Search

Which U.S. Supreme Court cases are deemed newsworthy enough to appear on the front page of a major newspaper? Which are covered, but do not appear on the front page, and which are not covered at all? We answer these questions using a unique data set of newspaper coverage of Supreme Court cases in four newspapers from 1953 to 2004—a data set spanning more than 6,200 observations, 25 natural courts, and the tenure of three Chief Justices. We find that the overall proportion of Supreme Court cases covered has declined over this period (from a peak of nearly 100%), although the proportion of cases on the front page has remained more constant. The results of a selection model also suggest that, in the aggregate, coverage patterns on the front page are explained by established norms of newsworthiness, but coverage elsewhere in the paper often follows different criteria. When examining different newspapers in isolation, we also find that individual papers do vary, to a limited degree, in their selection of newsworthy cases. These results are important for those concerned about citizen information about politics, the relationship between the courts and the public, and media gatekeeping. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article reports on decline in news media coverage of courts in the U.S. due to decline in amount of staff and staff time. Topics discussed include history associated with media's involvement in court cases, publication of only sensational crimes involving business by newspapers and the American Bar Association's reporting of high profile crimes. It also mentions the suggestions made by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to improve coverage of court news.

The article focuses on the relationship between the U.S Supreme Court and the press in relation to press coverage of the Supreme Court's rulings. Topics discussed include the book "Democracy in America" by Alexis de Tocqueville that focuses on the American democracy, the newspaper New York Time's coverage of Supreme Court's decision in case McQuiggin v. Perkins, and the role of press in Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder.

This speech explores the role of open justice in a new technological age. While courts have been public places for centuries, the advent of new technologies and social media has driven courts towards direct community engagement in order to preserve open justice. The reduction in official press reporting of court cases has meant there is an information vacuum that is being filled through social media and online content. This phenomenon results in information being published without deference to editorial opinion regarding its newsworthiness or the accuracy of content. The proliferation of online commentary has the potential to undermine the right to a fair trial for many. While courts must continue to be vigilant in ensuring certain information is suppressed in some cases, it must also engage with social media to ensure open justice. The Supreme Court of Victoria has a presence on Twitter and Facebook and may soon pilot a project where a retired Supreme Court judge would blog on certain legal issues. These are all steps to ensure that the Supreme Court continues to safeguard open justice in a new technological paradigm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we develop and test an economic theory of Supreme Court news. We hypothesize that information about the Third Branch is newsworthy when it has lower production costs and qualities attractive to the audiences and advertisers desired by news organizations. We examine Supreme Court news in elite newspapers, television news broadcasts, and online news sources during the October 2008 and 2010 terms. The results of our quantitative analyses indicate that all three types of news outlets are more likely to provide content about Supreme Court decisions with substantive importance but vary in their responses to costs and qualities appealing to the lay audience. We conclude by discussing the similarities and differences among news outlets with regard to their selection of Supreme Court information as news content. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objectives We test whether Supreme Court media coverage (in terms of both overall volume and specific frames) is driven by Court actions, by factional battles on the Court, by the Court's interaction with other governmental actors, or by all three. Methods We link elements of the Spaeth Supreme Court Database and real-world Supreme Court and political events to Associated Press media coverage of the judicial branch over a nearly three-decade span. Content analysis of the media coverage is performed and empirical relationships between decisions, events, and coverage are analyzed using error correction modeling. Results We find that overall coverage of the Court is driven by the ideological nature of decisions rendered and by judicial retirements. Legal coverage of the Court is driven by issues of constitutionality. Political coverage of the Court is driven by majority size and judicial retirements. Conclusions The findings speak to the newsworthiness of Court action, factional battles on the Court, and moments where the Court interacts with outsiders. Elements of all three shapes the types of stories journalists tell and the ways in which said stories are told. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives We test whether Supreme Court media coverage (in terms of both overall volume and specific frames) is driven by Court actions, by factional battles on the Court, by the Court's interaction with other governmental actors, or by all three. Methods We link elements of the Spaeth Supreme Court Database and real-world Supreme Court and political events to Associated Press media coverage of the judicial branch over a nearly three-decade span. Content analysis of the media coverage is performed and empirical relationships between decisions, events, and coverage are analyzed using error correction modeling. Results We find that overall coverage of the Court is driven by the ideological nature of decisions rendered and by judicial retirements. Legal coverage of the Court is driven by issues of constitutionality. Political coverage of the Court is driven by majority size and judicial retirements. Conclusions The findings speak to the newsworthiness of Court action, factional battles on the Court, and moments where the Court interacts with outsiders. Elements of all three shapes the types of stories journalists tell and the ways in which said stories are told. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Very little attention has been devoted to the public's opinion of media coverage of court cases despite extensive research on pretrial publicity (PTP). Following a provincial judgment to restrict media access in Quebec courthouses, a preliminary unpublished study found that the public was largely in support of these restrictions. The present study sought to expand on this finding in a more widely generalizable sample. Subjects were recruited from continuing education classes and completed a questionnaire that assessed their support for restricting journalists in courthouses. Nearly 80% of the 243 participants supported media restrictions. Although participants in the four experimental conditions and one of the control groups were largely in favor of the restrictions, one control group was opposed to the restrictions. The results suggest that the public prefers that journalists have restricted access to courtroom participants, resonating research on PTP and the Supreme Court's decision on the case. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]