.

Posted by: Dan Markel | Nov 11, 2009 12:44:12 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.