On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 3:11 PM, David Bruggeman <[email protected]> wrote: > While I won't dispute the notion that traditional media tries to keep > SCOTUSBlog out, it struck me as plausible that the Court doesn't know what > to do with bloggers. They still don't have cameras (though I'm agnostic as > to whether that's a good idea or not). And the lack of preparation for > their website also suggests they don't get it or don't want to get it.
I used to resent the Supreme Court's denial of cameras and -- well -- modern technology, but the more I see how such things have clouded and clogged the other branches of government, the more I side with the Supreme Court on this. I also don't think it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to make its rulings digestible to John Q. Public. They shouldn't need to issue a watered down/dumbed down press release in tandem with a weighty legal decision. It should be the job of legal analysts in the media to relay important information to the public (I say again that Jeffrey Toobin is a TV lawyer, NOT a legal analyst), and/or the public to educate themselves so they can read a court decision. Supreme Court Justices are judges, not spokespeople or marketing people or teachers. My only real complaint about the Court is that there is no earthly reason why it can't be year-round. A lot of cases get kicked to the curb because there isn't time for them in the court calendar. There is no reason for them to take lengthy breaks. -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
