3 ms·

If you actually have a writer who is already familiar with the legal aspects of the case, you can put out insightful analysis very quickly (cf. SCOTUSblog). In

If you actually have a writer who is already familiar with the legal aspects of the case, you can put out insightful analysis very quickly (cf. SCOTUSblog). Instead, we live in a world where the NPR journalist (Nina Totenberg) has just about every legal journalism award you can receive but doesn't have a law degree and is most famous for legal soap-opera material (e.g., revealing which supreme court justice had smoked marijuana). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Totenberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Totenberg The reason there's no analysis here is because there isn't a market for it.

ceejayoz 8y ago
The "legal soap-opera material" demonstrated his background check had missed something, and wound up in the nominee withdrawing his nomination. Single-handedly torpedoing a SCOTUS nomination seems like pretty meaningful reporting. Expecting journalists to have second degrees in law isn't a reasonable standard, if for no other reason than the financial burden it'd inflict on an already fairly low paid profession. (Hell, many lawyers struggle with their law school loans.) Chances are she's cultivated plenty of legal minds to help with analysis - perhaps even one or more of the justices themselves.
- toadworrier 8y ago
  > Expecting journalists to have second degrees in law isn't a reasonable standard Who said anything about a second degree?
- jessriedel 8y ago
  You misinterpret. First, the point isn't that marijuana use isn't important, the point is that this class of reporting is orthogonal to legal analysis. It would be as if the most famous professional football players were fantastic comedians but never played ball in college. Second, a law degree is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) standard if legal analysis is desired; that it would be hard for journalists to obtain this just tells us there's no market in it. (That is, people with legal training are not rewarded.) Law degrees are also super expensive to obtain for people who just want to do legal aid, but such lawyers need the training nonetheless because they actually have to understand the law to do their job. Legal journalists do not.

ceejayoz 8y ago

The "legal soap-opera material" demonstrated his background check had missed something, and wound up in the nominee withdrawing his nomination. Single-handedly torpedoing a SCOTUS nomination seems like pretty meaningful reporting. Expecting journalists to have second degrees in law isn't a reasonable standard, if for no other reason than the financial burden it'd inflict on an already fairly low paid profession. (Hell, many lawyers struggle with their law school loans.) Chances are she's cultivated plenty of legal minds to help with analysis - perhaps even one or more of the justices themselves.

toadworrier 8y ago
> Expecting journalists to have second degrees in law isn't a reasonable standard Who said anything about a second degree?
jessriedel 8y ago
You misinterpret. First, the point isn't that marijuana use isn't important, the point is that this class of reporting is orthogonal to legal analysis. It would be as if the most famous professional football players were fantastic comedians but never played ball in college. Second, a law degree is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) standard if legal analysis is desired; that it would be hard for journalists to obtain this just tells us there's no market in it. (That is, people with legal training are not rewarded.) Law degrees are also super expensive to obtain for people who just want to do legal aid, but such lawyers need the training nonetheless because they actually have to understand the law to do their job. Legal journalists do not.