WELCOME to the debut of “The Truth Is!”, a blog of reporting and commentary that aims to be informative, thoughtful and provocative. At least initially, the blog will have a strong heartland flavor by virtue of the connection of a number of us to Cowles family journalism. I am former editor of the Des Moines Register’s opinion pages. Another contributor, Michael Gartner, is former editor of the paper; he later served as president of NBC News. Another former Register editor who has agreed to contribute, Geneva Overholser, is director of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg school of journalism. Followers of the blog will have access also to the work of Herbert Strentz of Des Moines, a close Register and other newspaper watcher who once headed Drake University’s journalism school. Bill Leonard, a longtime Register editorial writer, will add insights.

“The Truth Is!” will be supervised by my daughter, Marcia Wolff, a communications lawyer for 20 years with Arnold and Porter (Washington, D.C.). Invaluable technical assistance in assembling and maintaining the blog is provided by my grandsons Julian Cranberg, a college first-year, and Daniel Wolff, a high school senior.

If you detect a whiff of nepotism in this operation, so be it. All of it is strictly a labor of love. —Gil Cranberg

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Gilbert Cranberg: ELITISM ON THE HIGH COURT

The Supreme Court thinks Americans are too dumb to be trusted to watch the court on television. That’s the gist of a recent update by the New York Times on the prospects for televising oral arguments at the high court. Those prospects were dim to begin with, and have grown no brighter with new justices on the bench.


The Times reports that Justice Sonia Sotomayor has backed away from her pre-confirmation support for televising the court’s oral arguments. In 2009 she said she favored letting the public watch the court at work. Recently she said that most people wouldn’t understand the proceedings and she saw no reason for letting them try. Similarly, the newest justice, Elena Kagan, has gone from believing that televised proceedings would “be a great thing” to having “a few worries,” among them the possibility of grandstanding and misuse of the coverage.
Of course, many viewers would be confounded by the complexity of the cases before the court. But that in itself would be instructive. Americans might well withhold a rush to judgment about the court’s decisions if they had a better grasp of how mindbendingly complex are the issues the court wrestles with.
It’s safe to say that many people found the president’s State of the Union address hard to follow, but that was not a valid reason to bar them from watching it. Cameras are allowed in Congress despite the arcane nature of a lot of lawmaking. As for grandstanding, the court isn’t powerless to control the conduct of litigants as well as its own members.
It’s disappointing that Justices Sotomayor and Kagan have apparently been co-opted by their court colleagues on the issue of televising oral arguments. A camera at the high court would not corrupt the course of justice nor influence it. On the contrary, allowing the American people the opportunity to watch the court at work would enhance the system of justice by de-mystifying the court and making it less remote. 
Who knows, it might even encourage Justice Thomas to emerge from his shell and join in the give-and-take of oral argument. 

No comments: